The Nanny State
How much control should the government have over our lives? Liberalism, as a world view, began with the belief that individuals should be self-reliant and thus should be left alone by the government to achieve their goals to the best of their potential. Modern conservatives (classical liberals) still believe this and work to limit the influence of government on our lives. In essence, freedom means freedom from government control (this is called negative freedom). But liberalism is a flexible ideology, and, in the 20th century, it moved leftwards on the political/economic/social spectra and began to accept some aspects of collectivism into its values. Modern liberals argue that, while freedom remains the goal, the government has a role to play in helping to remove the obstacles that are often in our way as we work towards our goals, and which are often insurmountable without help (positive freedom).
Think of all the ways that our various levels of government regulate our lives in the name of the common good and to prevent us from harming ourselves and others. The wearing of seatbelts in motor vehicles was made mandatory in 1987. In 2011, the Alberta government made distracted driving a ticketable offence and, this year, increased punishments to include demerit points. In 2002, bike helmets were declared mandatory for Albertans under the age of 18. For the 2011-12 school year, Edmonton Public Schools banned junk food in vending machines located in all of its schools. In New York City, the mayor attempted to ban large-sized soft drink containers in order to act against the problem of obesity in his jurisdiction (although this was ruled to be beyond his power by the courts in 2014). And there are many, many more examples.
Each time such a rule was put into place it was highly controversial. Some argued that people should be left alone to live their lives and that each person should bear responsibility for their decisions. Others suggested that people need to be helped in order make good decisions.Sometimes the government forces us to do things, not to help ourselves, but to help others in the name of the common good. One such example is the government's ability to force its citizens to give up their property under certain circumstances. The City of Edmonton has, for example, appropriated the homes of citizens who live in the way of LRT development. The city will pay market rates, but the home-owners have no ability to refuse to sell.
Read the following article to see another example that is currently an issue in our province:
Alberta Transmission Lines
What do you think? Is it ok for our governments to limit our freedom in order to protect us from ourselves and our own bad decisions? Should they have the power to force us to act in the name of the common interest?
Governments should have the ability to limit our freedoms if the acts that we are committing could be harmful to, or infringe on, another person and their rights. An example of a time where government interference is a positive is in the case of legislation against drunk driving. According to classical liberal principles people are rational beings, thus they would not see it in their best interests to drive while incapacitated, therefore the government does not need to create legislation to punish those who drive drunk. In reality, humans are not perfect and many make the mistake of choosing to drive while under the influence. The problem with drunk driving is it not only puts the driver in danger but everyone else on the road as well. Government legislation to punish drunk drivers helps to create an incentive to not drunk drive and thus makes the roads safer for everyone. Another example of limiting one's freedom for the health and safety of the majority are laws that prohibit smoking within and around public buildings. I hold the opinion that the health of the majority is more important than a person's freedom to smoke where they please. There by no means should be a law stating that people CANNOT smoke in their own homes or in designated smoking areas, but as soon as someone is unwillingly affected by the second-hand smoke the law should be able to protect them. People should be allowed to make their own choices as I agree that we are rational beings and if we understand the benefits and risks of an act we should be able to make beneficial decisions, but no one is perfectly logical all of the time and therefore there must be laws in place to protect those that may be affected by others poor choices.
ReplyDeleteExcellent.
DeleteA very modern liberal perspective. I wonder if your position would change if the act being banned was something that you enjoyed doing? It's easy to agree to ban smoking or drunk driving if you don't drink or smoke!
Chantel Sanche:
ReplyDeleteEveryone has a right to their own beliefs and opinions but the choices they make should be limited to an extent if those choices will negatively effect others. For example, ones choice to text while driving could increase the probability of collisions. The security of the people should be the most important priority because without a secure environment people cannot have the freedom to live their lives peacefully. In a democratic society people have the power to vote for the best government who promotes safety and prosperity for each individual to advance with the rest of society; therefore creating a better quality of life. One example is social programs that the government puts in place to help homeless people become integrated into society. People may have to pay taxes for the program but will be living in a cleaner society. If people are known to be rational then letting the government make decisions for the greater good should not be a problem.
Excellent.
DeleteAgain, another modern liberal! But isn't the whole principle of liberalism the need to allow people to rationally determine their own course of action and then bear the consequences?
