As an American who’s been raised in a country that firmly believes in its own excellence, I’ve always believed that my government would do anything within its power to protect me from all harm, and that I will be safely enclosed by its borders. Some may perceive this opinion as naive, but I have never had any reason to doubt my security. I believed a country as great as America would always be able to handle any issues that it encountered in a reasonable and measured fashion, equally maintaining the freedom of all of its citizens. However, I was mistaken. It’s the year 2213 and the United States government is scrambling to find a solution to the country’s rampant overpopulation. In order to allow citizens to escape the unsafe conditions around the country, the government has proposed a plan. I will be allowed to permanently reside underground in a virtual reality machine where I won’t have to worry about my safety, in exchange for …show more content…
The best way to navigate an issue like this would be to do everything that you can to minimize the amount of damage that takes place. I believe that the easiest way to do this would be to walk away from this opportunity and to continue living on the outside. As I am safely cocooned in my machine, I couldn’t live knowing that my family was above-ground fighting for their lives as I luxuriate in the safety and security of my position. I would rather take my chances in the real world, than ever have to choose between saving my own life, and abandoning my family. Anytime that you are forced into a situation where you must make a life-altering choice, all considerations must be weighed. In this case, I am confident in the decision that I have made. Since I am declining the government’s offer, I would take this situation as an opportunity to brainstorm ideas that have a more inclusive contingency
In her essay “We should relinquish some liberty in exchange for security,” Mona Charen, a columnist and political analyst, speaks on the issue of security in the United States of America. She uses many significant techniques in her essay to persuade her readers of her argument. However, I feel that her essay fails to make a great argument because she relies heavily on assumptions, misses opportunities to appeal to pathos and ethos, and overall uses a degrading tone.
Cole, D., & Dempsey, J. X. (2006). Terrorism and the constitution: sacrificing civil liberties in the name of national security. New York: New Press.
The 9/11 attack changed America in ways that made limits on our freedom and privacy seem better than the alternative. On September 11, 2001, “...our fellow citizens, our way of life, our very freedom came under attack in a series of deliberate and deadly terrorist attacks,” President George W. Bush stated in a public address shortly after the attacks. He also stated, “Today, our nation saw evil – the very worst of human nature – and we responded with the very best of America,” to calm fears ...
Host: On September the 11th 2001, the notorious terror organisation known as Al-Qaeda struck at the very heart of the United States. The death count was approximately 3,000; a nation was left in panic. To this day, counterterrorism experts and historians alike regard the event surrounding 9/11 as a turning point in US foreign relations. Outraged and fearful of radical terrorism from the middle-east, President Bush declared that in 2001 that it was a matter of freedoms; that “our very freedom has come under attack”. In his eyes, America was simply targeted because of its democratic and western values (CNN News, 2001). In the 14 years following this pivotal declaration, an aggressive, pre-emptive approach to terrorism replaced the traditional
Some people believe that immigration in the 1900’s was a good thing, however, they would be wrong. The United States government should have restricted the immigrants around that time. Some reasons are the population, the taking of new jobs and lowering wages, and diseases spreading quickly. These all factored importantly into why they should not have been allowed in.
Envision yourself in a deep sleep, your spouse lying next to you. For seven years of marriage, your greatest quandary has been your partners obnoxious snoring. Now, you are rattled awake by the wailing of your smoke detector, just outside your bedroom door. You hear the sobbing of your three month old baby boy from just down the hall, and feel the tug of you five year old son on the sleeve of your t-shirt. Forced out the second story window by the fuming blaze barricading the only outlet of the room, you free fall 22 feet onto the frozen ground. Beyond smoke inhalation and second degree burns, you now have a fractured ankle and several severe lacerations. Your spouse, your eldest son, and yourself are now free from the bloodthirsty inferno. Sirens howl, two blocks away. A rescue engine, equipped with three firefighters, is first on scene- 18 minute response time. A second engine arrives, equipped with three firefighters- 23 minute response time. Twenty-five minutes after the initial alarm, a hand line is pulled. Incident commander declares the residence unsafe for entrance. This rescue mission has now become a recovery mission.
