FUN FACT: The countries that had gained their indipendence from British Empire are called Commonwealth Nation
“Freedom consists not in doing what we like, but in having the right to do what we ought” (Paul II 1995). By having that kind of idea of freedom, we can simply conclude that freedom will not only benefit us but the others as well. The question has been raised up ever since whether the authority should eliminate restraints on behavior or strengthen some restraints. I personally believe that it is better to achieve freedom by strengthening certain constraints. I stand with my claim which is why we need to strengthen certain restraints based from the point of view of history, public safety and from the perspective of political science.
To begin with, I would like to refer to the history of the United States of America so that we can have the background information of the situation that is happening right now. The United States Constitution has been amended for about 27 times ever since been enforced in 1789 (US Constitution Amendment). This clearly shows that The US Constitution has been improved throughout the time to meet the needs of a nation that is different from the eighteenth-century world in which the creators lived. To relate with the topic of our discussion, by creating certain restraints it will create the freedom for the citizens of United States. For example, the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution states that “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” This amendment allows their citizens to carry a gun which can be considered as a symbol of individual freedom (Connect US n.p). This is due to the fact that they can protect and defend themselves from danger. Nowadays there have been certain movements that are opposing this amendment because it leads to higher risks of violence. In spite of that, I think that they have to keep in their mind that it is their responsibility to use the right wisely because responsibility is the price of freedom (Hubbard 17). So when all the citizens are responsible towards the law, the goal of the government to create freedom will be achieved.
In continuing the discussion, I believe that people will feel safer in their surroundings when all of us have the sense of responsibility towards the law. In addition, the law was made to prevent people from doing any immoral acts such as killing, burglary, and rape. So by strengthening certain restraints toward behavior we can secure the public safety. This is due to the fact that “The end of law is not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom. For in all the states of created beings capable of law, where there is no law, there is no freedom.”(John 234). John had successfully explained to us that the main purpose of the law is to promote freedom and without it there will be no freedom. For example, if we eliminate all the constraints of behavior to depict the pure freedom, there will be no need of prison to apprehend these criminals. As a result, the public safety will be threatened. Their risk to be attacked by the criminals will increase. As a result, they will be afraid going out from their house to go to work or even to buy their needs. This situation will eventually disrupt the country’s economy and worsen the country’s security. By creating restraints on behavior we can avoid them to do immoral acts or we can control the criminals behind bars and thus will make the public feel safer. Which is the right thing that needs to be done to show the true meaning of freedom.
Finally, the governments usually manipulate the term freedom through their perspective. They create or strengthening certain constraints just for the sake to retain their power. They believe with the idea from Serj Tankian “Sometimes it is better to have a benign dictator than a dumb democracy”. The leaders misunderstood the actual meaning of freedom by assuming that retaining their power is the right thing they ought to do. For example, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea government has made several laws to control their citizens. Their population is strictly managed by the state and their daily life is subordinated by state and city planning (Worden 272). These constraints have put a barrier for the public to enjoy their life in freedom and they have no right to condemn the law. In fact, for those who have criticized the leadership will be sent to political prison camps without trial and mostly without any chance of being released (Amnesty International 3). To prevent this from happening, most citizens will blindly obey all the rules being made by the government and result in the government’s power to be strengthened throughout time. So, they will use their power to make sure that all of the citizens will believe the doctrine from Serj Tankian. It may seem that the citizens of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea have no freedom but they still have a better life compared to those who are imprisoned because of rebelling the law.
In conclusion, freedom is actually an abstract in which everyone has their own point of view of defining freedom. So one should bear in their mind that freedom consists not in doing what we like, but in having the right to do what we ought. From the point of view of history, we can see the significance of having the responsibility towards the law which will create the public safety. Moreover, from the perspective of political science, we can see that it is important for the government to create some law to retain their power. To sum it up I strongly believe that freedom requires the creating and strengthening certain restraints.
THANKS FOR READING AND LEARNING
No comments:
Post a Comment