I believe it is absolutely fine for the government to take away certain rights and freedoms if, 1) what you are doing is putting others in danger or costing others time and money (drunk/distracted driving, eating poorly), or 2) if infringing on a right or freedom will benefit far more people than it inconveniences (the building of the powerline in the article). I think that most people may know that something is “bad” or “wrong” such as checking their phone at a traffic light, eating fast food, smoking or not wearing a seatbelt, but most people do not have an inner motivation to change or discontinue that particular behavior. That’s where making the action punishable by law or there being consequences comes in. The negative result provides enough motivation to discontinue the behavior, but that is not a true solution, merely a band-aid of sorts. That’s because people are only refraining from doing something because they fear the consequence which others will deliver, not because they truly believe it is “wrong” and understand “why is it wrong”. However, using laws, punishments, inavailability or taxes to discourage people is very successful and very fast as opposed to investing time and money to make people understand why.
ReplyDeleteIn the case of the power lines or the LRT track, the government is insisting that the infrastructure is put in place and are fairly (matter of opinion) compensating those inconvenienced (losing property or having ugly towers on their land). There is no easy fix to the situations in both cases, but I think compensation is the best (again, matter of opinion) solution. The fact is for the LRT, 20 families may have to move, but they are being fairly compensated, so it is not really a “loss”, just a hassle and inconvenience. However, the new LRT line will benefit hundreds, if not thousands on a daily basis, lower traffic congestion, save people time and money, and also reduce carbon emissions. I think the inconvenience is worth it, but I’d still think I’d be pretty mad if I’d have to move. I think the forcing of people to make a sacrifice for the common good (moving or having an ugly tower on their land) is worth it if it will benefit many more than it inconveniences (LRT provides transportation for many, powerline will bring power or improved power to many communities).
Excellent.
DeleteYou say that people know what they are doing is a poor choice yet they do it anyway if their is no law against it. If so, people aren't as rational as liberals make them out to be. Reason suggests that we can make the right decisions and thus should be permitted to do so. Why should the government make them for us?
I believe that the government should absolutely have the ability to limit our freedoms in the name of a safer or more successful society, because the government knows the positive and negative such freedoms can have on society. One of the government's jobs is the keep society safe and if some freedoms need to be limited by law to do that they should be able to. When people drink and drive they may believe they are capable of doing so, especially under the influence, when in reality the risks of driving drunk are way too extreme for the possibility of saving a couple minutes not calling a friend. The government knows the risks and knows how harmful driving under the influence can be so they should have the ability to say we can not do it. If the government had let drunk driving go unchecked there would be plenty more people attempting to drive drunk and potentially hurting society. The government's ability to buy out your land in order to build transmission line or LRT tracks follows the same principle. The government's focus should be to create a modern society which is pleasant to live in. If in order to increase the wellbeing of the majority the government must take a single person's land to build something to be used by everyone they should have the ability to do so. However the government is not perfect and is not all knowing so it is still important to be able to keep them in check. The New York City Mayor may have believed that banning large sodas from being sold was important to the progression of society but the courts disagreed with him. Governments may have more information but it is still important that the citizens rights and freedoms are considered and protected heavily before the government tries to limit them in attempt to benefit society
ReplyDeleteExcellent.
DeleteI'm impressed that you decided to look at both sides of the issue. As I read the first 2/3 of your comment, I found myself wondering about your consistent use of the phrase "the government knows" - conservatives (classical liberals) would vehemently disagree with the paternalistic idea that the government knows better than its citizens what is best for them. This violates liberal principles of individualism and freedom significantly (not to mention the belief that individuals are rational enough to make decisions for themselves). But you dealt with that at the end when you indicate the importance of keeping the government in check (although, to be fair, conservatives would suggest that is not enough). Well done.
For the common good, I believe that government, to a reasonable degree, should have an ability to infringe upon people’s rights and freedoms to ensure public safety, wellbeing, education, healthcare, transportation, security, and justice. Society is comprised of many people with many cultures and their own belief system, however, participation in following laws and societal rules guides people as a whole. In my opinion, it levels the playing field. We all have to live in harmony and follow common rules. The power of government laws, legislations, rules and restrictions carries large moral implications for the people living within our society. By virtue, people are inherently good but need government laws to help guide us. People may make personal choices but societal control guides our actions through implications or instilling fear. The amount of responsibility yielded to or claimed by government can shape attitudes, motivations, expectations, and even public debate thus generating a society to help us with socioeconomic freedom as a collective.
ReplyDeleteAddison
Proficient.
DeleteThere are some good points here, but the paragraph is often confusing - lacking focus. Some editing for content would have helped.
Governments should have the power to limit freedoms only when their citizens give it to them, through referendums or government representatives. Other individuals should not have to worry about health issues that they themselves did not create such as distracted driving and smoking laws. Not only are the people choosing to put themselves in harm’s way but also they may cause damage to others not directly involved in anyway. Even for small limitations such as speed limits on our roads. For example, distracted drivers and speeders could cause fatal collisions. Smokers affect the individuals around them with second hand smoke, possibly leading to lung cancer. The government’s most important role is to protect the citizens’ lives and those laws ensure that; even at the cost of loss of negative freedom. This is the government’s way of giving its citizens positive freedom so that they can reach their potential without threat to our health or lives.
ReplyDeleteI am also however very against the government forcing its citizens to act in the name of the common good. Humans are rational and when not threaten by any harm should be free to do whatever they see fit to reach their goals. Governments should not treat its citizens unfairly even if only a few suffer to benefit the many. This takes away the individuals freedom to decide and reason for themselves, in the case of northern Albertan landowners, they are not even able to decide the price they would sell their property at and most do not want to sell the land at all.
All humans seek to live the happiest lives for themselves and that should not be obstructed by society’s or the government’s goals.
A citizens’ rights and freedoms can only be infringed on by the government when there are health risks or when the safety of other individuals are being compromised; however when the government seeks to harm its citizens in the name of the common good a line must be drawn.
Excellent.
DeleteThe question that arises here is regarding the definition of harm. You seem only to care about physical harm, but what about the harm that comes from not having easy access to cheap electricity? We totally rely on such energy sources, yet, as our population grows, the electricity infrastructure (including those power lines) lags behind. Thus some people would be discriminated against by being forced to pay much higher electricity rates than others (or, in some cases, being denied access altogether). The only way to prevent this is to build the necessary infrastructure and the only way to do that is to force some landowners to allow for towers to be build on their property. Why is this type of common good less acceptable than the ones you support?
This is a tricky one. From my libertarian perspective I think that people should be able to do whatever they like as long as it's not hurting anyone. Now of course when it comes to matters of health, due to our social healthcare system, someone's poor decisions do technically affect everyone (who pays taxes). I personally think that there should be restrictions on people of responsibility. Pregnant women shouldn't be allowed to drink and smoke. If a guy is single and lives alone then no one should have a problem with what he consumes. If we lived in a society where things like healthcare wasn't free then It wouldn't really matter if people abused themselves because we wouldn't be responsible for the guy who chose to eat Twinkies and get obese and now needs a stomach staple. In regards to the "common good" label I think it's a very thin line. In Nazi Germany they used the justification that in order for the German people to prosper they would need to rid the society of the Jews, among other minorities. Technically, they were doing something which they thought was in the best interest of the common good. But that doesn't negate that fact that 6 million people had their basic human rights stripped from them and were murdered. When we start saying "oh who gives a damn if that woman has a line through her property. Thousands of people will get power" we forget the main essence of liberalism which is individualism. It's easy to say that taking away a few people's choice for other people's benefit is good when you yourself aren't having your property value lowered. Now of course, if you're being compensated for it then it's definitely irritating but not the end of the world. Sometimes unfavourable decisions have to be made because that woman facing the problem now isn't happy about the power lines but maybe in the future her grandchildren will be happy that they can live in a rural town and have electricity and Internet. Again, it's super tricky to make a general statement that the government should be able to limit our rights for the "common good."
ReplyDeleteExcellent.
DeleteYou have definitely hit the nail on the head here. Your historical reference is very strong and helps to point out the main issue - who determines what constitutes harm and what should be done to lessen it? I found it interesting that you are promoting a limitation to freedom that doesn't currently exist - removing the right for pregnant women to drink or smoke. Not very libertarian of you!
In order to live in a safe and civilized society, there is a necessity for government control – however when it comes to citizen’s PERSONAL health (choices) and/or money, government intervention should be limited. Citizens pay a decent amount of taxes for services such as health care, public transportation, and various other social programs because they benefit us as a society, however, if an individual is unable to maintain their own health or safety due to their inability to maintain a healthy lifestyle, an entire society does not need to bear the consequences. Individuals are rational and have enough intellect to be able to make their own decisions regarding everyday regularities; the government is there to protect us, not hold our hands.
ReplyDeleteSince we are rational though, it is our responsibility not to behave incompetently and keep the society as is so government intervention stays limited. If the government puts laws in place that essentially steer us out of harms way, it is our duty to fulfil these laws. For instance, distracted driving should be a concept of commonality for us, however if some individuals need the concept of a consequence in order to live safely and responsibility, that shouldn’t be an issue. It does become an issue, however, when something as minor as portion sizes become a societal issue due to a select few unable to act responsibly. Like I previously stated, an entire society should not have to suffer due to a select few unable to behave diligently. All in all, government intervention in order to preserve a safe environment is okay, but when interfering with our daily activities, it becomes over the line.
