HW due Friday- Please comment to this blog entry on the following topic.
How should a government balance the roles of being caretakers of individuals and taking away their rights? When should a government be able to step in to infringe on the rights of individuals? Defend your answer. Is it ever okay? For the safety of that person? What about for the benefit of society? If so, who decides what the benefit of society is?
Test on Monday
We will be having a test on Eugenics on Monday. It will be partially multiple choice/objective, but it will also have some short answer writing.
In class, we studied Buck v. Bell and sterilization laws. We watched a couple videos, but also read and discussed some readings that I will try to post today.
48 comments:
These are such tough questions because there has always been a debate on how much rule the government should have over its citizens. I understand why we have the justice system to protect society from dangerous people. However, I think involuntary sterilization is just completely wrong. I do believe that a person who knows they carry a gene for a mental or physical disability might be irresponsible to bring a child into the world, but that should be their choice. I have been volunteering with special needs kids for years and my cousins are autistic so I understand the difficulties of dealing with people that are "different". However, they have become a normal part of society and are in no way shape or form "menaces". I believe a government should be able to infringe on the rights of individuals if they are directly causing harm but if a "feeble-minded" person chooses to want to have a child, that is ultimately their choice and not the governments. Not all people with disabilities or differences produce offspring with that disability or difference and allowing those people to have children is a risk society just has to take. Mentally disabled people play a significant role in society as they hold jobs, etc. and it is not the governments right to not let them live their lives. Who decides what the benefit of society is can't really be answered. Some will argue the government, while some will argue the people since we live in a democracy. I don't really think there is an answer.
In my opinion, it is the job of the government to protect people from others. I believe that it is never right for a government body to step in and take away the undeniable rights of people to do what they want to do and see who they want to see. I never think it is alright for a government body to impede on the happiness of individuals.
I agree with 78bstrong: these are difficult questions to answer because of how hot of a topic governmental power. It disgusts me how the elected few use to exercise their power on things we nowadays see is wrong.
But back to the topic. The government does not have the right to deem what is "right" and what is "wrong" in terms of who is superior and who can be together. The only time I think it is alright for a government is when one individual impedes on the rights of others. As any person familiar with the US government knows, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are limiting documents, outlining what people cannot do. As long as these are not breached, I think people can go about and exercise their rights however they choose to without government figures.
I believe that the government should be able to step in and infringe on the rights of individuals when an individual is interfering with the rights of another. In doing this, the government will be acting as the caretakers of individuals. I do think that it is okay for the government to infringe on a person's rights when they are putting someone else in danger, but this does not include sterilizing people who are considered feebleminded simply because they might produce feeble minded offspring. I think it is a huge benefit to society that the government allows us to pursue our own happiness, but within limits. For example, a murderer cannot kill people even tho it may make him or her happy. I think that the people should decide when the government gets to step in, like a democracy.
In my opinion, I believe the government should balance the roles of being caretakers of individuals when an individual is doing something right or meaningful for our country. However, if a person is doing something wrong or illegal then I feel that the government must take certain rights away from that person. Therefore, a government should only be allowed to infringe on the rights of individuals when they are only doing something illegal and that person might be harming someone else. I believe that it is okay for the government to infringe on individuals who deserve it for doing something wrong. However, if a person is trying to help our country out then the government should not interfere with the good that may come out of an individuals help for something important.
I think that governments should should lookout for the well being and care for their citizens and that they should generally stay away from the peoples rights. Every time a government gets involved in the peoples rights nothing good ever comes out of it. The government thinks they knows whats right for the people but the public might think else wise. I don't think the government should step in and change the peoples rights without the people asking for change. The people need to want change in order to be able to change something. The government just needs to decide if the change is humane or not.
The government, despite anyone else's beliefs, should abide by the constitution of the United States. All instances where individuals were treated unequally, such as in the Eugenics movements, were actions that defied the constitution. Everyone should be treated equally, period. There is never a point in time where it is justified to do otherwise. I personally don't see where there would be a situation where ones rights would need to be taken away for the benefit of their safety.. whom makes the decision would be the government and hopefully they would follow the constitution, particularly the 14th amendment.
I don't think a government should ever be able to take away your rights. If a government begins to take away rights even if it is for the safety of the people it can open all different ways on how a government can take over the individuals rights and freedoms. First they take away your freedom of speech, then they take away the citizens weapons, and then they turn into a dictatorship. It happens all the time.
