THIS ARTICLE ENCAPSULATES HOW AMERICANS STRUGGLE WITH THE DESIRE TO LEGISLATE FOR THE GREATER GOOD WHILE AT THE SAME TIME DESIRING TO PRESERVE THEIR LIBERTIES. AS STATED BY THE AUTHOR, “WE HAVE A VISION OF OURSELVES AS FREE, RATIONAL BEINGS WHO ARE TOTALLY CAPABLE OF MAKING ALL THE DECISIONS WE NEED TO IN ORDER TO CREATE A GOOD LIFE. GIVE US COMPLETE LIBERTY, AND, BARRING NATURAL DISASTERS, WE’LL END UP WHERE WE WANT TO BE. IT’S A NICE VISION, ONE THAT MAKES US FEEL PROUD OF OURSELVES. BUT IT’S FALSE”. THROUGHOUT THE ARTICLE, THE AUTHOR CONTINUALLY SUGGESTS THAT AMERICANS ARE IRRATIONAL AND INCAPABLE OF MAKING PROPER DECISIONS FOR THEMSELVES AND THAT WE ARE NOT COMPETENT ENOUGH TO GOVERN OURSELVES IN A DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY. THE AUTHOR ALSO CLAIMS THAT AMERICANS, EVEN THOSE WHO SUPPORT GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION, JUST SIMPLY DO NOT LIKE BEING TOLD WHAT TO DO. I FOUND THIS THOUGHT PROVOKING BECAUSE I HAD NEVER REALLY CONSIDERED THAT THE MAJORITY MAY NOT BE CAPABLE OF MAKING SOUND DECISIONS FOR THEMSELVES AND THE GREATER GOOD. I’VE ALWAYS ASSUMED THAT LIVING IN A DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY WE WERE ALREADY CAPABLE OF MAKING THESE DECISIONS. TO REALLY LOOK AT THE DECISIONS BEING MADE IN THIS CONTEXT AND TO RECOGNIZE THE DICHOTOMY OF AMERICANS WANTING TO BE GOVERNED YET WANTING THEIR LIBERTY WAS EYE OPENING.
I AM CONFLICTED AS I FEEL THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS CROSSING THE LINE IN MANY WAYS, BUT ALSO I FEEL TORN BY THE EXAMPLES PRESENTED IN THE ARTICLE. WHILE BANNING SODA SEEMS TRIVIAL TO ME, I AM AT ODDS BETWEEN SUPPORTING THE GOVERNMENT SAVING AMERICANS FROM DIABETES AND OTHER HEALTH ISSUES AND ALLOWING PEOPLE THEIR CHOICE TO BE UNHEALTHY AND NOT SPEND GOVERNMENT TIME AND MONEY DEALING WITH ISSUES THAT CITIZENS CAN THEMSELVES PREVENT. WHILE THE AUTHOR QUOTES JOHN STUART MILL WHO NARROWLY DEFINES WHEN THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD STEP IN, I AM NOT COMPLETELY COMFORTABLE WITH HIS RESTRICTED VIEWPOINT. ACCORDING TO MILLS, ‘THE ONLY JUSTIFIABLE REASON FOR INTERFERING IN SOMEONE’S FREEDOM OF ACTION WAS TO PREVENT HARM TO OTHERS”. ACCORDING TO MILL’S “HARM PRINCIPLE,” WE SHOULD ALMOST NEVER STOP PEOPLE FROM BEHAVIOR THAT AFFECTS ONLY THEMSELVES, BECAUSE PEOPLE KNOW BEST WHAT THEY THEMSELVES WANT”. AT ISSUE IS WHERE DO YOU DRAW THE LINE REGARDING WHAT REALLY AFFECTS OTHER PEOPLE. FOR EXAMPLE, USING THE PROPOSED SODA BAN, DON’T WE ALL PAY FOR THE POOR HEALTH OF OTHERS? ISN’T THIS ACTUALLY IMPINGING AND HARMING OTHER PEOPLE BECAUSE THEY HAVE TO “PICK UP THE TAB” FOR THOSE THAT ARE CHRONICALLY ILL? WHILE IT IS A LEGITIMATE QUESTION TO ASK WHY GOVERNMENT SHOULD STOP PEOPLE FROM DOING SOMETHING THAT DOESN’T DIRECTLY NEGATIVELY AFFECT US, WE ALSO HAVE TO ASK IF WE HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT PEOPLE FROM THEMSELVES, PARTICULARLY THOSE THAT ARE NOT ENTIRELY AWARE OF THE HARM THAT THEY ARE INFLICTING UPON THEMSELVES. DON’T WE ALSO HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY AS CITIZENS TO HELP OUR FELLOW CITIZENS?
