Free From Unnecessary Government Intervention

Good Essays
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.
Get Access