Freedom

 Michael Chopp

Ariana Paliobagis

ENG 121

2/25/08 

Sometimes to have a government or leader put in place to lead a country, something must be given up. Freedom is something we give up to obtain the other freedoms we want to have.

Equality can be hard to come by in some countries. Until the early 1900’s, women weren’t allowed to vote and even further back in history, blacks weren’t given citizenship. Nowadays things are different and everyone is equal when it comes to voting and for the most part, landing a job. In Bolivar’s writings, he talks about the Venezuelan constitution and its political equality. This is essential for a country so the right person is put into office to rule. Without this freedom, a ruler could be choosen by the likes of appearance (Talked about in ”Agganna Sutta”) instead of for his/her character or skill set. 

Safety and protection are certain reasons for giving up part if not all one’s freedom. An example is from the “Agganna Sutta”. In this reading, the first social contract was formed, in how “an agreement between a ruler and a group of people in which the people agree to give allegiance to the ruler and the ruler agrees to provide certain services to the people.” To me, it is stating that the people are giving up certain rights in order to gain those “services” from the ruler, which would probably include protection and some sort of well being. In our government today, we have freedom of speech, choice, equality, but however still have some restrictions to our freedoms such as laws. These are set in place by the government to protect us and keep us from abusing our freedom.

Freedom and security

Mack Holter

I think that the only time people should give up freedom is when they get something in exchange that they need and cannot provide for themselves.  In 1 Samuel of the Hebrew Bible, the people make a request for a king to lead them and to specifically go and fight their battles for them.  Thus, one of the biggest things that people sacrifice their freedom for is the assurance that they have some protection.  This typically applies in a general sense, such as security for the nation.  A person is capable of providing security for themselves in a small sense, because all they need is a gun.  However, if they want protection from other nations, this is where the leader comes into play.  It would be pointless for him to try and protect each citizen in each part of his kingdom, but in regards to the overall safety from other nations, this is where he shines.

            Obviously this is beneficial for the people, but why would they give up that freedom in the first place.  It is required that the amount of freedom that is given up is less in comparison to the amount of safety or whatever they receive.  If they lose more freedom than is worth what they would gain, then most people will oppose that law that removes that freedom.  There are laws that people see all the time and every time they see one, they take the time to weigh out each side.  If the bill provides some necessary or desired effect and removes only a small part of freedom, they will support it.  However, if they do not place a high enough value on the gain, then the loss of freedom supersedes the importance of the bill and they will oppose it.  In regards to the majority, whichever side of the bill has the largest number of supporters and voters will win, deciding if the bill is in the best interests of the majority.

Personal Responsibility

 

            People like being told what to do. Aung San Suu Kyi says it is easier for a ruler to ignore the needs of the weak than to respond to their needs. Is it not also easier for a society to escape the responsibility of making a decision and accepting their influence on the repercussions by electing a leader? This leads to tyranny, and is how these tyrants acquire so much power. They relieve their subjects of freedom in return for services such as security or education. Simon Bolivar is correct in his statement that “people rather than governments repeatedly drag tyranny in their train”. People encourage tyranny with their lack of motivation to do what is necessary to sustain a moral system of government.

            Is this dilemma a conscious decision or a flaw in human nature? In the book The Kite Runner there is a character who openly accepts his status in society even though he is oppressed without the right to an education because he was born a Hazra versus being born a Shi’ ai like his masters. What is more intriguing about this character is his happiness. Solely his role is to serve his masters whom he does not receive a just amount of respect for doing. There seems to be comfort in always knowing what your purpose is and this character seemed to enjoy sacrificing his freedoms in order to display his loyalty.

