Government and Regulation of Companies

Governments have a responsibility to regulate companies that provide necessary services to citizens. Describe a specific situation in which a government might not have a responsibility to regulate a company that provides a necessary service to citizens. Discuss what you think determines whether or not governments have a responsibility to regulate companies that provide necessary services to citizens. In the United States, the government plays an integral role in maintaining order and protecting the lives of its citizens. Foundational documents, such as the Constitution and its Bill of Rights, help outline some of the responsibilities that the government owes to the people. One of among many include the duty to ensure the welfare of the people. In this sense, the government has taken the role as regulator of industries that provide necessary services to citizens. "Necessary services" may defined as services deemed crucial to the well-being and survival of citizens. This may include water, electricity, road safety, etc. In contrast, services, such as hair styling and dance lessons, would not be deemed necessary. Many of the necessary services have been heavily regulated by government as a way to ensure that most, if not all, people have access to the goods and services. If private companies were completely unregulated, only the upper crust of society would receive benefits. Indeed, most businesses are motivated by profit and will do what makes sense for them economically --even if that means causing harm to society in large or depriving services from those who really need them. The government plays a crucial role in making sure that these necessary services reach a wider population who would not otherwise afford them. The government also helps maintain the quality of necessary services. For example, the FDA promotes public health through supervision of food safety, prescriptions drugs, medical devices, etc. This government entity has the power to regulate US industries and keep them accountable to the public. Without the FDA, businesses would be producing goods and services at the most optimal cost in their view--often without taking into account the safety of their customers. When businesses do not abide by FDA rules, they are penalized and cannot continue to do business. In the couple of decades leading up to the financial crisis of 2008, government underwent a period of "deregulation"--especially in the finance industry. This occurs when government reduces its role and allows the industry greater freedom in its operations. An example of this was the 1999 Graham-Leach-Bailey act which took down barriers to competition between traditional banks, investment banks and insurance companies. Some pundits believe deregulation of the financial industry contributed to the crisis of recent years. Some people love to hate government for role that it takes in every day lives. They feel that it is oftentimes overreaching---violating personal freedom and preventing businesses from operating optimally. Indeed, advocacy groups and citizens play a crucial role in making sure government does its job to protect people while, at the same time, honoring individual rights as stated by the Constitution.

Public's Right to Know v. Individual's Right to Privacy

The public's right to know must sometimes take precedence over an individual's right to privacy. Describe a specific situation in which an individual's right to privacy might justifiable take precedence over the public's right to know. Discuss what you think determines when the public's right to know is more important than the individual's right to privacy While privacy is not explicitly covered by the Constitution, the US Supreme Court has recognized it as a right enjoyed by citizens. Specifically in Griswold v. Connecticut, the Court found that the Bill of Right has "penumbras" that create zones of privacy. This includes, among others, the First Amendment right of association and the Fourth Amendment right to be secure in one's home. Of course, the most famous case guaranteeing the right of privacy is Roe v. Wade which legalized abortion. Since the Constitution does not explicitly cover privacy, a series of court precedence has come to define the contours of the type of privacy protected by the government. One of these issues involves whether a public's right to know takes precedence over an individual's right to privacy. Court cases have specifically drawn a distinction between types of citizens who seek recourse for violations of privacy. Namely, there is a difference between how regular and famous people are treated. When raising a defamation lawsuit, famous or public persons must prove an additional element of malice on the part of the defendant. The regular person filing suit need to only show that his name was defamed without looking into the intentions of the defendant. Therefore, those holding public office or having high-exposure professions (such as athletes and actors) will find it harder to sue when the press publishes something unfavorable or detrimental to their image. Some of the most famous cases regarding a public person's right to privacy involves politician sexual indiscretion. At first glance, it would seem that what a politician does in his private time has no consequence on his public duties. However, citizens and the nation of the whole demand their right to know about actions that reveal their representative's real sense of virtues. The distinction between regular and famous people in the Constitution, in a way, ensures that the public has a right to know about these indiscretions revealing hypocrisy. However, even a public person's right to privacy has to be protected to a certain extent. For example, there are certain subjects that most people agree should not be touched. This includes respecting the privacy of a public person's children. In general, the press will honor requests not to cover the activities of those minors who have not done anything to put themselves in the public limelight---other than have a parent who is famous. In the new age of the internet, it has been more difficult for citizens, both regular and famous, to enjoy any sense of privacy. Anyone can publish information online---true and untrue---that will be difficult to erase. The public has greater access to information and it is challenging sometimes to ascertain what is real and relevant. In the process, individuals now more than ever expect to encounter violations of privacy online where there it is virtually impossible to control the posting of information.

A Business' Main Purpose is to make a Profit

A business' main purpose should be to make a profit. Describe a specific situation in which the main purpose of a business might justifiably be something other than making a profit. Discuss what you think determines whether or not the main purpose of a business should be to make a profit. In a capitalist economy, business owners enjoy private ownership of the means of production and create goods and services for profit or income. The overall health of businesses is a good sign of a nation's economic health and governments often set policies that encourage the success of businesses. On the other hand, governments also regulate businesses in order to stem activity that is adverse to the public interest. Indeed, the majority of businesses exist to make a profit. People, in general, find the promise and realization of profit as an incentive to work harder and find ways to improve a business'efficiency. In a few instances, however, some businesses mainly exist to advance a cause in society. In a world of scarce resources, people need to find a means of survival and that often means getting a job. Governments that adopt a capitalist model use the incentive of profits to ensure that people work hard and develop entrepreneurial mindsets. In socialistic governments, where the means of production is owned or shared by the state, people lose the incentive to work at their optimum levels since they cannot realize profits. While a capitalistic model improves the efficiency of businesses, there also exists the downside of the majority of people working long hours to make low wages while a minority of owners reap the benefit. Such regulations, such as minimum wage, help protect lower-end workers in a capitalistic economy where the promise of profits pave the way for exploitation of humans. A few businesses, however, exist for purposes other than making a profit. Entrepreneurs, who already have made their money through for-profit businesses, hope to leave a positive mark in the world and start businesses for the sake of improving humanity. These type of businesses exist for an array of purposes, including providing poor people with free legal advice, advocating for improved environmental health and educating others about methods of sustainable development. These businesses do not seek to make a profit but rather make sure they have just enough to fulfill their raison d'etre. Indeed, the existence of for-profit businesses help drive the economy by putting people to work, encouraging new innovations and increasing efficiency. They provide essential services and goods to the public and are able to improve their means of doing business through the incentive of making profits. However, the world becomes a frigid place when the only businesses that exist seek to make a profit. A human element is added to a capitalistic world when non-profit businesses can co-exist. They help provide services that bring awareness to those who are left behind in a profit-minded world, including the very poor, disabled and the environment in general.