The government should only be allowed to infringe on the rights of an individual when the individual infringes on others rights that are protected by the Constitution. For example if when a criminal is incarcerated in order to protect the public from the criminal infringing on their own rights. It is acceptable for governments to take away rights for their own safety. For instance in school students have limited rights in order to have a safe learning environment. It is not okay for the government to infringe on our rights for the benefit of society because what exactly benefits society is debatable. The government’s purpose is to protect the individual’s rights not to do what they believe benefits society.
I believe the responsibility of the government is to protect individuals as long as the protection does not go against the basic rights given to the individual. The government should if the individual is severely harming others or taking advantage of our rights. Just because we are given the freedom to assemble, a group of people should not get together in order to murder others. Yes, they have the freedom to assemble and form groups, but the government should step in because their assembly is causing harm to others. Although this is a hazy line, the government should step in when an individuals rights become harmful. In most cases too, the government should intervene if it is for the safety of that person. For example, if a person is mentally-ill , the government should help, provided that they are doing the right thing to help the person.
As caretakers, the government should ensure that the public has access to the tools and programs they need, in order to take care of themselves. As for taking rights away, there should be a solid reason as to why that would happen. The government should not take rights away just because they can, they need a reason too. If a person is abusing their rights they have more of a reason to get them taken away than a person whose trying to help. I feel the government should step in only if a program or situation is unfair to a certain population, or if it could cause harm in any way, or for the safety of that person so they don't do harm to anyone else in society. When it comes to who decides the benefit of society, it seems to me that someone close to an individual-whether it be their doctor or family member should have the right to decide if they think the government should step in or not. If the doctor or friend can handle the situation themselves, there is no reason for the government to interfere, but if a person is mentally crazy and no one can help, the government has every right to interfere. Whether the government steps in or not is all based on the situation and what would be best for society.
The government should concentrate on helping people who need it to get better in a way that does not violate their rights. If a person is a danger to their self or to people around them, then the government should be able to step in, but to help them and not just hide them away. I think that if a person is a danger to themselves or others the government should be able to step in and put them into a comfortable environment that will help them. I don't think that it is right to infringe on someones rights for the purpose of benefiting society.
I don't think the government should take away anybody's rights unless they have no other choice. If they took away people's rights just because they had the power to then I don't think there would really be any order. I don't really see how taking away someone's rights can be safe for them or how it could benefit society. The ones who decide what the benefit of society should always be the people.
Americans give up some rights to be protected by the government under the law. A person's individual rights keeps someone from violating you're own rights and from you violating someone else's rights. The government should only infringe on the rights of individuals when they have done something illegal or violated the rights of another individual to maintain order in the country. In order to have an effective government, we have agreed to abide by the law to keep our protected rights. Therefore, I believe in this situation, it is important that we give up some rights. Our government is a democracy, meaning we the people decide how our government will be run. We decide the benefit of society and determine in what way our government will be ran.
I think that the government needs to have some restrictions on what citizens can do to other citizens. Without rules and order there would just be chaos and therefore no need for a government at all. There is a fine line however between a government protecting ones rights and being too involved. I think the only time the government needs to interfere is in the situations when ones safety is at risk. Other than that I think the government needs to let the citizens live. The government needs to do this for the benefits of having a well kept society. The ones who decide what a well kept society is are the ones who were elected to that position by a fair poll, like a president or mayor.
There is a very fine line between caretaking and taking away rights of citizens. For this reason, I believe that the government should not be able to interfere with personal rights of individuals. For example, abortion rights or the old sterilization laws, why should a isolated politican be able to decide such major things for a person? It is not fair and violates our basic human rights. I do not believe it is ever okay, because when it becomes a safety issue for the person, you have to have faith that they will make the best decision for themselves. It does not make sense, as it is morally ineffective and politically counterproductive for another party to decide what is "best" for an individual or society alike. No one person or even panel of people can mandate what the benefit of society is, because each person has a different view. That is the beauty of living in America, and therefore it would be Unamerican and generally immoral to decide something so broad for everybody else.
