It shouldn't. The people should control the government.
People should stay out of each other's business as much as possible and be rigid about enforcing existing laws that protect innocent people.
Any law that lets the government have power over people is unconstitutional.
It is called a libertarian view, now, but used to be the only legal view.
Governments, policies, corporations, cannot be ethical. Only people can be ethical.
The worst thing in a democracy is an apathetic citizenry.(which is what we have now, so a few make the laws for all of us, and what we need and want is getting ignored.)I need help to answer this questionWhy should government control the population? It鈥檚 for my ethics class!!!!
Some thoughts:
1) Government DOES control people under sovereign authority. You must obey all laws within the territory or face consequences - this is the primary method of citizen control.
2) Social contract binds the sovereign. The contract and all laws therein are for the common good of all people within ( or so we are told)
3) Without social contract, we are in a state of natural law and/or anarchy depending on your philosophical bend. This is a stage where many fear that society unravels in savagery, which is why social contract is deemed necessary. Many see the nature of man needing to be controlled in order for prevent society from dissolving.
4) There is a huge philosophical argument AGAINST social contract that should probably be explored in your essay. Modern anarchists and libertarian thinkers ( far left and far right on the political spectrum) have remarkably similar arguments on this matter. But the arguments also happen from diverse philosophical spectrums such as Nietzsche and Marx.
The best reason to have the government in control can be seen by what happened in New Orleans at the aftermath of Katrina. There was total anarchy with people in constant fear of their life and property.
The Government should not control the population; only the population is wise enough to do what is right.
And, don't believe it: we do NOT control the Government, as any even cursory review of Govenment policies would reveal.
Weather we like it or not we are a part of society. There is this social responsibility thing. We have responsibilities to each other and society at large. Responsibilities like if you are first on the seen of an accident you have to make sure EMS are notified, or been politically active at least enough to make an educated vote. Few live up to these responsibilities. Governments make some laws to guide us in these responsibilities and some times in extreme cases of neglect impose and enforce them on the selfish, irresponsible, or otherwise unthoughtful. In an ideal world we would not need laws because every one would be conscious enough to make the moral choice. You could say laws are ethical principals. People fight laws all the time on the bases of they are unmoral, and therefore unconstitutional.
If you look at the soulless corporation funded democratic society we live in today we see many examples of the self righteous good coming before the greater good. The rich get richer and the pure get purer. Sigh, glad we鈥檙e one of the rich ones.
you need to do your own research and homework
after 2nd world war, baby booming is good for rebuild countries.....but now, all these babies turn old age, and the numbers are scary....we are facing large number of old people, not one country, but all the countries!!!!
you going to look after them or give birth new born baby?
it is the same question as you going to discard your parents or not to give birth? if you want both, the cost of living is very high....unless you choose simple life!!!!
They don't, the population elects the government to control themselves, make laws, set standards of doing stuff.
maybe people will stop bashing the government if they vote wisely.
The hypothetical question that you were asked has many answers, all of which relate back to the government's responsibility to protect the constituent. There are those who beleive that there are conditions that would warrant the government limiting growth (i.e. the number of children born) to protect the whole population. Whether or not it works is debatable, but certainly it is not a quick fix. Examples would be:
Inability to produce or procure food to feed the population (example: Ethiopian famine crisis);
Broken infrastructure (inadequate medical care, fire protection, etc.);
Economic crisis (which could cause infrastructure drain).
China controlled population by limiting the number of children a family could produce to 1. In a society that favors and values male children above female, many families elected abortion to avoid having the female child. Some implicate this policy as the cause of a high incident of still births in rural, isolated areas of the country (female children killed at birth so the parents could try again).
Remember, the question is intended to stimulate objective thought. Approach the argument as a thesis and support your claims as best you can.
No comments:
Post a Comment