The Study of History as an Art

The study of history is more an art than a science. Describe a specific situation in which the study of history might be more of a science than an art. Discuss what you think determines whether the study of history is more an art or a science. It is often said that those who fail to learn from the mistakes of history are doomed to repeat them. However, what is considered a "mistake" depends on the point of view of the historian or the source of the history lesson. Indeed, the study of history is more an art than a science. Unlike math or science, there is no one correct interpretation of history. The historian, as objective as he aims to be, will always bring in his biases and background into the analysis. Since each person is unique with varying experiences and education, the product of a historical study will differ from historian. Granted, not everything in the study of history is subjective. All historians, for example, agree on the dates of certain events. No one will contest the fact that Columbus sailed the ocean blue in 1492 or that World War II occurred between 1939 and 1945. Sometimes finding out when a historical event could be considered more as a science since there exist black and white techniques, such as carbon dating, that help facilitate that goal. However, the critical analysis of such events---for instance, why certain events occurred at the time that they did--is more of an art. Each historian has come from a unique place, having studied various interpretations in history and experienced different training in schools. What he chooses to include or exclude in his analysis is a matter of personal preference and bias. For example, a liberal-thinking historian might come up with a whole different take on matters related to 9-11 from one that is more conservative. Even two historians who agree on political and philosophical matters will each offer something different for minds to absorb. Like a good artist, an accomplished historian is able to demonstrate superb technical techniques. This includes an ability to effectively communicate his thoughts in the written word and absorb analysis from the different works used for research. The development of these skills is a work of art in itself since this type of critical thinking involves creativity and interpretation. One who approaches history from an entirely "scientific" point of view will not be able to inspire new thought and captivate his audience.

Politicians Achieving Goals by Ignoring the Public's Needs

Politicians often achieve their goals by ignoring the needs of their constituents. Describe a specific situation in which a politician might achieve a political goal without ignoring the needs of the constituents. Discuss what you think determines whether or not politicians can achieve political goals by ignoring the needs of constituents. Staying in power as a politician involves playing a game of strategy. He has to appeal to constituents by addressing (or appearing to address) their needs and at the same time, gain the support of powerful entities that help fund his campaigns. Indeed, money talks and politicians will ultimately answer to those who financially support his goals to maintain power. In the process, the politician is unable to effectively address the needs of his constituents. Running for office in the United States and in most nations requires gaining a lot of financial support. To get elected, one must be able to afford the propaganda, whether they be television ads, internet websites, and newspaper editorials, to muster the majority of votes. While some politicians on a local or smaller level may successfully get into office using their own financial resources, most need to launch a major campaign initiative. This often involves attracting support of moneyed entities, such as mega-corporations and extremely wealthy individuals. These donors, of course, expect to curry favor with the politician in some manner. Politicians are, indeed, beholden to the wishes of their donors while publicly proclaiming to serve the public good. In the past few years, we witnessed Wall Street banks and mega unions-auto industries being bailed out by the government although they have taken business risks adverse to the public interest. These powerful entities enjoy lax rules and regulations that allow them to act in a feckless manner knowing that the politicians they have put into office will answer to them. In the process, the politician´s constituents---made up of Regular Joes---suffer in the process through unemployment, unfavorable interest rates, etc. At times, a politician might achieve his political goal of maintain power without ignoring the needs of the constituents. For example, when a national or high profile disaster strikes a region, the politician cannot simply ignore the crisis. He has no choice but to make decisions that help rescue victims and get them back on their feet. This can be done by, for instance, supporting pro-FEMA legislation, etc. By addressing the needs of the people in a national crisis, the politician gains popularity and has a greater chance of staying in office come election time. Granted, some of the laws in the United States are designed to keep politicians from being "too beholden" to moneyed entities and individuals. For example, a whole range of campaign finance laws exist to limit the amount of funding that these entities and individuals can donate to politicians. However, these politicians and lawyers often find ways to circumvent the laws and get themselves into a situation where they still answer to the needs of their donors. Indeed, money and special interests will most likely continue to play growing role in politicians' decisions and the workings of the government as a whole.

Do Democracies reward Mediocrity?

It is in the nature of democracy to reward mediocrity. Describe a specific situation in which a democracy might not reward mediocrity. Discuss what you think determines when democracy rewards mediocrity. By definition, a democracy is government "of the people, by the people and for the people." Essentially, the citizens of a nation have the opportunity to be involved in the decision-making processes. While the people do not play a direct part in running the government, they have the right to elect their leaders to represent their interests. In a democracy, these leaders are voted into office by majority vote. This system rewards mediocrity in the sense that interests of the majority comprise of "regular" people. Indeed, the interests of the majority do not necessarily reflect what is best for a nation. When voting, most people do not critically analyze the issues nor do they closely study the candidates vying for office. In fact, these candidates know they can sway people one way or the other by paying millions to run negative campaign ads on television. Unfortunately, most people vote based on superficial matters, such as whether they feel they can share a beer with the candidate or whether the candidate professes the same religious beliefs. The system of majority vote, thus, rewards those who think like the masses and this rewards mediocrity. The masses will also support policies that do not necessarily encourage enterprise and economic independence. For example, politicians had been somewhat cautious regarding the issue of benefits. For years, especially in states such as California, the government has been enabling people with welfare payments and supporting policies that encourage the lower classes to choose state checks over working. Part of this cycle had continued because politicians relied on certain segments of the population to get re-elected and maintain power. The situation is slightly different now that most people are cognizant of the government's economic bind and rising debt levels, and are, therefore, more supportive of state cuts on all programs. In other senses, democracy does not necessarily reward mediocrity. While majority rules during election time, the intelligent, enterprising citizens still have a leg-up over the rest. They are able to use their brains and resources to lobby for changes they want in their favor. They, indeed, have more access than "regular" people to leaders in office. They know how to navigate through the political system to fill up their coffers even more. The masses may vote for their representatives but these leaders most often still answer to those who rise above mediocrity.

Can a Democratic Government keep Secrets from the People?