Do Whom Goes the Spoils

         People don’t choose to give up their freedoms. Whatever century a person might be from, if asked to give up what they consider as freedom.  They would look at you quizzically and ask in their dialog, for what?  Now you would either make them an offer, or bash them in the kneecaps and physically take their freedoms from them.  Both instances have happened and are still happening today.  In the texts Agganna Sutta by Siddhartha Guatama the Buddah and Quest for demorcracy by Aung San Suu Kyi, we can discover examples of both situations and a factor or two about why they happen and the effects that arise.

          In the case of the Buddahist village that Gautama described “…if we were to select a certain being…who should censure that which should rightly be censured, and should banish him who deserves to be banished?  But we will give to him in return a proportion of the rice”(102).   The village is willingly accepting a “certain being” to have power, to discipline and enforce punishment upon whomever he sees fit.  Giving this “being” the ability to effect their lives and paying him/her for the service with the rice.  This kind of trade is benefical to both parties and is a good thing, as long as the agreement is not altered to favor one side or the other.

       Sometimes things are not as symbiotic as the Buddahist villages arrangement.  When freedoms are taken forcefully; it makes the people unhappy, they struggle to live and do not prosper.  Kyi tells us “There is nothing new in Third World governments seeking to justify and perpetuate authoritarian rule by denouncing liberal democratic principles as alien.  By implication they claim for themselves the official and sole right to decide what does and does not conform to indigenous and cultural norms”(191).  The government is doing onto the Burmese that which is unjust, for the sole benefit of an authoritarian government.  By taking the basic freedom of decision away, the Burmese government is telling their people that they do not care to hear what they desire, or what is needed to be happy and healthy, two other basic rights that are do unto anyone.  The want for control and power is evident in the way this government rules and it is stripping the people of the freedoms that they desire and deserve.

        Freedoms mean something different to everyone, but there is a certain consensus as to the rights and freedoms that people deserve (without bias).  While making oneself happy is entirely up to that person, there are situations that exist that enable a person or groups of people to be happy.  If we as humans lived by the credo; if it hurts others than do not do it, there would be no worry about the sufferings that are going on in Burma.

Giving up freedom

Chelsey Colbert

Response 3

 

            Why might people choose to give up their freedom is a tough question to answer, but after reading some of the text in class I think that there is more than one answer. I think the three dominant reasons are because people want something in return of their freedom, like security, or they are uneducated or just plain lazy.

            When a group of people are far more frightened by something other than lack of freedom, they may choose to give up their freedom in order to feel secure about their other problem. I think the sense of security is one of the main reasons people choose to give up their freedom. In times of war, or threat of war, people often say to their government “do what you want to do as long as we stay safe”; in this case, the people are completely giving up their freedom, a thing they had previously. In another situation, a group of people may give up their freedom completely, before they had it, to ensure that they will be protected. For example, in The Hebrew Bible, the Israelites, before they experiences freedom under a king, asked God for a king to rule their land because they were afraid of their own weakness (94).

            In Aung San Suu Kyi’s piece, she says that the opponents of the movement for democracy kept the people ignorant about other forms of government. She says that Burma is “distanced by several decades of isolationism from political and intellectual developments in the outside world” (191). She claims that democracy would follow the ancient teachings and beliefs of the Burma people but the current tyrannical government is keeping that information secret from the public. 

            The final reason, I believe, for why people choose to give up their freedom is because they are lazy; the people feel that they can not do anything about the way their situation is and it would be too much work, so they give up. I feel that Simón Bolívar was trying to make a point that the reason many people suffer under governments is because they are “deliberately kept in ignorance and cut off from the world in all matters relating to the science of government” (149); but at the same time he says that if they were not ignorant then they would still not be motivated to change because they are more comfortable with the norm as opposed to doing something about their situation.