Proficient.
DeleteWhile you definitely seem to understand the issue well, your arguments are sometimes inconsistent. Several times you suggest that individuals are rational enough to be able to make their own decisions, yet you seem to support government actions to limit our freedoms in the name of the collective good. This inconsistency is not explained.
The government is necessary but do not need to be involved as much as they are in people's decision making. Limiting a person's decision making does not make Canada a free democratic country. Canadian citizens have the freedom to do whatever they want as long as they follow the law. The law is the only way for a government to limit a person's decision. Drunk driving, distracted driving, and hate crimes are examples of why the government is needed. However for something like banning junk food or limiting pop cup sizes is not something the government is needed. Humans, no matter what age, sex, beliefs all have rights and freedoms. Those freedoms and rights include what the decision on what they want to eat. The government should not care about what their people are consuming. People, including teenagers should be able to have a variety of foods available to them. If a person wants an extra large Coke for an extra 50 cents more, that is up to them and not the government. Certain laws mentioned previously are necessary but that should not involve what a citizen of a free country decides to do what their life. It is their life, not the governments. Government services should include education, transportation, universal healthcare and public services not telling what the people can do and what they cannot do (to a certain extent). The government is in place to serve the people, not influence their decisions.
ReplyDeleteProficient.
DeleteThis is well argued in several respects, but it is unclear where the dividing line is between the limitations on our actions that you are ok with and those that go to far. Why, for example, do you see limitations on distracted driving as being acceptable while preventing irresponsible eating isn't? Both actions endanger personal health and both lead to unacceptable costs to society (the first through collisions, the second through increased healthcare expenditures).
I believe the government should be able to control citizens to a certain extent. There are many circumstances in which government laws have been put in place for the good of the general population. Though classical liberalism claims that humans have common sense and rationality and therefore, should be allowed to solely make their own decisions; many times this is not the case. Its not so much that I believe people are irrational all the time, however there are certainly times in which people's ability to think for themselves is compromised. It is times like these where government should step in and protect the population. A commonly mentioned controversial law is that of drunk driving. Personally, I believe this law is necessary and was appropriately put into place. When people are intoxicated their common sense is compromised and they no longer have the ability to think about consequences of their decisions. Making poor decisions and mistakes is a part of life there is no doubt about that, however when these decisions have the potential to become fatal to not only oneself but many other citizens, I believe the government has the right to intervene. By enforcing this law the government is not only protecting people from themselves but they are also looking out for the unsuspecting members of society who ARE thinking logically and rationally. There are many examples of these supposed freedom imposing laws, but I believe any law that is in favour of the greater good is a reasonable law. Ultimately, I believe that any law enforced by the government that is focussed on protecting the vast majority of society is beneficial and necessary.
ReplyDeleteExcellent.
DeleteThis is well argued, but supporting drunk driving laws is plucking pretty low-lying fruit. Nobody would disagree with you there. The question arises when the limitations are placed upon people who do not have impaired judgment. Distracted driving laws, helmet laws for motorcycle or bicycle users, hunting and fishing licences and controls on the availability of junk food in schools are examples. Why should rational people have their choices limited?
In my opinions, the government should have the right to limit people’s rights and freedom to the extent that the limitation is for public safety and order. If the government interferes too much with people’s decision making, Canada is not a free democratic country any more and the government will be more like a guardian. Canada already has a healthy legal system, laws and policies to ensure public safety, so people should have the rights and freedom to do whatever they want as long as they are under the law and not harming other people’s rights and freedom.
ReplyDeleteChoices like drunk driving and smoking in public should be banned because they threaten other people’s health and life. Choices like eating junk food and hiding somewhere private to smoke are ok because the consequences are suffered mostly only by the decision makers. A teenager in Canada already gets the knowledge of the harms of smoking and eating junk food. If he still chooses to do so, that is his choice and he will be responsible for his own choices and life.
Proficient.
DeleteHow do you deal with the argument that says that, while unhealthy eating and smoking are personal choices, the results affect others by forcing them to pay taxes to fund health care for overweight citizens with diabetes and smokers with lung cancer?
Paying taxes is the responsibility of the citizens in a country. The taxes are not only for those people who make unhealthy choices but also for the health care of all the citizens and public education. Also the funds are always voluntary therefore people will not be forced to spend money for those who make bad choices.