A democratic government is never justified in keeping secrets from the voting public. Describe a specific situation in which the government of a democracy might be justified in keeping a secret from the voters. Discuss what you think determines whether or not a democratic government is justified in keeping secrets from the voters. Democracy is sometimes summed up as a phrase coined by Abraham Lincoln---that is, it is government of the people, by the people and for the people. Citizens to not have direct control over the laws and processes of government; however, they vote for leaders who they think will best represent their needs in the public sphere. In order for a democratic system to work, leaders need to maintain a transparent system where the people are aware of the hard-pressing issues, voting records, etc. Of course, there exists instances where keeping certain secrets from the public is necessary to avoid harm to the people and government.  In order to vote responsibly, citizens need to have access to information from a free press. The ubiquity of news information via the internet has helped people become more aware of the workings of government and how their representatives are performing. This transparency of information has, indeed, helped leaders become more accountable to the people. Their dissatisfaction with outcomes in government is likely to reach the ears of the decisionmakers who can then decide how to proceed in the future. Moreover, citizens can use information from the government to make better decisions for themselves and their families.  At times, the government may be justified in keeping information from the public. For instance, national security concerns allow leaders to label information as "classified." Other times, information may be kept secret to help maintain relationships in other nations. In the Wikileaks scandal, released diplomatic cables may have strained political relations and perhaps even placed lives in danger. Indeed, determining whether a government can keep  matters from the public is a subjective issue. While the functioning of a true democracy depends on an open society, there are certain instances where the government may hide information from the public. It has many interests to take into account, including maintaining order in society and protecting people from terrorist acts. Sometimes the release of information could pose serious obstacles in achieving these goals. It is important, however, for advocacy groups, such as those supporting Wikileaks, to keep government in check and make sure that it does not fail to release information that the general public could use for their own good rather than harm.

Does the End rarely Justify the Means in Politics?

In politics, the end rarely justifies the means. Describe a specific situation in which a political end might justify using questionable means for accomplishing that end. Discuss what you think determines whether or not a political end justifies the means for accomplishing that end. When one believes that the end justifies the means, he will take any action to the desired result. Morality is not a factor in that the means taken could be good or bad. Politics is, in a sense, a game where players have the desire to gain and hold onto power. Without certain checks and balances, most of these players would probably maintain power using any means. In a true democracy, the end rarely justifies the means because the government places high value on transparency, freedom and human rights. Most democratic governments feel it is their responsibility to protect the life and liberty of their people. Inevitably, nations face threats from all directions--both domestic and external. In a post 9-11 era, the United States has focused its efforts on the fight against terrorism. The government wanted to avoid another terrorist act in the homeland and has spent a huge amount of its budget on several measures--for example, from fighting wars on two fronts to enacting costly changes in airport screening procedures. The means of avoiding another 9-11, indeed, has caused much controversy. Thousands of civilians in both Iraq and Afghanistan have died from drones and other attacks used to chase down terrorist suspects. People have felt their personal liberties have been compromised in more detailed screening procedures. Some have charged that the government is using 9-11 as a poor excuse to have more control over citizens per se and usher in more of a big brother-type era. Even in times of war and tighter control of national security, government should take steps to maintain the integrity of its democracy. This means being accountable to their people and making sure their means are in line with the values they seek to propagate inside and outside of the country. There are arguably situations in politics where the end might justify questionable means for accomplishing that end. For example, the capture of certain key terrorist suspects provides governments with the opportunity to get ahead of the enemy and foil plots. Mere questioning will not help an interrogator garner useful information. They must use proven techniques that coerce suspects to give up the truth. Of course, the use of torture by the US has been viewed by some as antithetical to democratic values and not helpful to the war effort in the long run. Others, though, see these suspects as having given up any right to dignity and any means of extracting information could be justified upon discovering terrorist plots. When certain countries seek to promote their democratic values worldwide, they should believe that the ends rarely justifies the means. Responding to domestic and external threats, however, makes it really easy for these countries to take actions not in line with their supposed value of freedom. Indeed, advocacy groups championing liberty and human rights play key roles in ramping up pressure for democratic governments to be accountable for the means they take to achieve a desired result.

Can only a fully Informed Electorate Vote Responsibly?

Only a fully informed electorate can vote responsibly. Describe a specific situation in which a less than fully informed electorate might vote responsibly. Discuss what you think determines how much information is enough to allow for responsible voting. One of the cornerstones of democracy is the freedom of citizens to access information. In particular, a free press and internet allows the people to learn about their representatives and workings of the government. In contrast, closed societies highly regulate information in the attempt to prevent growth of opposition movements and maintain the status quo. Democracies trust that people who have broad information will make electoral decisions that make sense for the country. However, the reality is that not all voters go to the poll after having researched the issues and candidates; many vote on the basis of superficial factors, such as appearance and name recognition. Thus, only a fully informed electorate can vote responsibly. In democracies, the people do not have a direct say in policy/government decisions. They must elect representatives who make these decisions for them. During election time, an engaged citizen will take time to learn about the candidates via newspaper, internet and other conduits of information. He will evaluate whether the candidate's position and past record are align with the country's and his own interests. This type of citizen goes to the poll well-informed and can make responsible choices. However, most people vote without knowing much about the candidates and issues; they have, perhaps, been influenced by soundbites or told by a friend about what decision to make. He really does not have an idea which candidate or issue would best represent his needs. It is unrealistic, however, to obligate the electorate to do their due diligence before going to the polls. After all, people come from different educational and family backgrounds. Some may be used to reading the paper on a daily basis and others are barely literate. All these citizens, however, have a right to vote and be represented. Just the act of going to the polls on election date might be thought of as being a good citizen per se and therefore, voting responsibly. In an ideal world, citizens of democracies would be well-informed about the issues and candidates at the voting polls. By taking time to investigate politics from reliable sources and different points of views, citizens would arguably be less susceptible to campaign spending and special interests. On the other hand, those who are not informed are more likely to make decisions based on a 1-minute ad seen on TV. Indeed, the educational system could play a big role in training students to analyze information and value the importance of being a fully-informed citizen.

Adaptation as Necessary for Success in Business

Adaptation is necessary for success in business. Describe a specific situation in which adaptation might not be necessary for success in business. Discuss what you think determines when adaptation is necessary for success in business and when it is not. As the common saying goes, the only certain thing in the world is "change." In order for a species to survive, it must be adaptable to their environments which inevitably change through time. The same can be said for someone running a business; that is, he must be able to embrace and work with changes in different realms to achieve success. Business people who are adamant in maintaining the same model despite an evolving environment will not run its organization at its optimal potential. Of course, it makes sense to stick to a business plan that has worked in the past. However, the inability to be informed and adapt to changes will prove to be a liability. , The best business people are able to keenly observe their environment and nudge their organizations in a way that adapts to certain changes. There exists an array of factors that may compel businesses to adapt, including, among others, shift in demographics, updated technology, financial economic downturns or upturns, etc. Business especially have to attract their clientele, as well as know the products of the competition. Indeed, several types of businesses, including big chains, have failed due to resistance to change. For example, the once-ubiquitous 50s style restaurant, Denny's, went out of business for many reasons. First, it seemed to have not altered its marketing strategies by maintaining outdated appearance and advertising. It also seemed to not have caught on with growing concerns about lifestyle diseases by not offering healthier options and emphasizing its big, greasy offerings. On the other hand, fast food restaurants, such as McDonald's and Burger King, maintained their high share of the market by constantly updating marketing techniques and also publicizing healthier options. Some businesses will experience success even though they have not adapted to a changing world. This is especially true in the case of businesses that have no competition or have a monopoly over the market share. The lack of competition allows business to continue with the status quo. Adapting to a changing environment around them would not be a cost effective because either way, they will still have clientele who need their services. Whenever there exists competition, businesses should be compelled to adapt to changes in the environment. People will patronize businesses that address their needs and are reflective of the times. They want to feel hip and are willing to shell lots of money on "fashionable" products. If businesses want to flourish, they must show people that they can provide not only for the practical needs of people but their desire to be associated with products that are in sync with the times and cultural sentiments.