I feel that the government should Only have the right to take away rights when a serious crime is committed. An example would be a murder or like a bankrobbery. Crimes of this nature result in longterm jailtimeand need a serious consequence. The problem occurs when the government misuses their power and begins taking a large amount of peoples rights away. The government does need to have a solid role in our world but not in every situation. Anytime there is a serious safety issue the government needs to play a part in our society. I do feel however the people need to be dependent on each other and stay as one unit. As long as the government doesn't look at the people in a society as inferior then we should have a succesful world.
In our society, there needs to be some sort of restriction on what people can and can not do, which lies in the hands of the government. However, the government needs to be limited on how they act as caretakers to make sure that they do not infringe on any individuals rights. The government should step in when a person is a threat to a another citizen. By doing this, the government is acting as a caretaker for the individual being harmed. If an individual interferes with someone else's rights, it should be left to the government to make sure that they alleviate the problem by restricting this person, thus infringing their rights. For the safety of that persons well being, the government must make sure that all individuals are kept safe, even if it means infringing on the rights of an individual who is a threat to someone else. In regards to the society, the government should not be allowed to infringe on a persons right to reproduce and should not be able to say whether or not a person is "fit" for society, because really there is no definition for that kind of person. They really, in my opinion, only have the right to do this if a person is going to harm others/ is a threat to national security. We do not want the government to gain too much power, so the people should be the ones who decide what the benefit of society is.
I do not think it is ever right for the government to take away the rights of individuals. If it gets to the point where something is hurting the United States then I think that the government has the right to take away some rights. Unless that happens, the government does not have a right. Just because you have the power to do something doesnt mean that you should be able to do something. Taking away someone's rights does not benefit the society. Allowing homosexuals to get married, for example, would not do anything to hurt our society. It is any person's right to get married and the government does not have the right to take that right away from them. I think that the people in the society should decide what will benefit them, not a select group of people.
I think that the government should help to the point where the person can survive, even with a low standard of living. Although they should be sure not to just be giving out "freebies" or "handouts" because to have a comfertable lifestyle people should have to work hard. The government should be able to infringe on rights when there is a serious threat or danger to a group or individual. The government should be able to decide how serious a threat is or if their actions will properly benefit society. No one should be harmed if it is preventable thus the government could infringe on rights to be sure that the enviornment stays safe.
The government does a lot of things that may not be constitutional, but when it comes to Eugenics, the government should "play by the rules." People shouldn't be treated different because they are different. There is a pint when the gov. should infringe on the rights of individuals, and that time is when people are endangering the live of others or themselves.
I agree with 78whereswaldo in that the government should ensure that the public has access to the tools and programs they need, in order to take care of themselves. I also believe that the government should be allowed to infringe on the rights of an individual. If it wasn’t for rules like this, our society would not be able to function. Although the constitution doesn’t allow a lot of this to happen, I personally think the government should have the right to alter the constitution. Without the government being able to infringe on our rights, our society could go very downhill in the future. I also think that when we talk about who decides the benefit of society, any person close to someone should have the right to decide if they think the government should step in or not. If the doctor or friend can handle the situation themselves, there is no reason for the government to interfere, but if a person is mentally crazy, the government has the right to interfere. I also agree with 78doglover in that there needs to be some sort of restriction on what people can and can’t do in our society. In essence, I believe the government should truly have MUCH more power then it currently has and it will be truly beneficial to our society.
I believe the government should be able to infringe on the right of individuals only when they are putting someone else's rights at risk. In order to be considered a free nation we must of certain rules to protect peoples freedom and make sure that others don't infringe upon their freedom. The benefit of having a government that will step in and take rights away from people who abuse their freedoms are having a just and fair country.
The government should only be able to interfere with peoples rights if they have evidence that a person may have harmed or will harm someone. An example of this is a warrant. A warrant is a good way to keep the government in check and not infringe on someones rights just based on a whim. However, if national security is at risk, than I do believe that the government should be entitled to more leniency. I also do not agree with infringing with someones rights for the betterment of society. If someone has done nothing wrong, the government should not be able to infringe their rights for no reason.
How should a government balance the roles of being caretakers of individuals and taking away their rights? When should a government be able to step in to infringe on the rights of individuals? Defend your answer. Is it ever okay? For the safety of that person? What about for the benefit of society? If so, who decides what the benefit of society is?