DeleteI'm not sure what you mean by "the funds are always voluntary". Paying taxes is a legal requirement for all citizens and failure to do so would result in punishment by the state. You have no control over what the government spends the taxes you pay on, including the health care of smokers or the obese.
DeleteI believe the government should be allowed to limit the freedom of citizens if the freedoms being limited have the ability to cause harm to society. While a person should be capable of determining the difference between a right and wrong decision, if the effects have a possibility of harming any other individual, the government must have the ability to intervene and take away the freedom in order to protect everyone in society. While every individual is important, the common interest needs to be protected and thought of. For example, as common courtesy an individual should not smoke in a highly populated area, but not all individuals think the same way and rules have to be put in place in order to protect society rather than just the individual. A choice one makes when alone and with no ability to harm another person is left up to that individual, but if others are involved or could be harmed, the government should have the power to revoke that freedom. If a person wants to drink alcohol then they are allowed as it only effects themselves, but if a person tries to drive under the influence of alcohol, others are put in danger as well as the individual making the bad decision. In that case the government has the ability to have control over the circumstance. If an individual is thinking logically and rationally, they should understand the government stepping in. It is when a person is not acting in that way that the government has a greater effect on the actions made by that person. Overall, I believe the government should have control if there is a possibility of harm to others.
ReplyDeleteExcellent.
DeleteWell argued, but where should the line be between what is considered dangerous to society and what should be personal choice? Was the mayor of New York right to try and limit the size of sodas? Should it be illegal for pregnant women to drink or smoke? Should there be legal limits on the amount of screen time that children have? All of these are attempts to promote both individual and public goods, but are violations of individual freedom.
Acting to protect society as a whole, and ensuring law and order is upheld, requires government intervention and at times will limit our freedoms. This is necessary, and as a modern liberal I believe that the government is justified in limiting personal actions, at times. Understandably there will always be members of our society who disagree with just how much power the government should be able to have in limiting our affairs, and thus our freedoms, but we need to remember that it is society who CHOOSES the government that represents us. For example, Canada's government enforces strict gun controls that attempts to keep weapons, especially military weapons out of the hands of criminals and ones who would possibly do harm to others. This helps to support a more peaceful and less violent society. Clearly other countries do not see this as a priority and feel that it restricts their freedoms and civil liberties. Society chooses which government makes those decisions, so one can argue that we make those decisions. Keeping society safe from harm should be governmental responsibility. Consider government inspected and approved car seats for infants - without this safeguard in place, some young and innocent members of our society may not be safe and would have no voice in order to protect themselves. However, it is possible that the government could go too far in infringing upon personal liberties and this is what needs to be safeguarded against. In order to uphold the order of law the NYPD was enforcing a "Stop and Frisk" practice where the police could stop and check any citizen for possession of weapons or other contraband. Ultimately a federal court determined this to be unconstitutional, and the practice was stopped, as many argued it promoted racial profiling. Freedom allows for individual citizens to make their own choices, but government must play a part because not everyone will make choices that uphold the chosen values of a society as a whole. Society will always be required to ensure the government does not go too far in infringing on personal freedoms and eroding the autonomy of individual citizens, but the need for government intervention is crucial and should be expected and accepted by society.
ReplyDeleteExcellent.
DeleteThis is a super analysis. The best part, for me, was the recognition that there is no one correct answer and that we elect governments that correspond to the beliefs of the community they serve.
The amount of government control over the lives of individuals is a very debatable topic. I do believe that a certain degree of government control is necessary for individuals and that there is a need for some regulation in society. Regulations for citizens are there to benefit the people and support everyone in society. In my opinion the availability of social programs paid by taxes are necessary because they help the people in need. There is the possibility that some may abuse this right but it will still benefit other who is truly in need of them. Though some laws may seem as an infringement of an individual's right to decide but they are there for the protection of those individuals. A few examples would be the law on wearing a bike helmet, wearing a seatbelt or distracted driving. All of these laws are for the safety of the individual and also of others around them. Wearing a bike helmet or seatbelt is promoting safety and is for the betterment of the individual. Laws on distracted driving for example are not only there for your personal safety but also for the safety of others on the road. Another law that helps out individuals is the idea of having a minimum wage. This benefits the workers and is also there to ensure that businesses are not mistreating their worker. Laws such as these are put into place to protect individuals and ensure their safety. It is true that some laws do infringe individual freedoms but they are necessary for society .