Leaders following the Advice of those around them

The wisest leaders follow the advice of those around them. Describe a specific situation in which a wise leader might not follow the advice of others. Discuss what you think determines when it is wise for a leader to follow the advice of others and when it is unwise. During the presidential election season, voters judge candidates based on different criteria. Some make decisions due to shallow reasons, such as whether a candidate "appears" trustworthy. Others vote purely on partisan lines or what candidates have proposed in one-minute ads. A few voters attempt to not just analyze in detail candidates' positions but also the records of potential cabinet members. These voters realize that advice from a president's cabinet plays a significant role in the decision-making process. A president cannot be an expert in all areas of governance and often applies the expertise of cabinet members. Indeed, wise leaders will sometimes follow advice of those around them--especially those who have proven to be reliable sources. At the same time, a wise leader is able to trust his own judgment in certain scenarios. All humans are fallible and even the smartest leaders amongst us need advice in going about their affairs. The best leaders are discerning when it comes to seeking advice and will not defer to just any source; they have an innate sense of whom to trust and who can best complement their style of leadership. Indeed, some leaders in history have allowed their advisors to run the show, effectively diminishing their own sense of agency in the process. The best leaders are still able to take lead even while seeking advice from those who may have more expertise on a certain subject. Good leaders also maintain a sense of independence despite having advisors. They are not afraid to ignore the advice of others and go forward with their own judgment based on personal values. It is essential that leaders are able to emotionally distance themselves from popular sentiment and make decisions on a rational basis. Those unable to do so allow destructive forces, such as mob mentality or witch hunts, to occur on their watch. Indeed, it is important for leaders to be humble enough to listen to the advice of reliable and trustworthy people. He or she, however, should be able to analytically think about the advice around them before making a decision. If a leader takes the advice of those around him in a haphazard manner or without forethought, he is not truly taking leadership---instead, he is a mere "follower" of those he defers to.

Responsibility of the Press to Report all of the News

In a democracy, the press has not only the right but the responsibility to report all of the news. Describe a specific situation in which a free press would be justified in not reporting something. Discuss what you think determines when something should be reported by the press. In a democracy, the people vote for leaders to represent their needs in the political arena. These popularly-elected leaders are, therefore, accountable to their constituents and must be in touch with the issues that affect their lives. Indeed, the press plays a huge role in developing responsive leaders by both reporting on actions made by government and shedding light into what matters to regular people. The wide access to the internet and unlimited amount of news sources has arguably contributed to a more well-informed citizenry and therefore, more robust democracy. In general, the press has the responsibility to report all the news so that citizens of a democracy can make the best decisions for themselves; however, there are instances when the dangerous consequences of reporting certain news outweighs citizens' rights to be informed. When citizens have broad-base access to news sources, they are more likely to make decisions that support their best interests. For instance, news about their representatives' actions in government allow them to decide whether or not to support their candidacy come election time. Also, news regarding the nation's economic health help guide citizens in making smart personal financial decisions. Of course, for citizens to benefit from the ubiquity of news reporting, they must be educated and able to analyze whether the news is reliable and "newsworthy." Indeed, citizens who do not take the time to inform themselves about current events and other information lose out in their right to fully participate in a democracy by, for example, not keeping leaders accountable. In this sense, reporters have the responsibility to present news objectively and in a way that citizens can see all sides of an issue. There are certain instances when a free press can be justified in not reporting something. For instance, the country might be conducting activity overseas, including wars and espionage. When the press "outs" confidential sources (such as CIA agents), it could place the lives of these people in danger. Knowledge of certain actions overseas could also anger opposition groups and place a country's programs in jeopardy or ruin key diplomatic relationships. The Wikileaks scandals 2010 involved the New York Times selectively printing State Department leaks, as opposed to allowing all information to be released. This is because the executives understand the broad ramifications of their reporting and do not want to be responsible for endangering people's lives. The press, indeed, serves as another "check and balance" in a democratic system. The leaders of the country, including the executive and legislative branches, are kept on their toes by the press. In order for this system to function, the press must be completely free and not be hindered by threats such as jail time or death for unfavorable reporting. The press not only keeps leaders accountable; it also provides the people with information and resources that could help them make better personal decisions for themselves and the community as a whole.

Giving People as much Freedom as Possible

Society is best served by giving people as much freedom as possible. Describe a specific situation in which society might not be best served by giving people as much freedom as possible. Discuss what you think determines when society is best served by giving people as much freedom as possible. The year 2011 was marked by the mass protests and toppling of authoritarian leaders in the Middle East, commonly referred to as the Arab Spring. People belonging to diverse backgrounds rallied together to demonstrate against the repressive policies of leaders and lack of freedom in society. They demanded a more representative government that was accountable to the needs of the people and did not just serve the wishes of their family members and cronies. The people saw democratic institutions as a passageway for freedom and increased opportunities to thrive in society. Indeed, giving citizens freedom benefits society in profound ways, including the development of free, creative thinking and subsequent thriving of the economic sphere. When people experience broad-based freedoms, they are not afraid to express themselves. They do not fear for their family's safety when speaking about their true feelings and pursuing entrepreneurial ventures. Society gives them the space to reach their potential by exploring their interests through pursuing educational and professional interests. This freedom of thought allows societies to develop talent amongst the people and stimulate the economy through the vast amount of innovations and job creating opportunities. Those living in a repressive society must be sure that their feelings and ventures are in align with those of the government or those acting in power. Thus, the people do not feel free to run with new ideas that may threaten the status quo. In effect, their creativity is stifled and they also feel less empowered to improve their situations in life. By not belonging to the right family or political association, a talented individual cannot be nurtured to the full extent and is cut off from opportunities to reach his potential. For a society to work, however, freedom must be limited to an extent. The imposition of rules necessarily entails curtailing freedoms of individuals. Even a person in a free society cannot go about his day doing whatever he wants to with impunity. For example, if he drives recklessly, he will be fined by the police or put in jail. Working societies must establish rules that protect the welfare of the people, although this limit individual freedom. Indeed, a society allowing the total freedom will find itself in a state of anarchy. Societies that value basic, broad-based freedoms for their people must face a balancing act. That is, they must be able to maintain order and at the same time, still ensure that people experience freedom. A democracy is arguably the best government for accomplishing this goal. When representatives are popularly elected, they remain accountable to the people and help preserve their sense of freedom. An authoritarian leader, on the other hand, will be a poor judge for what constitutes freedom because he is , above all, interested in maintaining his hold of power at the expense of the welfare of the people.

