Thought Question Chips: Bad For Americans

Today there is no need to protect ourselves from government take over. We handed them ourselves our lives our education. They control the way we live and raise our children among a lot of other things weather we agree with their input or not.

The responsibilities of government are to protect its citizens by such means as our armed services or military weapons. Government is to ensure there is a way of fairly maintaining order as an example our police, National Guard, and to ensure every citizen has equal access to items, products, goods such as schools, and highways. However, government or politics often has a negative connotation too many as it is viewed as a way for lobbyists and those with money to make policies that are important or in some way helpful to them. Many view politics as dishonest and that politics is a manner in which someone or group benefits for their own advantage and not for society as a

Furthermore too much government involvement could lead to people depending on the government for money instead of getting a job. This is very true today for people who get health care and other things. They think that they can take more and more money

ideal. As much as the government would like to have full control over its society, they know that

Government must however put in place some safety net for check and balances. example protection of jobs

The government often cites security as a justification for their actions, but Benjamin Franklin noted that those who would give up liberty for security deserve neither. I'd rather sacrifice some security than live in an Orwellian state. In Orwell's1984, people had

Personally, I do not feel like this act has made me feel safer overall in my daily aspects of life, given the recent attacks of terrorism in the U.S. for example, on October 11, 2016 a pilot in training overtook his instructor and purposely crashed the plane he was navigating, more recently, the shooting at a Las Vegas concert, and the truck running over pedestrians in New York City. The list goes on and you can view a detailed list at http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/terrorism/wrjp255a.html. I feel that with all the surveillance the government is performing these situations should have been

The United States government believes so, laws passed like the Patriot Act are used to give government officials the permission to listen and watch EVERYONE close. Some would say their invading people’s right to privacy and abusing their power, but are these actions put in place to truly protect the people from those who choose to destroy and sabotage the United States of America from the inside. Their mindset behind their actions what’s right for one, must be right for all.

Imagine it is diner time, and right in front of you lies a large plate of crispy, fried chicken and some hot and steamy mashed potatoes, along with your favorite brand of chips. Sounds delicious, it is like heaven on a plate! All of these unique foods together on a single plate about to be consumed--oh goodness--a chip somehow ended up touching the mashed potatoes! Of course, you do not like your chips becoming soggy because of those dastardly mashed potatoes. That is gross! I suppose you would not want to eat those soggy chips anymore, might as well toss it in the trash and not eat it. Though, if no one enjoys their foods touching one another, why do people put food all on one plate in the first place? It should have been expected to happen,

Yes, I believe that the government is trustworthy, but anything that involves humans will have certain risks of untrustworthiness. It is fair to say that the founding fathers of the United States believed no more than we do in the good faith of individual, or groups of people. The United States has three separate branches of government which they all have powers within them to assist or defeat each other. Therefore, the founding fathers wanted to make everyone satisfied. Even these constitutional institutions are not enough to prevent a catastrophe, oligarchy, or dictatorship; They are a first line of defense against such results. Congress can slow the President, if not stop him or her in their actions. The Supreme Court may not have a standing

I also agree that the government should get it's power from the people.

My partner and I believe that the government and its officials should be able to freely obtain wiretaps because wiretaps stops terrorism, they prevent organized crimes in cities, wiretaps make court trials go faster and the verdicts more accurate, and the government being able to freely wiretap, getting rid of warrants and paperwork, allowing the government or police force to find information faster and easier and apprehend suspects quicker.

If someone is in trouble then that’s where they can call for help or find a way out of it. However, in situations like that it would be a good thing for the chip because if a person goes missing then you would be able to find them without any trouble. They won’t have to go days looking for clues or looking for something to give them a sign of where that person is. It will all be so easy with the chip, also the government would be able to identify a person or even see their record. Chips could be acceptable for animals because they will be safe and if they get lost they will be found within seconds and be back to their homes.

new advancements such as microchip implant for humans and animals can be very controversial. At first, the implants may seem to have benefits but in the long run they will actually cause more trouble than they are worth. These potential "troublemakers" are about the size of an elongated grain of rice and are injected in the skin under the arm or hand (Feder, Zeller 15). The chip is not powered by battery and there is nothing that can possibly leak out into the body (Posada-Swafford 8). An early form of this technology was used to monitor salmon and has been used for other wildlife research (Verhovek 5). The idea of the chips was started from the September 11 tragedy

But is that entirely true? The government protecting us from terrorists is only a fraction of how they supervise the countries welfare. Police, traffic control, security check points before entering the Empire State Building. Imagine NYC with no traffic control. No one to control the traffic lights, or tow cars that have been double parked for 6 hours. All of these things are things the government controls - and follows through with- that directly effects the people living in this community. And understanding that it is the 'people ' that are in control of these things-even if their was no government, these things would still have to be taken care of. We would still need consequences for those who do wrong. If we have no government deceiding what is lawful and not, there would still have to be some sort of justice system in order to be a successful