James Madison wrote, “Government is instituted to protect property of every sort; as well that which lies in the various rights of individuals, as that which the term particularly expresses. This being the end of government, that alone is a just government which impartially secures to every man whatever is his own.” I used this quote in a paper for my College Writing class in an argument against a smoking ban in all public places in North Carolina. It seems that the ever extending hand of the government continues to impose laws in the name of protection of its people. This is a very dangerous premise for a law, for I agree with James Madison that a government ending in the protection of rights alone is a just government. Perhaps this quote was taken out of context for my argument to lift a smoking ban, because smoking can be harmful to those who do not engage in smoking but are in close proximity to somebody who is, but business owners are not even allowed the right to choose whether or not they wish to allow smoking in their place of business. This is a fundamental undermining of a very serious liberty that should be enumerated to and celebrated by all Americans. Of course the smoking ban went through without any serious opposition.
At any rate, the issue of protection versus liberty is crucial, especially in America, the father of liberty. I realize that refusing to wear a seatbelt is not a very intelligent and potentially dangerous decision, however, it is my right to choose whether I wish to wear a seatbelt or not. How can the government be justified in ticketing me for endangering myself? My quarrel is not with the particular law, but with the precedent. Swimming in the ocean puts people in danger of drowning or being attacked by a shark, but clearly nobody thinks that we should be prohibited from swimming in the ocean because we are putting ourselves at risk. The same may be said for food regulations. People seem to use the government to employ their personal philosophies of the ideal living standard. Just because something should not be done does not mean it should be restricted. The highway does not belong to the government, it belongs to the people, because ultimately the government belongs to the people, and the highways were paid for by the people.
I remember watching the movie I Robot starring Will Smith. It was a futuristic depiction of a world where human intelligence was replicated in robots without emotion or morality. The robots were programmed to protect humans, and as such the result was an army of robots attempting to take over the world and oppress mankind, rationalizing that humans were endangering themselves with almost every action they took. It was by no means the greatest movie I have seen, but I found the concept to be relevant to government in the United States today. A just government protects the rights of its people, it does not infringe upon them with the excuse that we do not know any better. People do not act without reason, and the actions of some may construed as despicable or irrational, but they have reason nonetheless. Laws do not possess a conscience, or an ambition, or a passion, and they do not pursue happiness. Society cannot be perfected through law, but through people. To restrict the ability of people to decide for themselves what is right or wrong inhibits the ability of people to perceive what is right or wrong. I am not a more rational person for wearing my seatbelt out of fear that I will be fined if I do not, and though it has a slight chance of saving my life one day, I would rather die than live without freedom.
No comments:
Post a Comment