Only the Educated take Advantage of New Technologies?

Only educated people can take advantage of new technologies. Describe a specific situation in which uneducated people might be able to take advantage of a new technology. Discuss what you think determines whether only educated people can take advantage of new technologies. The 21st century has so far been marked by rapid expansion of technologies that are accessible to a diversity of people. Innovations in telecommunications, including the cell phone and internet, are used more and more by rich and poor alike, in effect, creating a world with people that are more informed and connected to each other. Education, indeed, helps people take full advantage of these technologies in order to provoke social and political changes (for the better or worse) in society. However, even uneducated people have been able to benefit from technologies that are especially designed to be user friendly and accessible to the wider population. Education allows people to use new technology in a way that furthers change beyond their households. For example, educated people apply their higher thinking skills to enlighten others about a pressing societal issue through blogs and others means of communication via the internet. In fact, the Arab Spring movement became so powerful due to the efforts of (mostly) educated people who wanted to disrupt authoritarian rule in their societies. People of all economic backgrounds participated in the movement but the change agents were those who were informed about the politics and history of the nations in the first place. Not all educated people have a social conscience and wish to provoke positive change. In fact, some use new technology to promote their nefarious agendas. For instance, a brilliant computer scientist can plan ways to interfere with a nation's electrical grid and disrupt the lives of millions of people. A nuclear physicist can contribute to design of bombs that cause undue suffering amongst an innocent civilian population. Indeed, an educated person without a sound sense of ethics could wreak havoc in society and cause more harm than good. However, one does not need to be educated to benefit from new technologies. Increasingly, technologies, especially those in telecommunication, are more accessible to people who have not gone to the university to develop higher thinking skills. Uneducated people on a regular basis, for example, use the internet to handle day to day tasks, such as emailing and managing personal finances. While the internet was once limited to programmers and such specialist, it is now so user friendly that even a new reader, such as a six-year old, can navigate his way through it with ease. Educated and non-educated alike have been able to take advantage of new technologies. However, one's level of education is usually correlated with the extent of the use and impact on society. Education, in general, tends to increase one's vision and perception of what she can do to impact the world around her. Of course, there are special cases of individuals who did not have the opportunity to receive an education but whose intelligence allowed them to break through barriers and creatively use technology. Indeed, while one's level of education is not a sine qua non for taking advantage of technology to provoke change, it helps increase the chances for applying innovative thinking to real life problems.

Successful Politicians often Resemble Ordinary Citizens

In a democracy, the successful politician resembles the ordinary citizen. Describe a specific situation in which the successful politician in a democracy does not resemble the ordinary citizen. Discuss what you think determines whether or not the successful politician resembles the ordinary citizen. In the run up to the presidential primaries of early 2012, candidates are attempting to garner the votes of ordinary Americans--i.e., those who make up the majority of the electorate. Politicians must play a game where they show that they are competent and have the skills to lead the nation but at the same time, are in touch with the lives of middle class people. The latter often requires the politician to adopt an image of a regular Joe Schmoe. This politician, in reality, is usually nothing close to Joe Schmoe in his privileged upbringing and pedigreed education and experiences. However, claiming victory in the polls often involves convincing the electorate that he is "just like them" and will, therefore, represent their interests in office. In an era of a widening income gap, the middle class are increasingly feeling isolated and disillusioned about their future prospects. Movements such as Occupy Wall Street have reflected frustrations of how regular Americans feel government is catering to the needs of the rich at the expense of the poor. Furthermore, they feel that their representatives do not understand their daily struggles and instead prioritize corporate interests and cater to the lobbying sector. Candidates for political office are cognizant of the electorate wanting representatives outside of Washington and therefore, attempt to market themselves as "regular people." We have "soccer moms" like Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachman convincing people that they are in touch with normal American lives. George W. Bush, although coming from an elite background, successfully created an image of himself as a Southern cowboy. Almost all candidates try to distance themselves from the insiders of Washington and attempt to show that they are more in line with Main Street in their belief system and voting record. Most political candidates are nothing like the ordinary citizens they try to resemble. While many may come from normal backgrounds and middle-class families, they have often attained an education and life experiences that no longer qualifies them as "normal Americans." To get into the spotlight in the first place, these candidates have set themselves apart in their ability to stand out among a sea of people. They have had to establish their credentials and prove some sort of competence before entering a race. The suave politician, however, can still relate to normal people while having a solid background of experience and education. Indeed, the successful politician will have extraordinary ("un-regular") experiences but at the same time, has an appeal such that normal people could share a beer with him. Being a politician entails a complicated juggle of responsibilities. Not only must he demonstrate competence and sound judgment; he must also cater to the electorate and show that they are in touch with their needs. Oftentimes, feigning an image of a regular Joe Schmoe is a requisite to maintain a sort of trust and confidence with the people.

Financial Decisions are made because of Greed

Most financial decisions are made because of greed. Describe a specific situation in which a financial decision might not be made because of greed. Discuss what you think determines when greed is the basis for making a financial decision. In a world of scarce resources, people need to look out for themselves in order to survive. They want to find remunerative work in order to support their families. They guard their resources in a way that makes best sense for their economic situation. The process of making financial decisions in the interest of survival cannot be described as "greedy" per se--or the excessive desire to possess wealth with the intention to keep it oneself. It is more of a selfish need--or putting one's own self interest above others. Since everyone is competing to survive, people naturally make their financial decisions due to selfish motives. Economic theory posits that humans have unlimited wants. Most people, indeed, are not satisfied with their economic situation and feel that they could have more resources in order to accumulate belongings. Even the richest people in the world desire to become even richer. Once an investor makes big earnings, he usually is not satisfied with retiring to a deserted island and living stress free; no, he uses his big earnings to make even bigger earnings in the future. Indeed, only those who have been "enlightened" about the impermanence of money and things can be satisfied with their present financial situation. For the rest of us, there always exists the nagging feeling of wanting more. Thus, financial decisions are often made according to one's desires to become wealthier. Of course, there are situations when financial decisions are not motivated by selfish desires. For instance, there are wealthy people who donate their money anonymously--without the need for public recognition. Then again, they might do this to make themselves feel better or feel less guilty about accumulating so much money; this could be construed as selfish to an extent. However, the intent to help others usually overrides the "selfish" desires. Furthermore, many people also make financial decisions that benefit their kin rather than themselves. However, these types of decisions are selfish in a sense that humans are wired to take of their families and take steps to ensure the survival of their blood. Indeed, decisions regarding money are made with the desire to ensure one's own survival. After having met their basic needs, people usually want to improve their economic lot and accumulate as many items as possible. These types of decisions are considered "selfish" in that people look out for themselves before others. However, by acting in self interest, humans as a race are more likely to survive. This is so long that these selfish decisions do not cause harm to others nor decrease the chances of other peoples' survival.