Why Freedom Should Never Be Given Up

 

Felix J Grobler

Ariana Paliobagis

English 121

25^th of February 2008

People sometimes actively choose to give up their freedom in return for some kind of service, the most common of which would be security. I believe this trade to be a grave mistake. This quote of Ben Franklin hits the point well: “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety”. Freedom is more important than a little temporary security. The new-found security will not be very enjoyable without the freedom. Many people’s over the course of history have given up their freedom in return for protection by some entity. This entity usually represented a government or faction, that promised it’s people protection from some sort of threat. For this reason a lot of dictatorships have been created when the people were afraid of something, in particular defeat in war. In their defense a dictator often is able to better coordinate military operations than a group of people would be, because it is clear who has the final world. This prevents indecisiveness due to differing opinions on the appropriate course of action that should be taken. The Israelites were looking for protection from foreign forces when they elected Benjamin to become their leader (Samuel 94).

“Under the Constitution, which interprets the laws of Nature, all citizens of Venezuela enjoy complete political equality (Simon Bolivar 153).” These freedoms are crucial for the success of a country. By giving up these freedoms you are giving up on the your country. Our constitution is in place to protect our basic freedoms and there is never an acceptable reason to give up any of them. The whole reason of our government is to protect each citizen’s basic and unalienable rights. Every human being has a basic set of unalienable rights that stand at the base of all government. Government allows all of its members to better protect their individual rights and property.

My freedom stops where your begins. I believe that this should be the main concept behind government. Government should protect our property and individual rights. These basic forms of protection need to be enforced, but beyond that the government’s influence and control should be held to a minimum. I believe a laissez faire or hands off approach works better for society. The smaller the interference by the government the better society works. Governments often evolve to become bureaucratic and inefficient.

Our last chance…NOT!

Kurt Dudley

ENGL 121

February 23, 2008      

Leaders have been around since the beginning of civilization.  When you think back to all of the great cultures, from the Romans to the Mayans, you will find one thing in common with all of them, they all have a central government, and a central leader.  Granted every culture has its own type of leader, they all have one person that they look up to and follow.  There are many different kinds of leaders; it could be a President, an Emperor, a King, or even just a person who everyone respects but for some reason, people have the urge to follow someone who they believe to be wiser then themselves.  Why do you think we do this?  Do we do it because we are afraid to do things on our own?  Because we want someone to go to with our problems?  I think that all of these reasons are potential truths, because as human beings we always like to have someone we can rely on.  The only question is, as a human race, how do we tend to choose our leaders?

            As a human race, I feel that we tend to choose our leaders by how they act.  Most of the time when we look at a leader in any culture, we see that they are a very successful person who really has their life together.  They tend to be people who are good a speaking, and who make it very natural to have conversations.  Other times however, we see that leaders are very powerful people who use their ability to intimidate and get ahead in the world.  They are people who are good at interacting with others but they have immoral minds.  Fear can be a very successful tool when used in a person’s own favor.  It has the power to bend people in certain ways, and it has the power to change their natural inhibitions.  But as a whole, cultures seem to choose leaders who will be good for their cause.  You see this in today’s politics, people who vote issues are doing nothing more than trying to improve their own beliefs.  Which is why I think that people elect leaders simply because they know that they themselves cannot do things on their own, and having a person to back them up is never a bad Idea.

            When we choose our leaders, people are thinking of their beliefs.  Whether it is religion, or politics, people will always vote by the way they think things should be.  That’s why when we look for good candidates we look for someone who we see ourselves in.  At the core, every time that you vote, you are trying to put a person in office who will do the things that you think are right, which is why we elect leaders, to do the things that we cannot do as followers.          

Appearance plays a role….

Benjamin Burns

Araina Paliobagis

English 121

2/25/08

Response 3

 

Why do people give up freedoms? The answer to the questions is the same as the answer to another question, being “Why do people give up anything?”  The answer to these questions is simple, the only reason people give anything up is to gain something in another area. Take one step backward to gain two steps forward. No one will ever intentionally give up anything without getting something out of it.  For example, our government makes certain laws that infringe on our freedom, but these laws allow us to function as a society. In the essay “In Quest for Democracy”, Aung San Suu Kyi states “The people of Burma have had much experience of despotic rule and possess a great awareness of the unhappy gap that can exist between the theory and practice of government” (193). This means to me that she is basically giving up some of her freedoms because she knows that everybody has to give a little to gain anything. If someone wants to live a civilized lifestyle, some freedoms are going to have to be taken away due to abusers.

