Within democracies there is great dilemma between security (keeping the country and citizens safe) and liberty (honoring individual rights and freedoms). Many would attest that having both is vital to having a democracy. However, during specific periods, the government may value security above liberty or vice versa. In the particular scenario where a country goes to war, the true significance of the debate between security and liberty unveils. More specifically in a situation where a country orders a draft and enacts laws ordering those who protest against the war to be thrown in jail. In this situation, the government is placing the value of security above the value of liberty. Security is necessary, especially in times of war, but ignoring liberties jeopardizes the principles in which democracy was built. In addition, a lack of liberty can cause a country to be divided and citizens to become disloyal. All of which is a recipe for disaster during wartimes. While at the same time, it is important to respect people’s liberties, giving to many liberties threatens the security of the country by allowing citizens to protest and rebel against the government. Thus, a society must decide the right amount of both. People in a society with restricted liberties might begin to feel fear, anger, and resentment. This leads to protest, revolts, and mutinies such as it did in the scenario. Therefore, while security is imperative, undermining citizen’s liberties threatens the structure of democracy by restricting freedom, creating chaos and generating disloyalty in citizens.
Giving citizens individual liberties is perhaps one of the most important aspects of a democracy because it differentiates it from other forms of government. Democracy is ...
... middle of paper ...
... press, and assembly. By doing so, they will create a secure environment within the state and have loyal citizens that are willing to fight for the security of country, regardless if it is right or wrong. When a democracy finds itself in a problematic decision, it should choose to put liberty above the security of the people.When this is done, the democracy is retaining the core values in which it was built. Punishment and fear is does not necessarily deter people from rebelling, so taking time to consider the views of the masses is needed. It is true that too much liberty hinders security but by showing the citizens that the government is genuinely concerned, they build a better relationship, and loyal citizens. Disloyal citizens are hazardous to any society and during war, this effect is magnified. Loyal citizens are what the country will need in wartime to win.
In a world where terrorism, war, and economic instability are ever looming threats it’s not a wonder why the limits on the freedom of the individual can come into question. This is especially true when the country where these limits are brought into question is one of the world’s leading powers in: democracy, economics, social welfare, military force, and foreign politics in general. This country, of course, is the United States. Unfortunately, even with the country’s democratically centered government, there is still a debate on whether Americans have enough protections for civil liberties or not. A few key areas of argument on civil liberties and hopefully provide enough information to the reader so that he/she may deduce an educated opinion as to whether Americans have enough protection for civil liberties or not.
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...
...vidual freedoms. We can say that democracy learns from its mistakes and improves, keeping into account the changing times and customs.
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.
The United States is run by a democracy. There are many pieces to democracy that must be in good health in order for democracy to be effective and work. In this essay I will critique some of the most important parts of democracy in America and go deeper. I will first focus on the strengths of United States democracy and then I will dive into categories of democracy that I believe to not be thriving. I believe that the current conditions of United States democracy are becoming a hindrance to this nation, because the opinions and freedoms the public possess are being stripped away through poor media, education, and economy.
Before pondering the extent of democracy one must determine what the term “democracy” means. Democracy is a “means of selecting policymakers and of organizing government so that policy represents and responds to citizens’ preferences.”i[i] The traditional democratic theory further explains the ideas behind democracy. The five aspects of this theory are that one man equals one vote, there is good voter-turnout, citizens can obtain knowledge through free speech and press, the general public controls government agenda, and an extension of all rights to all citizens.ii[ii] From this, one could say a true democracy would submit every bill to the public for a popular vote, like the traditional town meetings of old New England where all eligible voters met to have their say in governmental agenda.iii[iii] One could also say that democracy implies protection of rights and equal rights for all. Or, as Abraham Lincoln said, a democracy is “government of the people, by the people, and for the people.”iv[iv] The people make the government, they have a say in the agenda, and the government governs by the people’s consent. This ...
In writing the Constitution, the Framers were aiming to rectify the states’ inadequate attempt at establishing a democratic government. They wanted to create a stronger government while simultaneously keeping it a democracy and protecting the Peoples’ power within it. Wary of monarchy, they intended to constrain their envisioned government’s power by creating checks and balances between and within its branches. Did they do a good enough job? In Section I, we see the Framers’ intentions for the legislature’s lower chamber to be the government’s source of democracy. Section II reveals the absence of an essential check on the legislative branch, and how leaving the legislature unchecked in regard to its own elections threatens democracy in the Framers’ government. Section III shows how my amendment creates the necessary checks to address this threat, and thus protects democracy and the People in the Framers’ government.