Technology often Creates New Problems

Technology solves many problems, but in the process often creates new problems. Describe a specific situation in which a technology might not create a new problem. Discuss what you think determines when a technology's benefits outweigh its potential problems. The surge of technological innovations in the 21st century has drastically changed life as we know it--at least in the developed world. For instance, most people rely on electronic means of communicating with others and getting information. In the past, one's sources of news was quite limited and reaching others in the opposite end of the world took several months, as opposed to the click of the button. While technology has simplified life to an extent, it also creates new problems. For example, people can misappropriate technology to further their evil intent. More commonly, technology has caused people to become lazy and not be able to do basic things requiring common sense. As the saying goes, there are two sides of one coin and technology is no exception to the rule. While technology can help make our lives efficient, it can also be misused in a way that will harm people. For instance, the internet has helped educate people and become more informed about the world around them. On the other hand, it has also spread information that allows people to commit evil --such as creating a homemade bomb. Governments have also used technology in damaging ways, including dropping bombs on civilian populations. The same base material used to create nuclear bombs can also be used in a relatively benign manner, including providing a source of energy for millions of households. Indeed, most technology can be used to both solve problems and create harm. Technology has helped make people more efficient by allowing them to specialize in their trade. Long gone are the days when each family would plant their own food, make their own clothes, construct their house, etc. People have now delegated these tasks to companies and technology has played a big part in making this possible. On the other side of the coin, the availability of technology has created a generation of lazy people that cannot do any sort of manual labor---even to the point of having to drive their car to a place that is only 10 minutes away walking distance. Many people cannot even prepare their own meals or sew a button--tasks considered basic in the past and essential to survival. Of course, technology need not create problems only if people are aware of its limitations and do not depend on it for survival. When allowing technology to enter the marketplace, creators and perhaps policy makers (in the case of something dangerous on its face) should think deeply about how to best use technology in a peaceful and non-destructive manner. Sometimes technology can do more harm than good (e.g., the nuclear bomb) and everything should be done to keep it from being distributed. Other types of technology's benefits may outweigh the potential harmful effects. Granted, it is difficult to control how technology is used since there exists people who cannot be stopped from their determination to do harm in the world. Given this, it is important that governments provide the correct incentives to make sure that people use technology in the most appropriate way possible. This may include regulating technology and punishing people who do not use it correctly. Schools should also take responsibility of training young people how to use technology and also not let it take over their lives. Indeed, people should never take the presence of technology for granted and be fully aware of how they are using it in their lives--so not to create additional harm.

Ignoring the Flawsof National Leaders

People tend to ignore the flaws of national leaders. Describe a specific situation in which people might not ignore the flaws of national leaders. Discuss what you think determines when people might ignore the flaws of national leaders and when they might not. With the exception of the 2008 presidential election, the US populace has been generally apathetic with regard to politics. While most people can identify the US president, the majority cannot name influential national leaders, including members of the Cabinet, the legislature and the Supreme Court. Many cannot comprehend the relevance of political decisions in their everyday lives and therefore have no interest in the actions of national leaders. Indeed, people tend to ignore flaws exhibited by these leaders due to their political apathy. However, in times of election, people tend to be aware of flaws of national leaders due to ubiquitous campaign advertising and politically-charged environment overall. In general, people tend to ignore the flaws of national leaders. This is especially true among a populace that cannot make connections between decisions made on the national level and their own lives. The political process remains a mystery to most Americans and many do not take time to learn how national government decisions affect life on the local level. Many, therefore, choose not to investigate and vote for their national leaders. Flaws, including inconsistency in their voting records, are of little interest to most Americans. However, when the flaws make for salacious news (e.g., Monica Lewinsky scandal), many Americans are willing to follow all details. People, by nature, are drawn to prurient stories--especially when they live rather mundane lives. Furthermore, flaws that reveal deep hypocrisy attract widespread attention. For example, a Republican touting "family values" inevitably gets caught in the national spotlight when accused of having an extra-marital affair or engaging in same-sex relations. (Granted, Democrats also find their careers destroyed after such headlines but an exposition of hypocrisy tends to magnify the gravity of the situation). People also focus on flaws of national leaders especially during election time. They are bombarded with negative campaign ads left and right (no pun intended); it is difficult to not be aware of candidates' weaknesses and sometimes tempting to follow up on those types of stories. Indeed, this age of Internet and unlimited information provides citizens the means to know more about their leaders and judge their performance from several perspectives. In general, regular Joes could care less about flaws exhibited by their national leaders. They do not want to bother with the seemingly esoteric and dirty world of politics when they have their own serious problems to tackle. However, flaws involving sex will always catch people's attention. The ubiquity of negative campaign ads may also spark a lot of interest in a leader. Other than these exceptions, the people in general will not pay heed to weaknesses of their leaders.

Popular Entertainment is Rarel Excellent Entertainment

Popular entertainment is rarely excellent entertainment. Describe a specific situation in which entertainment might be both "popular" and "excellent." Discuss what you think determines when entertainment can be both "popular" and "excellent." In the 21st century, popular entertainment has been disparaged as empty and lacking in substance. Popular entertainment runs the gamut from pop music and blockbuster movies to pornographic books and celebrity-focused magazines. They are considered "popular" due to high consumption by a large number of citizens. In order to generate high revenue, forms of popular entertainment must cater to the lowest denominator of soceity--that is, by churning out products that do not require people to think but rather satisfy the senses in a superficial manner. Indeed, popular entertainment usually cannot be labeled as "excellent" since it lacks originality. Pop music, for instance, does not stray from the norm or what has been proven popular in the past; this can be seen in the beats and themes that get recycled from one hit to another. "Artists" churning out pop music have the goal to maximize revenues and therefore, use material or a vision that has already proven to work in the past. The same lack of originality can be observed in other forms of popular entertainment, including blockbuster movies where directors cater to the prurient curiosity of viewers for sales purposes and not for the sake of art per se. Popular entertainment, furthermore, capitalizes on the fact that most people do not want to be challenged intellectually when doing something they consider "fun". The regular citizen does not, for example, want to pay $10 for her movie ticket if she has to remain alert in order to follow the plot of a story. She certainly is not interested in analyzing the deeper message of the movie, if any. Those producing popular entertainment, as talented as they might be, know what regular folks want and do not want---therefore, sticking to material that does not stimulate the mind on a higher level. Generalizing all forms of popular entertainment as not "excellent" may not be fair to some degree. After all, what is considered "excellent" is subjective. Perhaps something is "excellent" if it allows stressed-out people to have an outlet to relax and let go of the trivial matters of life. Maybe it is "excellent" if it generates energy in people and inspires them to do good work in the world. Some forms of popular entertainment, furthermore, attracts "regular" people but at the same time, can be appreciated by a more intellectual audience looking for a deeper meeting. It might include aspects that specifically target popular interests but still be well thought out and meaningful as a whole. Popular entertainment will always exist partly because humans, in nature, want to feel like they belong and be involved in what is "in." On the other hand, art that challenges perceptions and engages higher thinking skills usually will not have a large market. This is due to the fact that most people do not want to have to think when they are being entertained. Although most popular entertainment may not be considered as quality products, some may be considered as true works of art that can be universally appreciated by all people.

