Monday, November 19, 2007
say no to further centralization of the government!
Last week, we discussed the deterioration of our environment as a result of inefficient energy use and excessive water use (obviously there were more examples discussed in class, but I'm just naming a few.) As I explained in class, the idea of government intervention in these issues really scares me. While I certainly agree that these factors need to be considered at all times, I am extremely frightened at the idea of government intervention for fear that if we allow the government to control these parts of our lives, the line between democratic and fascist (yes, I know this is an extreme, but for arguments sake, I'm using it) governments becomes less clearly defined. If we extend our government's control in one area of our personal lives and choices, who is to say it will end there? This topic extends beyond energy use to a number of issues in the United States including abortion rights and mandatory vaccinations, again, just to name a couple. At a point where people are citing false religious beliefs just to exempt their children from vaccines, and the potential that Roe v. Wade l be overturned is more real than it has ever been before, are we willing to give the government even more power over our personal lives than they already have? At this point, I certainly don't think I need to voice my own opinions regarding these sensitive topics because they are not necessary for my argument, I simply want to express my unease with more government intervention in our personal lives than already exists. I am by no means advocating a completely decentralized, power only in the hands of the people government, my intention is simply to point out that though energy conservation and the preservation of the world we live in is certainly an extremely important cause, the issue of giving the government more power is a slippery slope, and I'm afraid once we relinquish more of our personal rights to people in power, it might be difficult to draw the line.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
In many areas in our nation and around the world, water and energy distribution (especially electricity) have traditionally been controlled by the government or government sanctioned monopolies. Even when the utilities are privately owned, they often must rely on government provided infrastructure or comply with government regulations on pricing and resource use.
If the government is managing these resources, then is it not justified in pressuring its citizens (the customers) into conserving water or energy during times of scarcity? I think the answer depends on whether or not things such as air, water, and energy are considered public commodities or goods to be sold, which is where the debate about resources management differs considerably from some of the other issues that were mentioned in your post. If clean water, for example, is considered an essential public resource that should be available to all regardless of wealth, then during times of scarcity the government is obligated to restrict water use in order to ensure fair distribution.
I must argue that a degree of government intervention is required. One of the main responsibilities of the government is the protect the public interest. It is in the public's interest to recycle plastic grocery bags. The government is trying to explain this concept, funding public service announcements, asking citizens to do their parts and recycle. However, if enough citizens don't recycle their plastic bags, the government is necessary to protect the pubic interest of conserving our environment. In such an instance, the government should, by all means, allow for a charge on grocery bags (this charge, of course, should go back toward protecting the public interest by finding ways to collect unrecycled plastic and recycling it).
Ideally, societies would not need any type of government regulation and every citizen would contribute his part to bettering our nation (hmm...there's a major drought going on...maybe I'll take shorter showers and will not water my grass). Realistically, however, such is not the case, and the government must regulate (oh well...I don't really care; someone will find a solution when we run out of water).
I do agree on one point; give the government power in any aspect, and it will never release that power. The government will never stop regulating something once it starts regulating it.
I completely agree with you when you that the idea of government intervention in certain aspects of our lives is a really scary idea. For the first time in the past few weeks I am fully aware of the serious threat of the drought that is affecting Atlanta. I have heard about it here and there, but now I understand that I am personally being affected by this drought. So what is the solution? How do we regulate our water use? There is no way that the government can say that only five-minute showers are allowed. I remember in class someone saying, “This is America.” Our system of democracy is what makes America America. I agree with you when you say that this is not just about water, or energy conservation. Should the government be able to exert control in areas of our personal lives? No. We do not want to make America a fascist society. Yes democracy and capitalism may have its flaws; however, I believe that the structure of our society is better.
Post a Comment