Should Government Interference In Our Private Lives?

Is anyone’s private information contained in their cell phone actually private? Are appointments, bank information, conversations, the user’s location or other sensitive personal information truly confidential? Is there a Big Brother watching? There is no definitive answer to any of these questions. From the beginning of time to now, privacy has become more and more scarce. Through new developments in technology, it is hard to believe that someone is not watching your move at any given moment. The government’s job is to keep Americans safe, but where is the line drawn? Where is the difference between having a reasonable doubt and accessing information solely because these government officials have the power to do so? The government has infringed upon the rights of the American people when it comes to this topic.

We expect our government to pass and enforce laws that protect our safety, but who gets to decide what defines safety? Drinking large sodas is unhealthy, but does the government have the right to ban us from guzzling down a two liter? Does the government have the right to outlaw burkas because they disagree with Muslim values

Hobbes believed that people each have their own ideas of right and wrong, and that there is no way to tell if a person’s version of right and wrong is universally right or wrong. Practically, that each person will create their own rationalization and will even kill another person for physical safety or securing

Most Americans feel trapped by the government. They believe that the government is spying on them just to do so and that there is absolutely no reason for it. However this is wrong because the government has several reasons to spy on us Americans. Even though this may seem outrageous, it is needed and there are ways the United States’ citizens have privacy. With all of these false accusations it is simple to see why people would be supportive of our right to privacy. On the other hand, the government eavesdropping on the people of the United States has helped save many lives and justice being served. The United States of America is a free country, so we should have the option to be spied on by the government; however, as citizens we do

First, Hobbes says that nature is chaos. There are no rules, and the only means of protection are the strengths of each individual. There is no trust among anyone, and each individual only cares about his or herself. Hobbes develops the right of nature, or self-preservation, out of these circumstances. Each individual has a right to think of self-preservation in a world where no one can be trusted. One might think that this wouldn’t fix the problem of the natural chaos. However, Hobbes explains that the focus on self-preservation will be so powerful that individuals will make covenants that will be adhered to because they preserve everyone and hence oneself. This is in accordance with Hobbes’ concept of the laws of nature. He explains the laws of nature to be: seek peace, forfeit rights, and keep covenants. Humans pursuing self-preservation would realize that by seeking peace and forfeiting rights such as taking what one wanted from others as one saw fit self-preservation is easier and more achievable. This also requires the formation of governments to enforce the covenants made. Otherwise, there would be no way to know for certain that the covenants would be respected and upheld. With the formation of government come concepts such as justice. Hobbes bases his definition of justice on the very thing that created the government: covenants, and the keeping of those valid or

The government restricts our rights to better protect American citizens. They took away our free speech and freedom of the press, legal rights, and our privacy. When they do this the law is usually undone later. They do this to protect us but the end up going too far.

Sure, the government makes us do all sorts of things: serve on juries, pay taxes, have a driver?s license. When the government requires possession of a driver?s license it is for our own security, to make sure that only those who are capable to drive are on the road. When we are being asked to serve on jury, it is for our interest as well. As a society, we get to take a part in a legal decision and make sure that justice is done in our country. Even the requirement to pay taxes eventually is for our interest. The tax money helps the government to do things for us as a society, such as financing culture events, helping elders and people in need. However, asking us to risk our lives for something that not all citizens believe worth fighting for is not in our interest. People should not be forced to enlist in the army, which is one reason why we should not reinstate the military draft. In other words, since we live in a country based on freedom, the government should not take away our right to decide if we want to fight or not. We should not be forced to fight a war. We should not be forced into the meat grinder and possibly killed

Hobbes states that with this singular rule to abide leads to three characteristics of outcome. That man first looks to invade and conquer through competition. He will look to go to war with anyone that gets in the way of a successful end. “Man is enemy to every man..(therefore) men live without other security” (Hobbes, 1994, page 76). The need to define man as a savage individual leads Hobbes to the Laws of Nature, and will help define the need authorizing an absolute sovereignty.

Throughout history, every country had a body of government. Some strived and some opposed, in which only the people that were under their rule would be effected. The way I see it, Freedom to do what you want and living under the government’s care is hard to keep in balance. My question is would having absolute freedom be appropriate for people, is having the right to freely to pursue life’s goal without government interference important? Or would having your government guarantee that nobody is in need preferable? For example health care or unemployment or even education. This is all opinion based and there are many pros and cons to these situations but personally, I’d rather have the government having my back. Aiding me with education, helping me look for a job when I lost one and paying for my medical expensive definitely helps the individual.

The issues involving the Virginia plan gave too much power to the national government have been a popular topic amongst scholars for many years. The Virginia plan was a proposal by Virginia delegates for a bicameral legislative branch. The plan was drafted by James Madison while he waited for a quorum to assemble at the Constitutional Convention of 1787. There are many factors which influenced the development of the Virginia plan that gave too much power to the national government. The Virginia plan gave too much power to the national government by all the plans James Madison formed to create a new form of government plan which are the Executive Branch, Judicial Branch, and Legislative Branch. I plan

Any government with total control is worth being feared and having a group of individuals who go against their government. With complete control, a government is capable of committing acts against their citizens, which can be perceived as “something good” from the government’s point of view. In 1984 by George Orwell, and “Harrison Bergeron”, by Kurt Vonnegut, the main characters, Winston and Harrison, feel oppressed by the government's acts and events, try to overthrow their government, and go through a realization of hopelessness and defeat.

In a democratic society, it is generally considered the Government's role to promote morality and justice within its citizens and seek to restrict supposedly immoral and unjust acts. Thus if an act is to be considered immoral, it seems obvious to suggest that the government is justified in restricting it regardless of whether it is harmful to others. However, since everybody has a different understanding of morality and freedom, no Government could legitimately restrict an act on the basis of it being 'immoral'. Thus it seems more plausible to suggest that the Government should only restrict actions which everybody can agree should be restricted. However it's not clear where the line should be drawn or how a consensus on the issue could be

The law of nature essentially forbids humans from committing an act that would be reprehensible to his well being. This left humans to act in a way that was enforced by the a law. Hobbes analyzed both of these human natures and came to the conclusion that the ideal way for humans to exist within a peaceful environment would be be through the law of nature. In order for humans to live by the standards of the law of nature, humans must surrender their rights to a supreme leader (or small assembly)- this surrender is known as a social contract. Hobbes explained that people would would simple put their “Right[s] aside, either by simply renouncing it, or by transferring it to another” The social contract would involve all of the members of society to transfer their power to the all mighty leader. This all mighty leader would have complete control over the society, with no input from the members of societies.

The right to privacy was not established as a constitutional doctrine until after the result of the Supreme Court ruling in the 1965 case of Griswold vs. Connecticut. The court decision was based on the interpretation of several amendments within the Bill of Rights. Although the Bill of Rights does not explicitly state anything about the right to privacy, a combination of its sections was used as the framework for establishing the right (“Griswold v. Connecticut (1965),” 2007).

While Hobbes uses Laws of Nature in his logical argument, they appear to be less universally binding compared to Locke’s. Indeed, they specifically apply in circumstances where an individual’s life feels secure. In principle however, humans are generally inclined to comply with them. Conversely, in the practical life situation, the desire for self preservation takes precedence. Hence, a civil society