Interfering with the Internal Politics of another Country

No country should interfere with the internal politics of another country. Describe a specific situation in which a country might justifiably interfere with the internal politics of another country. Discuss what you think determines whether or not a country should interfere with another country's internal politics. In the decade since 9-11, the United States has been commonly criticized for its interventionist policies. That is, the government has extensively interfered with the internal politics of other nations in the name of safeguarding its national security and dominance in the world. While the US received extensive global support immediately following 9-11, the seemingly never-ending war in Iraq, the accompanying thousands of civilian and military deaths, and the debunking of the WMD pretext caused those in the international and national arena to question US interventionism. In order for countries to mitigate their chances for being involved in dangerous global disputes, countries should avoid interfering with the internal politics of othe countries. Indeed, the quest of global dominance often necessitates countries, such as the US, to get involved in the domestic matters in other countries. In order to maintain its hegemony in the world, the US government often interferes in the affairs of other nations. For example, it may attempt to manipulate another economy through sanctions in order to protect the dollar and secure its economic status. It may influence voting results by funding groups advocating for democracy. It may also fund rulers as a way to ensure their politics are in line with US interests. Most of these influences are accomplished through diplomatic means; other times, the US uses its military prowess to achieve goals. While interfering with other nations may increase one's power, Anti-American groups and activities have multiplied due to US hegemony. While US claims to be protecting US citizens and its global status, its interventionist policies have ironically made more Americans unsafe in the homeland and abroad. There are, however, arguably good reasons for countries to intervene in another country's internal politics. For example, the US entered Bosnia in the mid-90s on a humanitarian mission---as a way to prevent Kosovans from being killed in mass numbers. Granted, the US always has extra motives when being involved in a humanitarian mission. After all, the government chose not to rescue Rwandans in what was probably the worst case of genocide in the 20th century; simply put, the US did not have anything else to gain by involving its military in the region. Notwithstanding ulterior motives, humanitarian interventions do save many lives and that fact, in itself, may justify a nation's interference in another's domestic politics. The US, indeed, has probably boost its own status in the global arena by being heavily involved in other countries' affairs. It is still holding on to its global dominance, avoiding further major terrorist activities on the homeland, and having foreign leaders supporting its goals. However, this grand-scale intervention has come at a price. That is, the Anti-American movement has been growing at a rapid pace and people around the world have come to resent the fact that their national affairs are directly affected by US will. Indeed, in order to mitigate chances of dangerous global disputes, nations should avoid meddling with the internal affairs of other nations.

Advertising Promotes Conformity

Although it claims to promote individuality, most advertising promotes conformity. Describe a specific situation in which advertising might promote individuality rather than conformity. Discuss what you think determines whether advertising promotes individuality or conformity. In today's world, it is difficult to go throughout one's day without being bombarded by advertisements. One usually associates ads with the bothersome television, radio and internet pop ups. However, companies' ability to market their items reach deeper than that. Women touting their monogrammed Louis Vuitton bags and teenagers wearing labeled Abercrombie t-shirts are few examples of company advertising without paying for print space in a magazine. Indeed, advertising executives have perfected the art of selling their items and specifically tap into people's innate need to feel accepted and fit in society. Especially in a consumerist society, such as the United States, people literally live their lives with the desire to conform. Everyone wants to achieve the so-called American dream where they can choose to work hard and reap the (monetary) rewards. Advertisers, no doubt, feed into this need for Americans to show that they have "made it" and can afford a lifestyle experienced by movie stars and top executives. Thus, middle class women will spend an inordinate amount of their paycheck to buy those Chanel sunglasses sported by Paris Hilton on US Weekly and their husbands will work day in and day out to purchase that sports car that will make them feel alive again--as exemplified by the sleek 30-second ads on television. Indeed, the ubiquity of advertisements has tricked people into believing that they cannot be worthy unless owning their "coveted" items. Advertisement executives, of course, do not say that their potential customers would be conforming with society by buying their product. They twist it in a way to make them feel like they would be setting themselves apart from the rest of society; for example, by buying that diamond necklace, a woman will be distinguished from the rest and be more beautiful. The reality is that people who buy products in an attempt to be above the rest are conforming to society's standards of what makes people fit in and look successful. Advertisers have an interest in making a profit and selling more items, so they take advantage of people's need to feel better about themselves. Occasionally, companies sell products that actually benefit people and help them to "find themselves" and tap into their inner creativity. This may be in the form of instructional books or motivational speaking series. However, the need to reach as many people as possible requires even these beneficial products to be marketed in a way that make customers feel like "everyone is doing it." The reality is that most people are afraid of being different from the others and would rather choose to be like everyone else. Advertising executives understand this need and promote their products appropriately. In almost all cases, advertisements target people's desire to fit in society. The products themselves may actually promote individuality; however, companies will realize more sales if customers see their products as an "in thing" and that the services have worked for everyone else. Indeed, the array of advertising permeating society will continue to contribute to society that lives beyond its means in a need to reach the American dream and feel that they have "made it."