Governments should take away peoples' rights if they are a threat to themselves or to others. If someone poses a threat, the rights become a privilege that must be re-gained. It is okay to take away rights, especially now-a-days when we have scientific studies and tests that prove that a person is not self-sustaining and needs help. Taking people off the streets and throwing them into a facility is only okay with sufficient evidence of a problem with the patient. It partially benefits society because it keeps people safe, but it makes them that much less accepting of people who are not normal, or different. Nobody can determine the true benefit for society because it can be a good and bad thing.
The government should balance caretaking and taking away rights when it infringes on safety and the wellbeing of others. The government should be able to step in and take over when this becomes a problem; when somebody's life is at stake. I think other things should require the government to step in. They are kind of like the supervisor, and when things are unjust or unfair or unlawful, the government should take control and overrule any previous control measures. Society's safety should be determined based on financial, environmental, and community issues.
I feel that the government needs to balance the roles of being caretakers of individuals and taking away their rights. To some extent, I believe that they should be right in it, given that these are the people who we’ve trusted to be in power and who we trust to know what is best for the country and for the individual people within it. However, America is based on one of the facts that we should have unalienable rights therefore sometimes it is the government’s job to step back and let us be.
A government should be able to step in to infringe the rights of individuals when another individual is in harms way, physically or emotionally. It is their job to make sure that we are all safe no matter the circumstances.
When it comes to the benefits of society, I think that it’s harder to defend or see in some cases. Like previously stated, when it comes to a person’s well being, it is pretty much clear that they should be protected. But sometimes people can’t see what should be done to their society, because they’ve lived with it for so long that they see nothing wrong with it. I do agree that the government should have most control, obviously with checks and balances, therefore giving them the right to decide what the benefit of society is.
We gave them power, we elected them in most cases, therefore we trust that they will do what is right after weighing out many of the circumstances.
I believe that the government is put into a real sticky situation, the well being of all its people is its main concern, and it becomes difficult to judge the fine line between taking away the rights or secutirtes of some to make sure the total saftey of everyone is intact, but that also dosnt allow for unfairly persecuting people.. which is why this matter is such a grey space instead of just a black and white case
Governement should be able to step in and interfere when something goes against the constitution. Unfortunatly the line between help from the government and interferance from the government is blurred. Every situation is a different case, but in cases were laws are being broken, than the government should be able to stand and take action with the support of the country behind them.
Our government is shaped by what the majority believes is right. It shouldn't be up to the government to decide what is right and have the ability to take away someones constitutional rights if need be. The government should try to tax people less and not try and be caretakers as much. The fact that the eugenics movement existed really shows how ignorant people can be and the fact that maybe we really haven't come that far along as a people. I think that maybe the majority has been wrong and people are now just starting to realize it.
The Government balance have a limited of control over the law and people because sooner or later people will start to disagree with his ideal.The Rights that he have is a Given and that can easily be taken away.But at the same time you can't balance that by taking away they rights. But he can have Programs that help balance there Rights.
You cannot just take away one's rights and try to be their caretakers. That is a hypocritical statement in my opinion.
The government should only infringe when the rights of individuals are harmful to others.
ex. slavery laws were harmful to blacks thus the government had to infringe.
yes it is okay.
yes.
no. not unless there is more to it.
wise government officials (president)
I think that the government should not be able to make life-changing decisions for an individual unless they will be helping that individual or that person is a harm to society. I remember once watching the news and there was a girl that was only alive because she was hooked up to machines after an accident. There was a debate weather she should be taken off the machines and die peacefully, or be kept alive on them even though she wasn't going to be able to recover fully. In this case I would go with what ever the patient wanted, but since she couldn't make her own decisions at this time I would go with the husband's choice, and then her parents if she was not married. I don't think the goverment has the right to make these kind of decisons.
I think that the government should be able to step in and be able to step in and infringe on the rights of individuals but only under the most extreme circumstances which is like when there is some kind of civil unrest or if there's like some a attack on the country and people are under stress and they really need to control the people and just think and I just think that only if its really necessary to take full control of the country.
I feel that the government should Only have the right to take away rights when a serious crime is committed. I feel that if you commit murder or something of that nature then they can take away your rights. Crimes of this nature result in jail time and need a serious consequence. The problem occurs when the government misuses their power and begins taking a large amount of peoples rights away. The government does need to have a solid role in our world but not in every situation.
the government has already set up guidelines for the protection of people's rights and those rights should not be able to have loop holes or ways a government could go against them. a government should never be able to infringe upon the rights of individuals. even if it is harming others because there are many different definitions of harm and as seen in the sterilization movie, the government felt that the feeble minded and immigrants were doing harm to americans, but really they weren't.