For Americans, the word “democracy” itself is strong enough to conjure up notions of a nation unhindered by an oppressive government where citizens are able to engage in the freedom of speech, press, and religious choice and practice. So powerful are American pro-Democratic sentiments that it is a common thought that any other country that does not prescribe to a liberal democracy is somehow inferior. Yet as time marches on, the feelings of superiority by American citizens become more and more unfounded. For, right before our eyes, the very notion of democracy, that Americans become braggarts about, is disappearing. While the U.S. government boasts of the freedoms it affords its citizens, it corrupts such an image through repeated non-democratic actions. While citizens cherish the affordances of a liberal democracy, many do not make the effort to support such a system; taking it for granted that no matter what, a democracy is a self perpetuating entity. In this paper I will argue that the liberal democracy that supposedly defines American government is a declining entity due to overt acts against the principles of democracy by the United States government and also due to the decline of civic engagement by United States citizens. The fact is, no system of government can be perpetuated if the government and its citizens do not work to keep their ideals alive and in practice.
Throughout time, there has been debate about security and liberty. Many would agree that having both is vital to having a democracy. However, during desperate times, the government might place security or liberty on a higher pedestal and this can be beneficial or detrimental to the society. In the particular case where a country goes to war and the government orders a draft, the true significance of the debate between security and liberty is brought to light. Especially, in a circumstance where the government enacts laws ordering those who protest anti-war and anti-draft views to be thrown in jail, facing long jail sentences. In this case, the government is placing the security of the citizens above their liberties. If this is the right decision for the government to make and if this will have negative consequences on the society is what is being considered. Security is necessary, especially when a country is at war, but ignoring the people’s liberties is placing the values and principles in which democracy was built, at risk. In addition, placing security above liberty causes chaos, rebellion, and riots within the country and the last thing a country needs while trying to fight a war is chaos within their country. People in society with restricted liberties will begin to feel fear, anger, and hatred for the country. As a result, they become disloyal. A combination on disorder and disloyalty can be detrimental in times of war. Therefore, while security is imperative, undermining citizen’s liberties threatens the structure of the democracy by creating chaos and disloyal citizens.
The representative population of a community is not comfortable when confronted by an individual who defies the laws that bind them. Whether or not the laws or the powers behind them are just, the populace must deal with any challenge to their authority. In some cases, the community, fearful of a powerful regime, will side with that power and avoid the risks associated with rebellion. Others find the tyranny too unjust to stand idly by and, risking their lives, join with other defiant individuals against it.
Such situation can be threatening to national security due to the exposure of all of its internal weaknesses, which the enemy takes advantages of. Democratic system of government ensures equality, and freedom for everyone while preventing exploitation and corruption, and as a return, the civilians are obligated to fulfill their responsibilities towards the country. Basically, Democracy is a bond that binds everyone regardless of beliefs and view towards issues. A short story titled “Three Sons and a Bundle of Sticks” effectively demonstrates the power of democracy. Similar to the story, it is easier to break a nation when its divided, but unity creates a force of
Yet, these individual opportunities originate from our legislature, from the Constitution, and keep going just the length of we have our national liberties. Without national liberty, there is no individual opportunity, and national liberty just endures the length of we have political liberty. Surrendering our entitlement to vote—for denying or neglecting to vote is equivalent to surrendering that privilege—is a risky stride toward losing national and individual liberty. When we quit requesting that our administration truly speak to us, our majority rule government is injured, and after that the country is interested in outside dangers. On the off chance that individual liberties are seen as discrete from or inconsistent with national and political opportunity, then we start to organize our liberty to do whatever we need to the detriment of national
Modern day society is engrossed in a battle for protection of individual rights and freedoms from infringement by any person, be it the government or fellow citizens. Liberalism offers a solution to this by advocating for the protection of personal freedom. As a concept and ideology in political science, liberalism is a doctrine that defines the motivation and efforts made towards the protection of the aforementioned individual freedom. In the current society, the greatest feature of liberalism is the protection of individual liberty from intrusion or violation by a government. The activities of the government have, therefore, become the core point of focus. In liberalism, advocacy for personal freedom may translate to three ideal situations, based on the role that a government plays in a person’s life. These are no role, a limited role or a relatively large role. The three make up liberalism’s rule of thumb. (Van de Haar 1). Political theorists have
This is described in a citizen’s point of view as: “As long as I am obedient to the power of the state, the church, or public opinion, I feel safe and protected…my obedience makes me part of the power I worship” (Fromm 127). However, this creates a dangerous unity of a belief. This power is authority. Authority is anyone or anything with the capability to determine the outcome of issues/decisions over a group of people. The most poignant authority figure of today is the government. The government gets stricter based upon the needs of their people; however, with terrorist attacks, the government is the main entity people turn to. Everyone bands together and goes along with the government, but what if the government is wrong? What if the government’s idea of safety is not in the best interest of their people? Disobedience may be the only answer to some of the problems in today’s society. However, since disobedience has such a negative essence in society, most people try to stay away from it. The people who have made the biggest differences have been the most disobedient. With that said, obedience could be the biggest roadblock in the future of safety. Overall, “what is