Simul justus et pecator - Simultaneously saint and sinner.
Maintenance of Freedom within Government
Posted On: March 24th, 2008 at 9:36 pm
[How are we to approach the balance of individuals' rights and societal needs in government? We were asked to wrestle with this question in English class, and it is interesting to note the diverse remarks made by other students. Above all, as much as everyone wants to be left alone and not judged, many people consistently vote based on the desire for more government control. I believe democracy is the best option for government, and there should be more governmental control: on itself.]
Newborn America was in crisis. As Britain retaliated against a nation struggling towards self-government, philosopher Thomas Jefferson began to pen the Declaration of Independence. He believed very strongly in a government as a necessary tool for the preservation of human life without unnecessary and frivolous taxation. In the midst of death threats from British officials, Jefferson said, “The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only object of good government." Thousands of countries, including the United States, have made a great effort within history to juggle both the personal rights of the individual and the state’s right to govern. For some nations, the answer lies in unbalanced power either for leaders or the citizens. However, too much government power or mob power by anarchy have proven their tyranny and failure over time. After the original Articles of Confederation were scrapped for a more inclusive constitution, complete with a Bill of Rights, America’s democracy was fast becoming the strongest brand of government in the world. Not only are representatives of the people elected within government, the arm of the government reaches only so far as to protect the people. The systems within a democracy are sound enough to balance the liberties of both powers; however, in order to correct problems of injustice, the policies already enacted within it must be more strongly enforced. In the world of today, the United States of America remains the greatest powerhouse. No other nation has stronger military, weaponry, intelligence, or technology. The protection of the citizen is not only strong outside the country, but inside as well. The rights to speak openly, become educated, practice or not practice religion, have a day in court, and own property are uplifted, celebrated, and encouraged. Man owns himself; no one is put above the other in fundamental status as all are created equal. Jean-Jacques Rousseau, a French philosopher, considered slavery against nature itself. “Force made the first slaves,” he once wrote. In a democracy, essentially, nobody is forced to do anything. There are punishments allotted for not abiding by law; yet even so, no hand of a master forces a citizen to follow or break rules. Rousseau believed strongly in a social contract, however, which can set approved boundaries. Even within our natural state, a social agreement could be met to protect everyone involved in a country. In a sense, it would be stronger than simply “pooling their strength.” America has maintained a social contract: a constitution signed by men centuries ago and constantly revised throughout time in order to preserve liberty. Representatives of the people are chosen by a voting system; it is assumed the people in government are chosen based on the changes and action the citizens wish to see. This form of indirect power is much different from a dynasty, monarchy, or dictatorship, where leaders are formed seemingly from random or survival of the fittest regimen. Democracy is truly an optimistic perception of human nature and their desire of good for all. However, this perception is not to the point of naivety. People are prone to error and degrading behavior must be controlled; therefore, we have a justice system. Even so, leaders in justice are still appointed by majority rule and expected to uphold the freedoms of every person. This careful give-and-take of democratic government has thus far allowed America to be the most prosperous of nations, and will continue to do so as long as it remains on a leash held by the human rights of every person. In order to survive most effectively, the government must tighten the reins on itself first. It holds a very important societal need to govern and direct; however, this need cannot be exercised to its fullest capacity unless the laws and government leaders themselves aren’t held to the highest of standards. Once good ethics and control are reached, the example will funnel down to the citizens. This is much like the military; if the decisions and composure of the highest in rank falters, the entire regime suffers. A lack of unity within government allowed for a civil uprising in the late 1980’s. States, especially in the South, were becoming increasingly concerned over federal powers and the compromise of state rights. The northern representatives, however, blocked many legislative opportunities for state freedom, including the legalization of slavery. The stark division of two parties in government created a domino effect to the average citizen. The disarray of organization made way to a very tragic civil war. Two philosophers in history, residing in nations much different from America, would disagree firmly on the most appropriate way for government to handle a civil war. Niccolὀ Machiavelli, an Italian thinker, was adamant in a letter to a prince about maintaining absolute power for the sake of absolute control. Shortly after Machiavelli’s death, Italy underwent shifts in centralized power from the Holy Roman emperor Charles V to the Napoleonic invasion. Machiavelli most likely would have praised the individual men for taking over so strongly and forcefully; however, Italy never remained unified and stable until a republic was proclaimed shortly after World War II. In dealing with a civil war, Chinese philosopher Lao-Tzu would probably have entrusted the citizens to eventually come to a balance of their own as long as government did not intrude. “If you overesteem great men/ people become powerless,” wrote Lao-Tzu. Ironically, masses of people who overpower great men can be very powerful. Unfortunately, the lack of harmony in government can lead to a dangerous lack of protection for the weakest citizens. Divisions in