In class, we discussed how a society should choose a leader or how a country should elect a president. We discussed whether or not looks should be important in electing a leader, if the basis of election should be solely on ideas and not on appearance. Most people in the class agreed that it should have nothing to do with looks and only on ideas, but I completely disagree. I think appearance plays a huge role in electing a leader and should rightfully so. In the Agganna Sutta, the way that they chose a leader was “who was the handsomest, the best favored, the most attractive, and the most capable” (Aggana Sutta 102). This may seem initially incorrect to the ignorant, but if one was to further analyze and think about why they choose leaders in this fashion, they would see that this is a proper way to do so. One argument we discussed was that if a bum had good ideas and values, but was still a bum, should this person be elected president?  Most people answered yes, but I answered no. I think that if a person is a bum, then obviously this person can’t control his/her life so what makes someone think that this person can control a country. Somebody’s rebuttal was that “some people choose that kind of lifestyle and choose to live like a bum.” My response to this was “obviously if a person is choosing to live the lifestyle of a rancid, haggard bum; then obviously there is something wrong with this individual. There is something not quite right in the head of this person, so why would you want someone like that running a country? The point is that believe it or not, looks plays a huge role in electing a leader and rightfully so. Dressing well shows character and devotion.

 

 

 

Compromising Freedom for Security

Bethany Van Dyke

English 121

Response Paper 3

February 25, 2008

Giving up freedom for any reason sounds crazy but it definitely happens.  Why?  From reading the texts I have decided that freedom is compromised for security and an overall feeling of stability.

To me, giving up freedom means allowing someone else to rule your life and decide what is best for you.  Just as the Israelites gave up some of their freedom to have a king, we also give up part of our freedom for government.  Why do we do this?  I’d say mainly for security.  We select leaders and agree to follow their rules/guidelines—but in return we expect them to provide us with protection.  This is exactly how is was for the Brahmins in Agganna Sutta.  They compromised some of their freedom and selected a king who would in return “be indignant at that whereat one should rightly be indignant, censure that which should rightly be censured, and banish him who deserves to be banished” (The Agganna Sutta 102).

Life is about giving and taking, so giving up some rights in order to obtain others is only natural.  Think about it, any healthy relationship requires some sort of compromising—ones with parents, teachers, bosses and even law enforcement.  They all take giving up some right in exchange for another.  For example, we give up our right to speed in our cars, to drink underage, to use illegal substances in return for protection.  Some people aren’t willing to give up these types of behaviors (ones that they claim they should be free to do)—but most people are willing to follow the rules in exchange for the protection of some of their other rights.

It may not be easy to compromise freedom for something else—such as security, organization, stability etc—but it is essential.  As long as this “compromising” doesn’t become unbalanced, with one side gaining or losing more than the other, then I think it works out best for both sides (or the best that it possibly can for having to compromise a bit of freedom).

Why give em’ up?

Keely Boulton

ENGL 121.31

Response 3

February 25, 2008

Why do people give up certain freedoms to be governed by a ruler? Is it because they believe they cannot do everything on their own? Or could it be that they do it in order to keep certain rights for themselves? According to the few texts read in class so far, I think people give up certain freedoms both because they would be lost without organized government and because they want protection. People all over the world need some type of ruler, be it king or president, so they always have someone to go to, someone to lead them.

As 1 Samuel 8:19-20 says, “But we will have a king over us; That we also may be like all the nations; and that our king may judge us, and go out before us, and fight our battles” (96). From this text we find that a king is useful for judging the crimes of those who have done wrong and he can fight the battles for his people. If Americans did not have a justice system or a president who makes fair judgments for those who have done wrong, the whole nation would be in chaos. Although people should have some inalienable rights, I do not think people could run a whole country without a government. I believe the Israelites wanted to have a king, even though that meant giving up certain rights, for these reasons.