ReplyDeleteProficient.
DeleteThe question that you need to answer here is why you reject the notion that people are rational enough to act correctly without government regulation of their actions?
I truly believe that the government should have an ability to contravene upon people’s rights and freedoms.The first priority of the government should be to protect its citizens from outside forces that try to compromise our freedoms. The ultimate reason for this provision is to ensure that the nation is sustained for as long as possible. In our society there are law-abiding citizens and then there are wrongdoers. It is the responsibility of the government to not only hold those individuals in check but to hold them accountable. In equality everyone must be treated the same and everyone should have to obey common rules for the peace of the nation to be attained. The enforcement by the government is a symbol of how people can be born good and not evil but need to be held in check and protected by those ideologies that are evil. Government watch directly sets expectations on individuals to have good morals, attitudes and motives that benefit those around them in society. To ensure law and order is upheld government intervention is required. All though it may limit our freedoms and unhinge our rights, I firmly believe that the security and safety of our nation strongly requires the strong control of our government regulating our lives in the name of the common good.
ReplyDeleteProficient.
DeleteWhile you have done a good job of demonstrating the need for government, you haven't really dealt with the question of the nanny state. Certainly, everyone, even conservatives, agree that the state needs to enforce law and order. But does that extend to protecting citizens from themselves and their own poor decisions?
I believe that the government should be allowed the ability to limit our freedoms in order to protect us from ourselves and our own bad decisions. This is especially necessary when choices are made that are a threat to public safety and are costing people’s lives and money. If you take distracted driving as an example, people are well aware of the dangers that distracted driving brings yet there are still individuals who use their phones while driving. It is important that this law is reinforced because a person should not have to wait until they face the consequences of being hurt and/or hurting others until they learn their lesson. However when it comes to banning junk food in vending machines and banning large-sized pop containers, I don’t think that the government should have to interfere as this is only a minor issue. Humans should be free to make choices for themselves about what they eat and spend their money on wether it be a Big Gulp from 7-Eleven or not. A government’s role is to provide law and order and should not have to interfere with an individual’s daily life as this takes away an individual’s freedom.
ReplyDeleteProficient.
DeleteWhat defines minor? Studies have estimated that the costs to Canadian society of rising obesity over $5 billion per year! That's a lot of tax money! Why is this less important than the costs of distracted driving? Both kill - it's just that one does so more slowly than the other. Deaths due to distracted driving in Canada are much lower than due to obesity (perhaps 2000 as compared to over 25000). Why, then, are government controls on distracted driving more important than on food availability?
I believe the governments should intervene in the lives of the people to whom they stand in charge of. The role of the government is to provide a healthy and liveable society for its community. The governments' job is to take the necessary steps to help the population in the community whether or not some of the members are furious about the decisions being made. To work according to the principal of utilitarianism is very important to the governments decisions. That you look for the good of the majority of the people, and make the decisions needed to benefit society. The more the government is involved the closer civilization is to equality. That is why it is important that the government limits our freedoms to protect us from each other. The amount of accidents that has gone down since the distracted driving laws is very impressive, which reinforces the fact that the government needs to intervene in our lives. In my opinion individuals are born evil so when we are free to make decisions by ourselves we only worry about ourselves however, when the government makes decisions for us they think about the common good and how the decision will affect the society as a whole and not just one individual. There are many examples as to when the government has not been making decisions for individuals and they are left to make choices by themselves and they clearly make the bad one, one specific example being the gun laws in the United States and the government not limiting the freedom about those laws. The aftermath being shootings going on for no particular reasons and the deaths of many innocent victims. This and many other examples prove to the idea that the government needs to makes decisions for individuals and even if it is necessary for the government to limit the freedoms of individuals, it is required for the common good of society.
ReplyDeleteGurbir Mann
Excellent.
DeleteI like how you bring in utilitarianism - in many ways a collectivist belief. It certainly can support government regulation.
Amaar Atwal
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion I feel that that the government should limit the amount of freedom we have, even if the laws and restrictions they make aren’t liked by the majority of people they are put in place to protect us from ourselves. I feel that we as a species are prone to making many poor decisions when we have no restrictions put on us. Putting laws in place is to help protect and aid us, drinking and driving, not aloud to smoke in certain areas, texting and driving are some examples of how these laws are trying to protect us from ourselves and others around you. I believe that we need someone or something to help steer us in the right direction, if not our society could have broken apart. With that in mind I feel that people should have a fair amount of freedom, people should be aloud to make their own choices when it comes to their own personal life (laws for the most part shouldn’t intrude upon). Another thing the government does is force us to pay taxes which can also be unliked by the majority of people, but at the same time they offer us social programs like health care, public education, etc.. With all that said this is still a little tricky to answer with 100% confidence since it also brings up the question where's the line that separates when you make your own choices and when the government decides for you? When is the point where you push too far with the freedom you have?