leadership occur most strongly when the balance is tipped too much in the favor of either leadership or the citizens. Even in a two-party system, America continues to have a division. This does prevent extremes from both sides, and is meant to provide useful dialogue for the solutions to national problems. However, the division of attitudes is greatly unnecessary, and there are even divisions within political parties. As seen most clearly by the upcoming presidential election, character mudslinging appears to be more aggressive than the opportunity to take a stand with the issues of reality. When generic calls for change or unity are cried, they are only answered with empty insults to another presidential candidate. The disarray of alliances can only lead to a weakening of the system. The judicial system, especially, is established for safety and well-being. Even so, some laws can be considered unjust to minority groups. If the men supposedly representing them are enacting laws to benefit the majority, everyone else falls through the cracks of the system. Martin Luther King, Jr. believed he was one of the fallen. He had watched his African-American race repeatedly persecuted in a 20th century nation that honored freedom and equality. Negotiation seemed to be the more appropriate option; however, he claimed it was tried many times, and necessary change did not occur. In protest, King organized sit-ins, marches, speeches and letters. King was arrested and criticized by his clergymen peers. In a letter to these fellow ministers, King described the need for tension as a necessary tool for negotiation. This method of skirting the law, often called civil disobedience, can be perceived as the only way to jumpstart change for a particular situation. The methods of civil disobedience can often be directly against the law, however. It is difficult to differentiate between injustice for the sake of justice and deliberate acts of disobedience for the sake of one person. Rousseau would have probably disagreed with King’s actions simply for the preservation of the social contract. A violation of it could be viewed no more than a conscious act of ruin for a nation. Nevertheless, a democracy’s mission is to protect its people. Would persecution or even violence regardless of the system’s efforts be proof of a failure? Cindy Bischof may have agreed before she was brutally shot by her ex-boyfriend and stalker, Michael Giroux. Bischof filed as many protective court orders as her hometown of Chicago would allow after Giroux wrote detailed plans to destroy her house and systematically began to follow through. After he violated the restraining orders on two accounts, Giroux was sentenced to jail and home confinement. Hours after he was released from home confinement, Giroux sought Bischof in her workplace and brutally shot her. Tragically, Bischof had been taking every preventative measure. Even so, the law ended and Giroux took over. This vulnerability can allow for killers to fulfill any psychotic desires. Those wishing to create positive change end up in jail, while mentally unstable felons run free. Strengthening a democracy is the best solution for governmental problems. While a government could never be perfect, democracy allows strength through balance and respect. However, the balance itself can create deep divisions between two schools of free thought. A stronger democracy is one that holds its government leaders accountable. No slip in power should be tolerated without negative reinforcement. In order to solve problems, government officials must work together as a pool of intelligent thought instead of lashing out at each other. Former Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird of the Nixon Administration noticed the change in government today, and, in a recent interview, reflected on his team efforts with Democrats in order to initiate greater advances in medical research. The problem in how Washington operates currently, according to his opinion, is the lack of progressive unity with the best of both parties. “Cut out the shouting,” Laird said. “Start working together." Current democracy already accepts all faiths, backgrounds, and cultures. The trick, however, is maintaining protection of so many conflicting ideas while remaining civil. Police officers, judges, and other judicial representatives are responsible for recognizing a threat and following through with removing it. Many judges dismiss cases that eventually lead to disorder and pain. There must be no tolerance for criminals or those who have a history of being unstable. In a democracy, the belief is freedom at any cost. However, no one can be free and alive if those who repeatedly cause destruction aren’t held in some type of bondage. If continued supervision is necessary, the call to protect and serve must not be compromised. It is possible to be a convicted felon and remain a beneficial member of society. However, if the felon is contributing nothing to society and shows no psychological signs of remorse, it is only a matter of time until someone else’s civil liberties are attacked. This more militaristic idea can greatly reverse injustice without resorting to working against preset laws. It is possible to continue obedience and change the course of persecution while working within fair boundaries. The United States of America is still the land of the free. The government, ideally, is set in place to work for its people and their uplifted health and happiness. The corresponding systems allow for citizens to fight for the justice and civil liberties they believe in, from elections of government leaders to petitions within courts. This brainchild of Thomas Jefferson, along with many other revolutionaries, was treasured simply for a desire to be free and work towards what Rousseau viewed as complementary to the very nature of mankind. The holes within government can be blamed to the gradual shift of attention from working together to create improvements to attacking character; consequently, the citizen is no longer valued and protection is compromised. America’s concept may have been viewed by past philosophers as being foolish. However, the consistent victories of freedom portrayed by democracy have proven that even amidst the horrors of the world, a person can live with a lot less fear inside the boundaries of their homeland.
