CECILIA A.
asked • 01/19/20Is it possible to balance individual rights and personal freedoms with social control and respect for legitimate authority? Why or why not?
More
1 Expert Answer
William C. answered • 03/28/20
Tutor
5
(1)
Experienced Detective and Crime Scene Tech with 16 years of service
In my experience respecting individual rights and respect for legitimate authority go together. When the public believes the police are respecting their constitutional rights, they will respect legitimate authority such as their local police department. Respect for authorities can lead to greater social control and compliance
Over the past few years, in this country, we have seen mass protests and rioting after incidents where people saw police abusing their authority. People believed their constitutional rights were being violated and responded by ignoring law and order and showing a lack of respect for authority.
It is possible to maintain social control and law and order while respecting individual rights.
Sianna V.
What a about personal freedom ?
Report
08/11/20
Still looking for help? Get the right answer, fast.
Ask a question for free
Get a free answer to a quick problem.
Most questions answered within 4 hours.
OR
Find an Online Tutor Now
Choose an expert and meet online. No packages or subscriptions, pay only for the time you need.
Dan B.
The balance between individual rights and personal freedoms with the need for social control is delicate and somewhat fluid, but it is possible with the understanding that the balance may shift slightly depending upon the time period and the current events during that time. Individual rights are those rights guaranteed to a person by the Constitution. What is often misunderstood is they are not necessarily absolute. When it comes to individual rights we have to remember that one individual's rights stop where another individual's rights begin. Think freedom of speech for example. People have the individual right to freely speak their mind; however, when an individual's speech becomes so aggressive, foul, or vulgar as to inflame another or interfere with the right of another individual, then a person's speech is not protected. Just because a person has freedom of speech it doesn't mean they can say whatever they want whenever they want. Another example is if a person were to use foul language directed towards a judge on the bench in a courtroom, and the person disrupts the lawful proceedings. That person's speech would not be protected under those circumstances, and the government could limit the extent to which that person could speak. On the other hand, if the same person and the same judge met at a local grocery store and the person decided to use foul language towards the judge in a manner that only the two of them could hear, then the person's speech has a much greater chance of being protected. There are many other individual rights and freedoms that are granted to individuals; however, none of the rights and freedoms given are truly absolute. Since certain rights or freedoms are granted by the Constitution, but since those rights and freedoms may be limited by the government (under certain circumstances), then there must be boundaries. Therein lies the need for balance. In a free society the people have the ability to control the government through the democratic process of electing representatives who, at least in theory, follow the will and desires of their constituents while operating the government. The government then works to protect the citizens and ensures society maintains good order. The government accomplishes that responsibility in many different ways, the most common of which is the passage of laws and establishment of regulations, which are then subsequently enforced by the government. The government possesses the authority to regulate society as a whole because the people within society give that power to the government through the sacrifice of a portion of their rights. Using the free speech example, people give up their right to say whatever they want whenever they want in order to live in harmony with others in society. Recognizing that It would be impossible for every single person to regulate every other person's speech, and understanding that what is appropriate by one person's standards may not be appropriate by another person's, the government is given the power to act on the behalf of all citizens collectively and establish a common standard (or limit). However, the ability of the government to enforce that standard is granted by the willingness of the citizens to submit to the government's authority. The government has the authority to act, but the people must also recognize the legitimacy of the government's authority over them and submit to its authority for the government to be effective. Herein lies another issue that Cambridge Professor John Acton identified when he stated, "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." When democratic governments run amuck it is usually based in some part on the corruption of the elected representatives that has gone unobserved by the citizens. In some democratic societies the people are able to remove the corrupt officials through the democratic process or by process of law from a higher level of government. In others, the corrupted representatives have successfully implemented a process that enables the dismantling of the government as we have seen in some other countries. In summary, it is absolutely possible to balance individual rights and personal freedoms with social control and legitimate authority. If a balance were not possible then a free democratic society could never truly exist outside of a conceptual world. The fact that our country does not operate as a dictatorship, nor does it exist in a state of anarchy, is evidence that a balance has been achieved. While that balance is fluid and changes based upon current events and the need of the people for safety, security, and commodities, it continues to exist as it has for over two centuries. Hope this answers your question! -D.01/19/20