Excellent.
DeleteYou have hit upon the most important point - where is that line? What is a 'fair amount of freedom'? What do you mean by 'society could have broken apart'?
Billy Beresnak
ReplyDeleteIn a world where all people are rational and self-reliant, any form of protection or government is redundant and futile in that if people are truly self-reliant, the people would directly rebuild roads and rebuild their damaged society. In a truly utopian society where no one is needed to tell us how we should conduct ourselves for the better good, there should be absolutely zero government control or intervention. However, people naturally follow each other and possess little to no leadership skills. People naturally cannot dictate their lives in a way that protects them and furthers each person to their goal. Some individuals possess the traits to come out on top; being rationality and general common sense. You cannot prescribe the exact same medication to ten people with completely different issues. Personally, I believe that civil government reliance is a pandemic and we cannot allow people that have made something out of their lives lose what they have to show for their hard and we must allow them to govern their own lives.
The Iron Lady once said (and I entirely agree with it because I was raised the same way):
"My policies are based not on some economics theory, but on things I and millions like me were brought up with: an honest day’s work for an honest day’s pay; live within your means; put by a nest egg for a rainy day; pay your bills on time."
I work thirty hours every week steaming milk and pulling half-hearted espresso shots for exhausted teenagers. It isn't glamorous, but it does pay my $400 car payments and insurance. I am strongly against the idea that I can make $648.28 and have the CRA take $119 of it. I understand that these taxes go towards things like health care but there has to be a limit to this. I find that governments - on all levels - are too eager to throw funds to social programs so that people that don't get off their asses have it good. I also understand that some people get laid off and cannot get jobs, there should be a method of separating people in crisis with lazy space-takers. On the other hand, I believe that if we limit social programs immensely, levels of property will go down because people have a reason to get jobs and contribute to society. In summary, I believe that there should be little to no government involvement in our daily lives for the reason that it could lower levels of poverty. National GDP could also be lowered because of the lack of enforced import/export from having less government. The government's responsibility should be protecting national borders and the environment both nationally and internationally. Laws are unnecessary because they limit the people that possess rationality and self-reliant decision making.
Excellent.
DeleteI'm happy that we have finally heard from a conservative on this issue. There are some odd claims ('enforced import/export from having less government'?), but, overall, this is a solid analysis from a classical liberal perspective.
http://www.bruceonpolitics.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Thatcher-problem-with-socialism-2-650.jpg
ReplyDeleteJoel Ramnath
ReplyDeleteThe role of government is to protect the rights and freedoms of Canadians. A Government should provide people with the freedom necessary to pursue personal goals, and should additionally respect land ownership and private property rights. The government, whether it be City, Provincial, or Federal, should not have the right of eminent domain, except in cases of national security or public health and safety. Each level of government is entrusted with planning for future infrastructural needs; the Alberta Provincial Government began planning for the two ring roads around Calgary and Edmonton in the 1970s. The land for the Transportation Utility Corridor (TUC) was designated, and gradually over a 20 year period the government began to purchase land, and new development was prohibited on the TUC. In contrast, the City of Edmonton delayed its preparation and planning of the LRT and used its power of eminent domain to force dozens of residents in the McKernan community out of their homes. In hindsight, the planning of the construction of the Anthony Henday simultaneously occurred during a prominent increase in Alberta’s population, which would directly result in increased electricity consumption; the Provincial government should have had plans in place to address these issues. Now the government is not only using eminent domain to force farmers to accept the construction of the massive transmission towers on their private property, but are also not providing protection to the health and safety of landowners, Aboriginal communities, and the environment. Governments or other governing bodies, (i.e. school boards), should not have the right to infringe on our personal freedoms and rights if we are not infringing on the rights of others: Selection of the foods that we consume as an individual should not be dictated by either the government or a school board. Governments and other governing bodies can provide education on what foods may be harmful to our bodies- but if we choose to consume a soda it should be our constitutional right to do so. If an organization wants to sell donuts to raise funds, that organization should not be coerced to offer apples as a healthy alternative, it should be the choice of the seller.
Excellent.
DeleteClearly, you did some research on this issue and it has served you well. This is a very cogent conservative position on this issue. Using this level of analysis and vocabulary on your written exams would certainly lead to excellent marks there as well!