Democracy and the Protection of Human Rights

The essential concern of a democracy must be the protection of human rights. Describe a specific situation in which the concern of a democracy might be something other than the protection of human rights. Discuss what you think determines when the concern of a democracy should be the protection of human rights. In his Gettysburg Address, Abraham Lincoln famously extolled government "of the people, for the people and by the people." This phrase has been commonly interpreted as a definition of democracy in a nutshell. Ideally, a democratic government must be accountable to its people--usually in the form of popular representation. The protection of human rights, thus, is an essential concern of a democracy and such governments must see that its citizens are not deprived of their basic freedoms. Democracies, like the United States, do a relatively good job of ensuring human rights within its borders. However, such governments often turn a blind eye to human rights issues in other countries--oftentimes in the interest of preserving power in the global stage. Indeed, the government must do everything in its power to ensure its people have a right to basic freedoms to which all humans are entitled, including right to life and liberty, freedom of expression and religion, etc. When people are deprived of basic rights, they are unable to participate in government and have their needs addressed. For example, a government that limits freedom of expression creates fear of reprisal in its citizenry; therefore, the will of the people cannot be realized. Only those in the upper segments of society and cronies the rulers will be represented. Indeed, no nation can achieve an ideal democracy where human rights are fully realized and the popular will of the people are taken into account. However, governments that identify as democracies will take serious measures to reach such ideals. The US government, as the most recognized form of democracy, regularly advocates human rights issues within its borders and in the international arena. It has meddled in the affairs of other nations, such as Bosnia/Kosovo and Afghanistan, in the name of protecting human rights. While "humanitarian" interventions often serve as a guise for pursuing other motives, the US often helps shine light on the plight of second-class citizens around the world--thus, attracting NGOs and donors who attempt to rectify the situation. In other cases, the US government has downplayed or even completely ignored human rights abuses in "partner" nations. More recently, the US had supported the Libyan government despite the authoritarian rule and absence of human rights. When the US has the interest of maintaining "balance" in a strategic region, it will not be so vocal on human rights issues and instead, continue supporting offending leaders. Indeed, the overwhelming need to maintain its strength in the global arena will most often outweigh concern about human rights abuses in partner nations. Undoubtedly, recognition of human rights plays such a paramount role in democracies, such as the US. Its government needs to be accountable to the people and therefore, must see that citizens feel free and open to participate in the political arena---whether it be by voting, running for office or taking part in direct democracy campaigns. Democracies, in the global stage, also advocate about the importance of human rights; however, abuses will often be downplayed or ignored in the interest of maintaining its power in the world.

Laws Must be Subject to Change

In a free society, laws must be subject to change. Describe a specific situation in which a law should not be subject to change in a free society. Discuss what you think determines whether or not a law in a free society should be subject to change. Laws should ideally serve the best interests of society as a whole. Indeed, a common objective for establishing laws is to ensure order in society and the protection of citizens from physical and economic harm. Government representatives take into account different factors when formulating laws, including, among others, how relevant they are to the affected population. Throughout time, people and their collective philosophies and thoughts change; thus, laws should also evolve according to the times. It may be argued, however, that "foundational" documents, such as the US Constitution, should not be subject to change, or at least, be very difficult to change. The government should have power to enforce laws that are relevant to society and make "sense" to citizens as a whole. For example, the US has gone through a checkered history where certain segments of society have been treated as second class citizens. Jim Crow and anti-miscegenation legislation, at one point in history, were readily accepted by a society which, in large, felt it was normal for blacks to not have equal rights. Furthermore, it was legal in the past to hang people sentenced to death row. Today's society has changed its perception of what entails "cruel and unusual" punishment and many agree overall that the government should not be hanging criminals . Indeed, laws are challenged time to time for being antiquated and not in line with public opinion and sentiments. Some people believe that certain laws should not be subject to change in a free society. For instance, Constitutionalists advocate a strict reading of the country's foundational document, the Constitution. They honor the interpretations of the forefathers and berate "judicial activists" that view the Constitution more as document to be read in the context of modern times. Constitutionalists think that lawmakers should honor the "original" system that has been best envisioned by the ingenious forefathers. Indeed, those wishing to amend the Constitution undergo a more stringent procedure than that required to change or update a normal law. Indeed, the people should have the means to change a law that no longer serves the greater interests of society. In the US, there are several mechanisms, such as direct democracy, to make such changes. The system of checks and balances also helps to ensure that laws are not changed or updated arbitrarily and that government stays accountable to the people. While laws, in general, should be subject to change as society evolves, others like the Constitution are seen as foundational to our form of government---thus, involving more obstacles when people attempt to amend it.

Should Government make laws regarding People's Personal Safety?

Government should not make laws regarding people's personal safety. Describe a specific situation in which government might justifiably make a law regarding people's personal safety. Discuss what you think determines when government is justified in making laws regarding people's personal safety and when it is not. In the Declaration of Independence, the US founding fathers proclaimed that government must protect the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness of its citizens. Although the trifecta of basic rights is a nebulous phrase open to interpretation, the "protection of life" could arguably mean that government has the duty to ensure people's personal safety. This would be accomplished mainly by passing laws such as seat belt regulations, vaccination requirements, etc. These types of laws necessarily involve some restriction on certain freedoms. Government, therefore, should be cognizant of interfering with the rights of its citizens and tread carefully when passing personal safety laws. Indeed, governments without a Bill of Rights and a structure providing checks and balances run the high risk of impinging on citizens' freedom. Authoritarian rulers, for instance, mandate personal safety laws that really serve to control citizens and maintain their hold on power. For example, women in Arab countries are forbidden to vote, drive, and exercise the same freedom of movement as men. These laws are supposedly intended to protect the "weaker sex" but really are designed to maintain the integrity of a patriarchal, authoritarian style of rule. While this is an extreme example, any government unchecked in its power can easily impose laws that treat certain segments of society as second class citizens. When government is held accountable to its people, it is much easier to ensure that its personal safety laws do not (unjustifiably) impinge on citizen freedom. Indeed, personal safety laws can help government maintain order in society. For instance, seat belt regulations do not only serve to protect people from fatal injuries or deaths---they have the broader purpose of mitigating the societal costs associated with accidents. These include, among others, publicly-funded ambulance/hospital care, higher insurance premiums, etc. By requiring seat belt use, the government decreases chances of fatalities and therefore saves tax payers money. Even when government is limited in its law-making functions, it still is able to pass personal safety laws that arguably impinge on citizen freedom in an unjustified manner. For example, airport regulations requiring a full-body scan of passengers has been subject to much debate. The government argues that it is taking such measures to prevent another 9/11-type disaster while freedom advocates believe the new rules violate citizens' right to their personal space. Furthermore, many parents refuse to have their children vaccinated due to health concerns and cannot enter public school as a result. There are a multitude of issues that lie on the "gray" scale of the freedom versus personal safety debate. Indeed, these discussions are essential to keeping government in check with regard to its ability to pass laws. Granted, if people experienced unfettered freedom, the government would not be able to function in a significant way. Order in society necessarily involves citizens following rules that restrict their freedoms. However, it is important for governments to be held accountable by its citizens and also encounter limitations in its ability to pass laws (i.e., checks and balances, Bill of Rights). Without such structures, it would betoo easy for governments to control citizens to the detriment of their basic rights and freedoms.