Analysis Of The Article ' The Tragedy Of Common '

An American essayist, H.L. Mencken stated, “The average man does not want to be free. He simply wants be safe”. I disagree with this statement because an “average man” wants to live. In order to live you must have two necessities; freedom and safety. I believe neither is more important than one another because being free gives you the opportunity to a safe nation, and a safe nation allows you to be free. You cannot live a life without exploring and growing because that would not be considered living. On the other hand, you cannot expect to be free without safety around you.

One of the greatest and more fundamental gifts of life is the autonomy that comes with being a sentiment human being. This hasn’t always been considered a human right, however, and many eastern hemispheres are struggling to catch on to the concept that people should be allowed to make the decisions they choose without the external pressure to do otherwise. Thus, the question that should be asked is whether or not every human being on this planet is free, whether they should be free and what does free really mean. For many, freedom is all about that ability to to choose what they want, make their own decision and be able to move around as they please. Freedom is about equity, free speech and the guarantee of life, no matter how good or bad.

trees until one day when a young man showed up. This man went by the

Aldo Leopold is on the forefather of modern environmentalism. His book, A Sand County Almanac, is based on the notion of viewing land as a community and as a commodity. In the chapter “The Land Ethic”, Leopold invokes a rethinking of our relationships to our world and is based on the principle that ethics are “a process in ecological evolution” (238). Leopold describes the stages of ethic evolving and explains that the rules for socializing were originally defined for human beings. These rules are expanded upon in the next stage of “Ethical Sequence” (237-238), describing how humans interact toward their community. The third stage is the ethics between humans and the land. Upon analyzing “The Land Ethic” I have come to the conclusion that in order to have respect and ethic for land, or anything, one must make a personal connection.

Undoubtedly, everyone craves a sense of freedom, but when given too much of it, freedom corrupts the mind. It corrupts the mind into thinking that whatever that person does, whether it involve them self or others, will go unchecked. For example, “He took a step, and able at last to hit someone, stuck his fist into

“May we not think of freedom as the right to do as we please, but as the opportunity to what is right.” (Peter Marshall). Some people don’t think about freedom as that. Freedom is doing the right thing but when one chooses to do it. Freedom is being able to have certain rights like speaking your mind, and making one’s own decisions.

In Eric Foner’s book, The Story of American Freedom, he writes a historical monograph about how liberty came to be. In the book, his argument does not focus on one fixed definition of freedom like others are tempted to do. Unlike others, Foner describes liberty as an ever changing entity; its definition is fluid and does not change in a linear progress. While others portray liberty as a pre-determined concept and gradually getting better, Foner argues the very history of liberty is constantly reshaping the definition of liberty, itself. Essentially, the multiple and conflicting views on liberty has always been a “terrain of conflict” and has changed in time (Foner xv).

All Americans know and believe in freedom for all, but when put into perspective, are we really free? We have the freedom to go where we want, choose what we desire, and do what we please, as long as we stay within the limited freedoms given to us by society. The question arises, are these restrictions necessary? Jean-Jacques Rousseau once stated in The Social Contract, “Man is born free, but is everywhere in chains” I happen to agree with that statement, that people are given freedom from birth, but are restricted by the rules of today's beliefs. However I do not believe it is the right thing for society to do, and neither does the main character, Wade Watts, in Ernest Cline’s dystopian novel Ready Player One. This quote can also be

Foner emphasizes on the diverse interpretations of freedom, and based on people’s lived experiences within American society, it can represent different things. Since it has no fixed definition within the article, Foner views freedom as a concept and states “by its very nature is the subject of disagreement” (xiv). People’s worldview can help shape what freedom means to them and it may limit what freedom means to others. Although the Declaration of Independence promotes all humans having unalienable rights given by the creator, which are life , liberty and the pursuit of happiness, not all americans are able to enjoy those rights in American society. As American societal norms constantly change (eventually),

The world is full of people who put their self-interests first, making the world evil and unjust. Henry David Thoreau made a speech in 1848 responding to the government and its injustices. This speech and later essay would commonly be known as civil disobedience. Today, we find everybody living and following their own rules made for their own interest, participating in many immoral activities, and encouraging the rule of injustice. However, we can also find people, like Thoreau, trying to resist these injustices in order to stop evil practices and rules. In the essay “Civil Disobedience” Thoreau tries to make people aware by drawing attention towards the injustices of the early American government. He divides the essay into three parts: Government, responsibilities of citizens (response to the government) and the Government’s injustice. He makes it clear that going against the injustice and following ones conscious is not a crime; instead it’s a way to set ourselves free.

Gloria Jimenez’s essay, “Against the Odds, and Against the Common Good,” discusses the issue of state-run lotteries, but her essay brimmed with fallacies and lacked adequate evidence and citations. To analyze Jimenez’s essay, a summarization of her essay’s main points will be rendered. Next, the lack of evidence and citations found throughout Jimenez’s essay will be analyzed and discussed. Lastly, the fallacies found throughout Jimenez’s essay will also be analyzed and discussed. Gloria Jimenez argues in her “Against the Odds, and Against the Common Good” essay that states should not be in the business of urging people to gamble.

The word freedom is often associated with the idea of an unfettered liberty to select from a range of alternatives coupled with a sense that our actions will not affect our natural state.

A country must keep its inhabitants safe from harm, and confident that they won’t be harmed. H.L. Mencken, an American social critic, would argue that “the average man” does not really “want to be free.” True freedom is anarchy. Mencken claims that the average person “simply wants to be safe.” Freedom is an illusion of sorts; people believe that they are free, but nobody is legitimately free, just privileged.

Many ideas are important within the American culture, but to the American sense of patriotism, freedom is most fundamental. The idea of freedom is central to the American politics – which is at times referred to as liberty. Since the birth of the nation, freedom has been the vocabulary of the American language and its importance cannot be underestimated. The Declaration of Independence, for instance, ranks liberty as an inalienable right. On the other hand, the Constitution reckons that it purposes to protect civilians’ liberty. The importance of freedom has even stretched further than the political arena and has prompted the birth of civil rights movements and other activist protests. The Cold War and the Civil War were all for the cause of freedom. The importance that Americans attach to freedom can also be demonstrated from the erection of statues, banishment of slavery, use of liberty poles and a right to vote for adults. For many years, women and the African Americans have for a long time fought against denial and infringement of their freedom . However, given the importance that Americans affiliate to freedom in the conceptualization of their country, it has been the subject of modifications over the course of years especially before the Revolutionary War.

First and foremost, I am a proponent of Negative Liberty. Not only does this mean that individuals should be free from external impediments to action by other people, but also that a government should primarily remove obstructions to our freedom, which is in contrast to Positive Liberty, for the purpose of preserving individual liberties. The lack of hindrance to human action will limit government activities and create a free, tolerant society. In addition, Negative Liberty supports the individual freedom of choice and movement. With this in mind, I cannot help but emphasize the significance of the degree to which individuals encounter interferences from others. Some may argue that a government should actively create conditions necessary for self-determination and freedom to act in the presence of internal capacities; however, I interpret that as a sense of entitlement that requires a redistribution of wealth and ultimately violates the human right of private property. For this reason, I find Positive Liberty to be an infringement of others’ liberty. Throughout mankind’s history, there have been many types of oppression that illustrate my support for Negative Liberty, such as the exploitative authoritarian regimes, economic hardships, and racial oppression.