People will also give up certain freedoms to be protected. A ruler can serve as a safety valve for his people giving them the protection they cannot provide for themselves. Aung San Suu Kyi argues, “Self-sacrifice [is] the ultimate generosity which gives up all for the sake of the people” (194). From history one can see that the main purpose of the king himself, is to fight on his people’s behalf and to be self-sacrificial in anything that involves the safety of his people. I believe people look up to their ruler more than anyone to protect them in times of trouble.

Freedom Isn’t Free

Chris Kurz
ENG 121 Response 3 Post
February 24, 2008

Freedom is everything. Songs and books are written about freedom. Lives are changed because of the pursuit of freedom. Countries go to war over the right to freedom. So why would anyone want to give up their freedom?
A lyric from a song by the creators of the television show “South Park” states that “Freedom isn’t free.” While the writers of the song may not have had any underlying meaning to their song, the statement holds a lot of weight. Freedom is not free. Not just in price, but in the sacrifices that must be made to keep freedom alive.
There are many different ways to describe freedom around the world. It is a theme that is equated with democracy in our country, but that can be tied to many other political and religious views. The idea of freedom has been around as long as man.
In the essay “In Quest for Democracy”, Aung San Suu Kyi gives up her freedom on many occasions. In giving up her freedom she hopes to gain more freedom for the people of Burma. Aung San Suu Kyi felt that the government of her country was stealing her freedom and the only way to stop them was by sacrificing her own freedom. She backed up her stance in her writing by saying, “The people of Burma have had much experience of despotic rule and possess a great awareness of the unhappy gap that can exist between the theory and practice of government” (193). Because she felt so strongly about the plight of her country she went to jail many times in hopes of bettering the situation of the people in Burma.
A similar story was echoed in the essay by Simon Bolivar. Venezuela had to fight for its independence from Spain. By asserting their independence, Venezuelans were gaining freedom. Bolivar agreed with this in saying that, “She has declared for the rights of man and freedom of action, thought, speech, and press” (151). Many Venezuelans gave up their rights and freedoms because they wanted their independence. It sounds like juxtaposition but that is the way it works sometimes. Self-sacrifice can lead to freedoms that are immeasurable.

Knowing your Leader

 Samantha Kujala

Response #3 ENGL 121

2/22/08

         At first, when I read Agganna Sutta, I thought the way the people chose what they wanted in a leader was silly and scary. In the text it was said that the people wanted someone, “who was the handsomest, the best favoured, the most attractive, and the most capable” (Agganna Sutta 102).             

        This quote makes it sound like they would choose someone to govern them by how good the person looks. Though, I think they do look for more than that in their government. Because they say they are looking for the most capable person. To me someone who is capable means that they can handle the job, know how to get things done, and keep the community organized; it is someone who has their life in control. They may also be looking for someone who does have a good appearance to them. If my boss came to work everyday looking like she just rolled out of bed and did not care about her job, I would have no respect for her or want to work for her. So, in some aspects the way Agganna Sutta describes the type of leader they are looking for does make sense.            

            Although, the people still did not even know the person they were really hiring for the job. A person can be deceiving and be someone totally different from what you thought. What would have happened, in Agganna Sutta, if the person they hired decided he did not want to work and was very lazy? Once you give someone such authority how easy is it to take them out of that place? Would they have been able to fire him at any time they pleased?            

          In choosing a leader, you need to be able to know them. Some things I would look for in a leader would be honesty. I would not want my leader lying to me saying they caught the thief, and then find the same thief a week later stealing from me. I also strongly feel a leader has to be very organized in order to take responsibility for a group of people. Being lazy and unorganized can lead to procrastination; then the job might not get done until it is too late.