Look around you America. Your world is changing. Suddenly it’s no longer safe to fly in airplanes, attend sporting events, or just open your junk mail. Almost daily, news of threats and security breach’s litter the airwaves, leaving many asking the same question. “How can we make our country safe again?” Unfortunately, there isn’t a simple answer. America is united in the cause, but divided over the methods of preventing terrorism. At this time of uncertainty, many are urging Americans to “give up” some of their freedoms and privacy in exchange for safety. Regrettably, this wave of patriotism has spilled over, and is beginning to infringe on our fundamental liberties as outlined in the Bill of Rights. Since the September 11th terrorist attacks those who have made comments contrary to popular beliefs have prompted much debate about free speech. When America experiences some great trauma, our freedom of speech often faces its own trauma.
Benjamin Franklin, one of the founding fathers of the United States, once said “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” In America’s society today, some are willing to sacrifice their civil liberties in order to gain protection and security over some potential threat. Especially after the events of September 11th and several attempted bombings in U.S. cities. This sacrifice of individual freedoms such as the freedom of speech, expression, the right to information, to new technologies, and so forth, for additional protection is more of a loss than a gain. Citizens of the United States deserve equal liberty and safety overall, as someone should not have to give up one value in order to gain another. This concept of individual right goes beyond the simple idea of “individual comfort.” Personal liberties cannot be surrendered and are not to be compromised since these liberties are intangible. Individuals should not have their personal liberties exchanged for national security because individuals are guaranteed protection to these rights.
Since September 11, 2001 many people can say that America has changed. Many people question if America has changed for the better or has it just gotten worse. Since the day those four planes crashed around the United States people’s lives have been changed. Many may not realize how their lives have changed, but with new laws passed life is different within America. The United States Patriot Act is one of the laws passed after 9/11: singed into order on October 26, 2001 just 45 days after the attack. The United States Patriot Act was put in place in order to protect Americans, yet has been affecting American’s civil liberties and caused controversy all over the United States.
Adam Penenberg’s “The Surveillance Society” reminds Americans of the tragic events of September 11, 2001 and the instant effects the that attacks on the World Trade Center had on security in the United States. Penenberg discusses how the airports were shut down and federal officials began to plot a military response. Although those were necessary actions, they were not as long lasting as some of the other safety precautions that were taken. The Patriot Act, which makes it easier for the government to access cell phones and pagers and monitor email and web browsing, was proposed. Politicians agreed that during a war civil liberties are treated differently.
Vaughan, Jessica M. “Aliens Who Overstay Their Visas Are a Serious Security Threat.” Opposing Viewpoints: Immigration. Eds. David M. Haugen, Susan Musser and Kacy Lovelace. Farmington Hills, MI: Greenhaven Press, 2009. 182-193. Print.
One of the major issues surrounding border security is illegal immigration, “For the past two decades the United States, a country with a strong tradition of limited government, has been pursuing a widely popular initiative that requires one of the most ambitious expansions of government power in modern history: securing the nation’s borders against illegal immigration” (Alden, 2012). Many people are trying to enter the United States without the proper documentation and everyday they risk their lives and others just to make it across these borders. To avoid this law enforcement and other border security has threatened these illegal immigrants with detainment and arrest and different forms of punishment. In the efforts to deter the problem, it has been far beyond feasible because they still manage to get across and it does not change their intention...
The Human Population By some, the human population is viewed as an environmental problem. There are also those who do not view it as a problem. In my opinion the human population is not yet, but is soon becoming a large problem. This is because very soon we will run out of room and resources for the amount of people who will be living on this planet. Because the world’s population is increasing at a rate between one and two percent, we expect it to double within the next 35 to 70 years.
This case is a very difficult one because it’s not just involving you but it is involving the people you love dearest. You are basically being given only two choices and that is to save your family or to watch them die. This essay will discuss the different take utilitarian’s have on the decision and the outlook deontologists have
Seven and a half billion. Enough steps to walk around the globe a hundred and sixty times. Our planet is trying to provide and sustain for a colossal number of people which is expanding every single second. Now the concern that has been put forth by scholars come from the idea that the consumption and effects to our planet by our current society is an international security risk that greatly compromises the future generations. Confucius even mentions this at the earliest start of civilization by saying: