Should Government Stimulate Personal Behavior?

Government is formally defined as a “structure that provides public services, collects public money, provides protection and basic needs, makes and enforces laws and levi’s taxes, and regulates markets.” However, there has been several prevailing theories that have sparked disputes among others. For example, the fact that government should only regulate personal behavior if it affects other people. It is believed that high ranking government officials could be removed by the majority vote. Contrary, while government has coercive power over certain circumstances, there exists definite rights where the government is not allowed to deny. Also, from an economic standpoint, it is said that government should encourage private markets and should only provide services if the private markets are not effectively facilitating the markets. Ultimately, as a citizen, I agree with all of these propositions. First off, citizens may behave as they wish, until they become obstructive or harmful to others because the government simply cannot force us to act a certain way without reason. Using the purpose of psych wards as an example, people are allowed to do whatever they want, but the point where the government steps in is when people are physically harming themselves or

Also, people should have the right to the “pursuit of happiness” in terms of economic success through competitive private markets to a certain extent. Government should step in when companies are monopolizing or when there are not enough supplies for a certain good or service. The most common example is liquor stores. Privately owned liquor stores are usually preferred as the products are cheaper for customers and more profitable for business owners. In this situation, the free-market mentality interferes with federal regulation, so the government should interfere in order to benefit