The source reflects a perspective that supports illiberalism. It suggests that the government must protect its citizens in time of crisis but it mentions that in times of stability people will be free from unnecessary government intervention. It does not however suggest that people should be free from unnecessary government intervention in times of crisis. The illiberal view opposing the principles of liberalism, suggests that governments should use unnecessary intervention in times of crisis and so does the source (indirectly as mentioned above). But who can confirm that the government will only intervene and suspend civil liberties in times of crisis? The source would choose security over freedom because it suggests that in times of crisis, the government should protect its citizens by taking “decisive action”. This decisive action suggests that the government would not consult the people in making decisions and instead make them on their own. This secrecy on the government 's part, prevents the people from keeping the government accountable. We should not embrace the source because completely embracing it would lead to a society where civil liberties are undermined, where the government has too much power and where democracy is crumbling.
The war measures act is an example of an illiberal act that the source would support. This act allows for the government to restrict rights and freedoms in times of emergency in order to protect the society from harm. The source would agree with this because it states that “in times of crisis” the government must protect its citizens. But there are problems with this act; it allows the government to decide when to bring it into action and take it out of action. By doing this it gives the go...
... middle of paper ...
...risis. Illiberalism also suggest that because it supports the idea of straying away from liberal ideas. It supports the absence of rights and freedoms, private property and rule of law, as would the source indirectly. The source agrees with government intervention in crisis but allowing the government to intercede completely would allows them to surpass laws (taking away rights and freedoms), inevitably breaking rule of law. It would support the patriot act because it protects society from crisis but the patriot act allows for the confiscation of property and the suspension of rights and freedoms. By embracing the source, we would be embracing a society where the government can take away our rights and use their power to accomplish their own selfish means. Because of their negative consequences that result from the ideas in the source, society should not embrace it.
...y Him give great stories of their experiences through a change in government at the hands of corrupt and brutal regimes. They both tell how the regimes had no sense for the individual rights of the people in society. In the end, both regimes eventually fell, but not before millions of lives were taken. These stories shed light on how correct both Bastiat and Marx were about how government should be run. They show how a government that is too controlling and too forceful on its people will never have a long lasting existence. The power of government must have limitations, and the individual rights of the members of society must be taken account for and respected. Government is needed in society and plays a very crucial role in the longevity and successfulness of a nation. However, too much or too little government control will ultimately be the demise of a society.
The War Measures Act was a law passed in 1914 by the Canadian Government in Canada during WWI, amongst many others that the government had passed that allowed the government to take control of communications, establish censorship of transatlantic cables, and organize the militia (Bolotta, Angelo et al. 39). The War Measures Act itself allowed the government to: censor and suppress publications, writing, maps, plans, photographs, communications, and means of communication, arrest, detain, exclude, and deport persons, control harbours, ports, and territorial waters of Canada and the movements of vessels, control the transport of persons and things by land, air, or water control trade, production, and manufacturing, and appropriate and dispose of property and of the use thereof (Bolotta, Angelo et al. 39). It gave the government emergency powers “allowing it to govern by decree” while Canada was in war (War). In World War I (1914-1920), it had been used to imprison those who were of German, Ukrainian, and Slavic decent, and was used in the same way again in WWII (1939-1945) to imprison Japanese-Canadians, and to seize all of their belongings. They were then relocated into internment camps and concentration camps (Bolotta, Angelo et al. 171). Both times, those that were persecuted did not have the right to object (War). Those these laws had been created for the purpose of protecting Canadians from threats or wars for security, defense, peace order and welfare of Canada it instead greatly limited the rights and freedoms of Canadian citizens and debasing immigrants of enemy countries both in WWI and WWII (Bolotta, Angelo et. Al 39).
Our nation seems as if it is in a constant battle between freedom and safety. Freedom and security are two integral parts that keep our nation running smoothly, yet they are often seen conflicting with one another. “Tragedies such as Pearl Harbor, 9/11 and the Boston Marathon bombings may invoke feelings of patriotism and a call for unity, but the nation also becomes divided, and vulnerable populations become targets,” (Wootton 1). “After each attack a different group or population would become targets. “The attack on Pearl Harbor notoriously lead to Japanese Americans being imprisoned in internment camps, the attacks on 9/11 sparked hate crimes against those who appeared to be Muslim or Middle Eastern,” (Wootton 1). Often times people wind up taking sides, whether it be for personal freedoms or for national security, and as a nation trying to recover from these disasters we should be leaning on each other for support. Due to these past events the government has launched a series of antiterrorist measures – from ethnic profiling to going through your personal e-mail (Begley 1). Although there are times when personal freedoms are sacrificed for the safety of others, under certain circumstances the government could be doing more harm than good.
Historically, citizens of many countries sacrifice their personal liberties for a sense of security masked as a governmental attempt for pushing their views onto the citizens. A historical example of this scenario is the passing and enforcement of the Es...