It was interesting that the economic well-being of the citizenry was not included as a legitimate reason for the expropriation of property by the state (eminent domain is generally an American term). The violation of property rights (which are not constitutionally protected in Canada)by the state can be argued to be necessary at various times in order to ensure that all have equal access to basic necessities. It has been argued that the LRT in Edmonton and the expansion of electrical transmission towers throughout the province (currently in the North) are examples of where the property rights of landowners need to be viewed as of less importance than the needs of the collective to have their needs met. Certainly, the state needs to attempt to be as far-sighted as possible when it comes to planning for infrastructure, but this is not always possible. The Edmonton LRT was not envisioned at all when many of the neighborhoods it currently travels through were built, thus it is disingenuous to suggest that the city should have anticipated its construction and designed roadways to have accommodated its passage. You suggest that the provincial government should have done a better job of addressing the increased electricity consumption in a period of population growth but how could that have prevented the need to build the transmission towers and thus to expropriate the property that they were built upon?
These are thorny issues and really get to the root of our positions on the role and powers of the state. Well done.
Freedom is essential to the human experience.Freedom can quickly be defined as the ability to make decisions, thus any policy imposed by the government that restricts decision making limits freedom, and takes away from the life we live as humans.Humans are rational beings and are able to make their own decisions and face the consequences. If one chooses to act in a manner that is deemed wrong, they should face the consequences.
ReplyDeleteFor example, everyone should be able to make choices regarding they live, so if an individual chooses to live an unhealthy life, they can, however they will face the consequences. For government to restrict that decision takes away our rights to choose for ourselves. What government can do is raise awareness as to how bad something is. Such things like smoking and eating unhealthily, government can and should inform citizens about the consequences of these actions, however they cannot infringe on individuals ultimate right to choose.
However, due to humans being unique individuals, it creates uncertainty as to what humans will do and what qualifies as moral and they may not be operating within the same system as others. Many people have different opinions and some are radical in their beliefs.Given that, the only time government should be able to restrict our freedom is for safety, as Hobbes noted in his original social contract theory.To protect the interests of group, one must surrender some freedoms to protect the society from radical individuals. The government’s role is to act as a mediator between people, only to ensure safety for each individual. For government to restrict any further will be an act of aggression against the rights of human beings.Choices make up who we are and essentially guide our formation as individuals. If the government was able to dictate what we do, how would we maintain our individual pluralism that has yielded so much benefit? The right to make your own free decisions is vital to the development of individuals, and to restrict this freedom is to restrict the vibrancy of life.
Excellent.
DeleteThis is a strong defense of personal freedom - and it is clearly a definition reflecting negative freedom. But you haven't really dealt with the issue of the collective costs of poor decision making such as the effect on the health care system of people who require such services due to their smoking, overeating, biking without a helmet etc. Or do you extend your conservative outlook to health care as well? After all, the logical extension of saying that we should all be responsible for our own actions is to suggest that public health care shouldn't exist. That is the best way to ensure that you don't have to pay for the health requirements of others.
I believe the government should be allowed to limit our freedom as much as needed to keep us safe from other people and our self's. This is because I think human are evil and make bad chooses which end up hurting other people and the person who made that choose. For example, a company owner who wants to pay his or her worker, less than the minimum should not have the right to do so as it affects the majority of people and the only person that is benefiting is the owner. This means that the worker, who are not getting paid enough are not able to spend their money to buy the thing they want, they will only be able to buy the things like food, water, shelter and other basic stuff. In this case, the government should limit the freedom of the company in order to protect others. If an individual is thinking logically and rationally, they should understand the government stepping in. A choice a person makes when alone and with no power to harm another, this is when the government should not limit the freedom of that person, but if others are involved or could be harmed, the government should have the power to take that freedom away. If a person chooses to do things like smoking and drugs. That person should have that freedom taken away from them as it harms them and other people around them. But something like eating junk food that would be ok and it does not harm the people that much, but if that person chooses to eat junk food every day, then that is where the government would step in to limit that person freedom. These are just some of the case where the government should be able to limit our freedom and this is why the people of the state should elect their government careful.
ReplyDeleteProficient.
DeleteYou make some good points, Manbir, but some seem extreme. How, for example, could you expect the government to monitor your intake of junk food? Where is the dividing line between activity that harms only oneself and activity that also harms others? You are very liberal in your estimation of this, but you seem to extend this to the point of significant violations of freedom of choice. Is that your intention?