I don't think it's right for the government to be able to infringe on the rights of individuals. In my opinion, the only cases where this is okay are extreme cases that may involve protection or murder. There may be some cases where the safety of an individual is more important than making sure their rights aren't violated. In order to benefit society, I think the majority of time all rights and laws have to be put into effect and evryone should abided by the same rules. I'm not quite sure who decides what the benefit of society is.
I don't think it's right for the government to be able to infringe on the rights of individuals. In my opinion, the only cases where this is okay are extreme cases that may involve protection or murder. There may be some cases where the safety of an individual is more important than making sure their rights aren't violated. In order to benefit society, I think the majority of time all rights and laws have to be put into effect and evryone should abided by the same rules. I'm not quite sure who decides what the benefit of society is.
i do not think the government should ever be able to take away the rights of any one. The term equal is supposed to refer to everyone, so how can any man dictate what another equal mans rights are. The right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Liberty is supposed to be complete freedom for the most part, so how can you have the right to liberty but then have right restrictions. I know laws benefit society but no person should have there so called rights taken away from them, when they do not choose their rights.
I believe the government should have programs to help people who cause harm to them or others around them. The government needs to do there best job of making sure citzens are in a safe society. Its not right to take sombody's rights but I could understand it to better the society as a whole. There needs to be rules to keep ones saftey. The polticians who believe in protection of the people are the ones who will probley succeed on election day.
Governements should very rarely involve themselves in the personal lives of the people they govern. The government's job is to protect us, therefore sometimes they have to limit what we can do. They shouldn't be more involved then protecting other people's rights. A government should never infringe on rights they should only limit certain ones. The rights should only be limited if by giving you rights you could abuse them and infringe on others rights. It is the government's job to decide what is going to benefit society so therefore they get to decide which rights should be limited or not.
Governements should very rarely involve themselves in the personal lives of the people they govern. The government's job is to protect us, therefore sometimes they have to limit what we can do. They shouldn't be more involved then protecting other people's rights. A government should never infringe on rights they should only limit certain ones. The rights should only be limited if by giving you rights you could abuse them and infringe on others rights. It is the government's job to decide what is going to benefit society so therefore they get to decide which rights should be limited or not.
Governements should very rarely involve themselves in the personal lives of the people they govern. The government's job is to protect us, therefore sometimes they have to limit what we can do. They shouldn't be more involved then protecting other people's rights. A government should never infringe on rights they should only limit certain ones. The rights should only be limited if by giving you rights you could abuse them and infringe on others rights. It is the government's job to decide what is going to benefit society so therefore they get to decide which rights should be limited or not.
It is not alright for the government to be able to infringe on the rights of individuals. The only times where the government can do that are very unique instances. These instances would involve protection or murder. There are some instances where the safety of a person is more important than making sure their rights aren't violated. Most of the time all rights and laws have to be put into effect and everyone should follow by the those rules.
Unless the individuals actions are hurting himself, others or the environment directly, the government should not be able to interfere. The constitution states that the government should only do for its people what they cannot do for themselves. Determining the fate and destiny of its people based on a test or assumption definitely unconstitutional.
I don't think a government should ever be able to take away your rights. If a government begins to take away rights even if it is for the safety of the people it can open all different ways on how a government can take over the individuals rights and freedoms.
I believe that unless the individuals actions are hurting themself, others or the environment directly, the government should not be able to interfere.I do think that it is okay for the government to infringe on a person's rights when they are putting someone else in danger, but this does not include sterilizing people who are considered feebleminded simply because they might produce feeble minded offspring.Determining the fate and destiny of its people based on a test or assumption definitely unconstitutional.It is benefit to society that the government allows us to pursue our own happiness, but within limits. The constitution states that the government should only do for its people what they cannot do for themselves.
2Bstrong i do understand where you are coming from, and yes i agree completely with you that the "Different" have completely become part of the society, but back then it should not have been there choice, because they were still new to the America, so it should not be a choice for them at that time. Today completely it should be there choice which is why it is there choice, but back then is a different story. In todays world, the government should take into place that this is a different era from when they had many things written down and not changed. They should take into reason that people should be aloud to do more thing then they are permitted to.
Post a Comment