Now I will end with a quote I believe fits this ideology perfectly. “Do I believe in conspiracies? Nah. Do I believe powerful people would get together and plan for certain outcomes? Nah. Do I believe powerful interest would operate outside the law and maybe even kill people? Nah. Do I believe secret government agencies might feel the need to assassinate a person and cover it up. I believe everything in America is open and clean and above war, and powerful people always play by the rules.” - George Carlin
Agamben’s argument features a double-standard because the moral rights of the government and the citizenry. Specifically, the government is granted the right to decide which citizens are worthy of remaining alive and which are not. In extreme cases, the government has the right to declare a state of emergency where habeas corpus is suspended and citizens can be killed without due process of the law. Under normal circumstances, the government does not exercise carte blanche in determining whose lives are worthy of preservation, but it nonetheless has the right to kill citizens under circumstances when civilians cannot: the death penalty is the case in point. Agamben defines such a right as the state of exception and forewarns that when the state of exception is normalized, a camp will emerge where no citizen has an inalienable right to life.
Whether it is acceptable for the government to restrict any of our civil liberties during times of war, is of great concern and consideration. This essay argues that sacrificing some civil liberties occasionally to keep peace, defend our nation, and silence opposition, is reasonable. Our nation has already been through times where civil liberties have been muted in order to maintain their governmental influence. With the help of outside sources, the argument for limitation of civil liberties is made compelling and engaging.
1. What conclusion can be drawn regarding the quote, “Government is at best but an expedient; but most governments are usually, and all governments are sometimes, inexpedient”?
Somewhere near the heart of much contemporary liberal political theory is the claim that if the state restricts an agent's liberty, its restrictions should have some rationale that is defensible to each of those whose liberty is constrained. Liberals are committed to the "requirement that all aspects of the social order should either be made acceptable or be capable of being made acceptable to every last individual." But there are many kinds of claim which are particularly controversial, many about which we expect reasonable disagreement. Coercive policies should not be justified on the basis of such controversial grounds; rather, they should enjoy public justification. That coercive policy should enjoy public justification implies that political actors are subject to various principles of restraint, that is, that they should restrain themselves from supporting policies solely on the basis of excessively controversial grounds. The point of advocating restraint is to achieve a minimal moral conception, a core morality, which is rationally acceptable to all and which provides the ground rules for political association.
One of the longest lasting debates in the United States is the struggle to balance freedom and safety. Throughout history there have been instances were freedoms have been suspended- whether for the better or worse- because the United States was in a time of crisis. The Quasi War against the French, the Civil War, and the First World War were events where presidents found themselves under fire because of their controversial suspension of certain constitutional rights. Should certain freedoms be curtailed in times of crisis? This debate has always been so controversial because there has never been a majority one way or another. There have always been people for suspending freedoms to preserve safety and at the same time there have always been people that have believed that freedom is ultimately more important than safety.
America has always been known as “ The Land of the Free”. American’s have so many more freedoms than any other country in the world. The freedom to believe in any religion they please (freedom of religion), say whatever they want (freedom of speech), protect themselves (the right to keep and bear arms), and women rights set America leaps and bounds ahead of many other countries.
To make this argument I will first outline this thought with regard to this issue. Second, I will address an argument in support of Rousseau’s view. Third, I will entertain the strongest possible counterargument to my view; namely, the idea that the general will contradicts itself by forcing freedom upon those who gain no freedom from the general will. Fourth, I will rebut that counter argument by providing evidence that the general will is always in favor of the common good. Finally, I will conclude my paper by summarizing the main lines of the argument of my paper and reiterate my thesis that we can force people to be free.
Napolitano, Andrew P.. It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong: the case for personal freedom. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2011. Print.
David Grayson once said that "Commandment Number One of any truly civilized society is this: Let people be different". Difference, or individuality, however, may not be possible under a dictatorial government. Aldous Huxley's satirical novel Brave New World shows that a government-controlled society often places restraints upon its citizens, which results in a loss of social and mental freedom. These methods of limiting human behavior are carried out by the conditioning of the citizens, the categorical division of society, and the censorship of art and religion.
Nonetheless, negative freedom does not mean that individuals should have absolute and unrestricted freedom. Classical liberals, such as J.S. Mill, believe that if freedom is unlimited it can lead to “license”, namely the right to harm others or to infringe their “natural” rights to “life, liberty and property”. In this way, Classical Liberals often support minimal restrictions on the individual so as to prevent individuals from inflicting harm upon each other. However, it should be borne in mind that Classical Liberals do not accept any constraints upon the individual that prevent him from damaging himself, physically or mentally, since the individual still remains sovereign. Such a view of freedom means that classical liberals generally advocate the establishment of a minimal or “nightwatch” state, whose role is limited to the protection of individuals from other individuals.