THIS ONGOING FEDERALISM DEBATE HAS ME WEIGHING EACH SIDE OF THE ISSUE AND I FIND MYSELF ON BOTH SIDES OF THE ARGUMENT WITHOUT A CLEAR OPINION. I NEED TO FURTHER UNDERSTAND HOW THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AFFECTS THE BIGGER PICTURE TO FULLY BE ABLE TO TAKE AN INTELLIGENT AND RATIONAL VIEWPOINT. AS THE AUTHOR LAST STATED, “SO DO THESE LAWS MEAN THAT SOME PEOPLE WILL BE KEPT FROM DOING WHAT THEY REALLY WANT TO DO? PROBABLY — AND YES, IN MANY WAYS IT HURTS TO BE PART OF A SOCIETY GOVERNED BY LAWS, GIVEN THAT LAWS AREN’T DESIGNED FOR EACH ONE OF US INDIVIDUALLY. SOME OF US CAN DRIVE SAFELY AT 90 MILES PER HOUR, BUT WE’RE BOUND BY THE SAME LAWS AS THE PEOPLE WHO CAN’T, BECAUSE INDIVIDUAL SPEEDING LAWS AREN’T PRACTICAL. GIVING UP A LITTLE LIBERTY IS SOMETHING WE AGREE TO WHEN WE AGREE TO LIVE IN A DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY THAT IS GOVERNED BY LAWS”. I STRUGGLE WITH WHETHER IT IS MORE DEMOCRATIC OR FAIR TO LIVE IN A SOCIETY WHERE WE HAVE TO GIVE UP A FEW RIGHTS FOR THE GREATER GOOD OR IF WE SHOULD OVERTHROW THE SOMETIME OPPRESSIVE TYRANNY OF FEDERALISM.
I AM CONFLICTED AS I FEEL THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS CROSSING THE LINE IN MANY WAYS, BUT ALSO I FEEL TORN BY THE EXAMPLES PRESENTED IN THE ARTICLE. WHILE BANNING SODA SEEMS TRIVIAL TO ME, I AM AT ODDS BETWEEN SUPPORTING THE GOVERNMENT SAVING AMERICANS FROM DIABETES AND OTHER HEALTH ISSUES AND ALLOWING PEOPLE THEIR CHOICE TO BE UNHEALTHY AND NOT SPEND GOVERNMENT TIME AND MONEY DEALING WITH ISSUES THAT CITIZENS CAN THEMSELVES PREVENT. WHILE THE AUTHOR QUOTES JOHN STUART MILL WHO NARROWLY DEFINES WHEN THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD STEP IN, I AM NOT COMPLETELY COMFORTABLE WITH HIS RESTRICTED VIEWPOINT. ACCORDING TO MILLS, ‘THE ONLY JUSTIFIABLE REASON FOR INTERFERING IN SOMEONE’S FREEDOM OF ACTION WAS TO PREVENT HARM TO OTHERS”. ACCORDING TO MILL’S “HARM PRINCIPLE,” WE SHOULD ALMOST NEVER STOP PEOPLE FROM BEHAVIOR THAT AFFECTS ONLY THEMSELVES, BECAUSE PEOPLE KNOW BEST WHAT THEY THEMSELVES WANT”. AT ISSUE IS WHERE DO YOU DRAW THE LINE REGARDING WHAT REALLY AFFECTS OTHER PEOPLE. FOR EXAMPLE, USING THE PROPOSED SODA BAN, DON’T WE ALL PAY FOR THE POOR HEALTH OF OTHERS? ISN’T THIS ACTUALLY IMPINGING AND HARMING OTHER PEOPLE BECAUSE THEY HAVE TO “PICK UP THE TAB” FOR THOSE THAT ARE CHRONICALLY ILL? WHILE IT IS A LEGITIMATE QUESTION TO ASK WHY GOVERNMENT SHOULD STOP PEOPLE FROM DOING SOMETHING THAT DOESN’T DIRECTLY NEGATIVELY AFFECT US, WE ALSO HAVE TO ASK IF WE HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT PEOPLE FROM THEMSELVES, PARTICULARLY THOSE THAT ARE NOT ENTIRELY AWARE OF THE HARM THAT THEY ARE INFLICTING UPON THEMSELVES. DON’T WE ALSO HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY AS CITIZENS TO HELP OUR FELLOW CITIZENS?
THIS ONGOING FEDERALISM DEBATE HAS ME WEIGHING EACH SIDE OF THE ISSUE AND I FIND MYSELF ON BOTH SIDES OF THE ARGUMENT WITHOUT A CLEAR OPINION. I NEED TO FURTHER UNDERSTAND HOW THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AFFECTS THE BIGGER PICTURE TO FULLY BE ABLE TO TAKE AN INTELLIGENT AND RATIONAL VIEWPOINT. AS THE AUTHOR LAST STATED, “SO DO THESE LAWS MEAN THAT SOME PEOPLE WILL BE KEPT FROM DOING WHAT THEY REALLY WANT TO DO? PROBABLY — AND YES, IN MANY WAYS IT HURTS TO BE PART OF A SOCIETY GOVERNED BY LAWS, GIVEN THAT LAWS AREN’T DESIGNED FOR EACH ONE OF US INDIVIDUALLY. SOME OF US CAN DRIVE SAFELY AT 90 MILES PER HOUR, BUT WE’RE BOUND BY THE SAME LAWS AS THE PEOPLE WHO CAN’T, BECAUSE INDIVIDUAL SPEEDING LAWS AREN’T PRACTICAL. GIVING UP A LITTLE LIBERTY IS SOMETHING WE AGREE TO WHEN WE AGREE TO LIVE IN A DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY THAT IS GOVERNED BY LAWS”. I STRUGGLE WITH WHETHER IT IS MORE DEMOCRATIC OR FAIR TO LIVE IN A SOCIETY WHERE WE HAVE TO GIVE UP A FEW RIGHTS FOR THE GREATER GOOD OR IF WE SHOULD OVERTHROW THE SOMETIME OPPRESSIVE TYRANNY OF FEDERALISM.