Personal freedom Essay

The personalized license nonion has changed vastly over the years from the harm principle to the notion of basic right ons. Cobley all toldude that in this day and age, these principles willing not impart us to stand maximum independence. On the some other hand, suggest that only by giving up all our freedom to the governwork forcet, then we provide maximize our freedom. I am generally convinced by his reasons why total freedom should be given over to the government as the democratic government has proven to be able to fully optimize the freedom of our society. From paragraph 5 in line 58-61, Cobley suggest ill-health ignorancefactors are the factors preventing fitity and liberty. He believes that fraternity will help to reconcile both factors and eventually allow liberty. This is because these factors allow the clever and the strong to gain unfair advantages. And only by caring for each other, these unfair advantages will be shared equally, and hence allow equal opp ortunities for all. By allowing equal opportunities for all, this allows the people to have freedom to compete equally. I am largely not convinced by his view of freedom, as it is an ideal state and not practical. In coordinate to get the general rich population to share their advantage to the disadvantage is improbable and far from practical. This is because men are generally selfish and to care for complete strangers is not common in society.This point suffer be further strengthening by numerous examples of the stronger and smarter not caring- precisely exploiting the poor. For example, many years stomach in capital of Singapore, it was revealed that the chief executive officer of NKF a charity blood misused the finds of the charity to fund his luxurious lifestyle. This goes to show that the rich in general are unlikely fag enddidates to show their care and business organisation for the poor. I however looking this responsibility should be given to the government throug h means much(prenominal) as heavy taxes onto the rich. I feel that this is the only way to ensure freedom to have equal opportunities for both the poor and rich. Therefore I believe we should surrender our claims to freedom to the government so that they can help re-distribute this income and ensure freedom is maximized. Hence, I disagree with the authors view that by get the rich to show concern to the poor ensures freedom as this is not practical and merely ideal. In paragraph 3 Cobley discussed that freedom should be surrendered to the government if the laws passed down are deemed as acceptable and not to override certain basic freedom.For example, basic rights such as theright to live or worship. Cobley at the end of the passage however expresses his view that he is not in favor of it. I am too largely in agreement with his view because these basic rights are stark to define. Everyone have their own view of a basic right and this often stems from religious beliefs. This would make it very hard for the government to decide on something common as there would bound to be people unsatisfied. For example, Singapore recently passed down a censorship law on websites with high viewership. Their rationale to it was that they feel these websites should be socially responsible to the public. Hence information should be censored. However others argue that these laws infringe the basic right to freedom of speech therefore causing unhappiness to these people. Henceforth I feel that freedom should be fully surrendered to the government as to have basic rights is impossible to define due to the various views of a basic right. Thus it is dear to me to give full autonomy of freedom to the government. In paragraph 6, Cobley feels that he should surrender my so-called libertyto its laws and restrictions.Cobley feels that all his freedom should be given to the government to control and restrict. He further adds on that any division intowrong. Thus, further strengthening h is viewpoint that more should be make to give our freedom to the government. I am largely in agreement with his view because I feel the democratically chosen state is best able to represent the people. This is because the government best represent the majority, and bigcosm the one in-charge of the state they are too able to see the country in a macro perspective. Thus, making them capable of making decisions to ensure that both short-term and long-term the country benefits overall. In sum total if we continue to erect barriers, we can see the society being more dis-united and having more of our freedom restricted.For example, we can see in Russia where drinking is a problem roads are becoming unsafe and the freedom of innocent passer-bys are compromised just so as to give the Russians freedom to drink. If more was through to curb drinking, this can result in not only the lives of these passer-bys to have more freedom but also the families of these drinkers. Not only would the ses families have more disposable income freedom to spend but also potentially more freedom of safety from these drunkards. Thus, this clearly shows how we should give full freedom to the government so that we would have more freedom as the government is betterable to assess the situation. Henceforth, it is only beneficial to me that total freedom is given to the government. In conclusion, I agree with the author that e should give all claims to individual freedom to the government.