[ad_1]
Obedience to authority is generally thought of as a good trait. Obedience can also be a very dangerous trait. Blind obedience to authority can be the cause of citizens enacting inhumanly, while disobedience to the authorities can sometimes bring safety and prosperity. Because of the dangers of blind obedience one must question "When does obedience to authority become dangerous?" (Milgram) Obedience to authority becomes very dangerous when in inhibits personal liberty. When people are freer, they are arguably much safer.
Some people will suggest that obedience to authority never makes people unsafe. They would state that good law abiding citizens will honor and follow the laws and will obey the authorities. Since it is only criminals that are breaking the law and since the punishment for criminal action is often incarceration, obedience to authority will keep people safe and will keep the criminals out of society which will make the citizens even safer. Additionally, if a person obeys the laws of the land then they do not have to fear jail and they can also have the security and peace of mind of knowing that the government will be there to protect and defend its honest citizens through the strength of its military, as the argument goes. Many people of strong faith will even argue that is our moral and Biblical obligation to obey the laws of the land unless they come into direct conflict with God's laws (Robbins).
These arguments seem to come from a very imperialist mindset. It implies the imposition of morality through authority, since those who break the law are considered immoral and deserve to be locked up. The argument that it is the moral obligation of people to obey the laws touches at the heart of the issue. The suppression of personal liberty does arguably directly interfere with God's laws of morality. In the founding document of the United States personal liberty is stated to be a God given right. This document further goes on to state that if a government violates these codes of personal liberty then it is the right of the people to disobey their authority and even institute a new form of government if necessary (The Declaration of Independence) If it is the belief of American citizens that personal liberty is a God given right then it seems that obedience to authority becomes very dangerous when it inhibits these rights, since it is right of the people to overthrow these violations. More importantly, the suppression of personal liberty is most often achieved through an increase in the role of government in the lives of the citizens, reducing the relative safety of the nation.
Thomas Jefferson once stated that "The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." Why does an increase in the role of the government result in the suppression of liberty, and how does this make the nation less safe? Looking at America's history may be able to shed some light on this subject because American history can be broken down into two historical periods: America's historic laissez-faire polices before the 20th century, which saw a very limited federal government with increased personal liberty; and America's imperialistic policies thereafter which resulted in a dramatic expansion of the federal government in domestic and foreign policy and a reduction in personal liberty. The relative security of the citizens can be contrasted before and after America's transformation.
There were certainly wars and violence in American history before its transition to imperial policies. Some of the more notable skirmishes include the very violent Civil War, the War of 1812, and the various wars with the Native American tribes. (American History Timeline) Even with these factors into consideration the relative security of the country was much greater during laissez-faire polices that promoted personal liberty. In the 120 or so years of American laissez-faire policy American citizens saw far fewer wars with foreign nations. There were a few wars with foreign nation such as Britain (who was still upset about the American Revolution to a degree) and France. The United States was far more concerned with what would have been viewed as our own internal affairs with the various Native American tribes through westward expansion and the belief in manifest destiny.
As the nation grew "from sea to shining sea", one of the biggest exceptions to this conception of personal liberty was the American Civil War. Although temporarily damaging, civil war did not destroy this nation and in the end even made the nation even stronger. Because of the American Civil War and the (slow) path of recovery, everyone has equal status in this country. This has improved the personal liberty of citizens and has helped to break down some of the cultural boundaries of our nation which has made America a safer place to live for all races. We may be able to fight among ourselves and survive as a nation however we can not fight against the world and have the same expectations.
During the last 110 years or so of American imperialism, the people have seen many more wars with foreign nations. Since 1900 America has had involvement in two World Wars, a proxy war against communism in its various phases including Vietnam, Korea and Cuba, and the race for atomic weapons and more recently terrorist attacks. Because of the amount of war that the American citizens have experienced since promoting imperialistic foreign policy it is not fair to say that society is safer. In fact the very reason that terrorists attack this great nation is because they hate its imperial policies. This is the very opposite of strong security for the country, regardless of the strength of the military.
A strong military is very effective in promoting security and stability for the nation. When a strong military is coupled with an imperial agenda, however, then it has a detrimental effect. The military promotes the agenda of the government. If the Pentagon tells the military to go and invade a country, the military goes and invades whether that invasion promotes freedom or not. A strong military in and of itself is not enough to ensure the safety and security of any nation.
If imperialism is so detrimental to the security of the nation, then how did it become so prevalent in American society? Imperialism is when one sovereign power imposes its will through force or trade regulations on another sovereign power. This became foreign policy during the early 20th century primarily through the office of Theodore Roosevelt. (Theodore Roosevelt) Because of the initial success of imperial foreign policy it soon started to become prevalent in domestic policy. This was done to try and control perceived immoralities in society in order to create the "good society".
Through the Progressive Era, many "Progressives" advocated very imperial form of domestic policy which saw a dramatic increase in the power of the Federal Government. This was done through the various acts of the Square Deal and the New Deal, and later the Fair Deal. Because of the dual sovereignty of American government, a dramatic increase in the role of the federal government will result in a reduction of the state's rights. This allows the federal government to impose its will on the states, becoming imperialistic in nature. While some of the acts promoted by progressives were beneficial, like many of the health standards for food in the Square Deal, by and large these policies have been absolutely terrible for our country and have resulted in far less security for the nation.
A good example of this is how these policies have resulted in less safety and security for the nation is the Volstead Act. As Albert Einstein once stated, "The prestige of government has undoubtedly been lowered considerably by the prohibition law. For nothing is more destructive of respect for the government and the law of the land than passing laws which can not be enforced. It is an open secret that the dangerous increase of crime in this country is closely connected with this. " Since the Volstead Act took the power away from the states to regulate alcohol, organized crime started to become prevalent in American society. Violent crimes increased due to the dangers of illegal distribution and transportation of alcohol. Crime became a very lucrative business. Joe Kennedy became so wealthy bootlegging alcohol that his children could go on to become the President of the United States and members of Congress. Because crime became so violent and because alcohol prohibition saw such a loss in revenue it was repealed in 1932. In another example, just five years later, the Marijuana Tax Act prohibited the distribution of a plant that has been accepted for thousands of years as medicinal .
Thomas Jefferson once stated that "If people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take; their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny." He also stated that "The greatest service that can be rendered to any country is to add a useful plant to its culture." When a government becomes so overburdening that it tells its citizens what kind of plants they can grow on their own private property then it represents a radical departure from the ideas of liberty that the founding fathers envisioned. Abraham Lincoln went as far as to say that "Prohibition … goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control mans' appetite through legislation and makes a crime out of things that are not even crimes … A prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principles upon which our Government was founded. " If the nation is in such a sorry state (as Jefferson would suggest) then how does this make the nation safer? How does it make the nation more secure? Just like alcohol, the prohibition of marijuana has only increased its popularity to the point that it is now the number one cash crop in America. It has also caused an increase of crime and the violence due to its illegal distribution just as alcohol did. In addition, some of the benefits of deregulating marijuana would vastly improve security. Promoting industrial hemp would allow the nation to grow a crop that has a much higher yield than either corn or sugar in ethanol production, for example. This would reduce our dependence on foreign oil and improve national security. The message should be clear, that personal liberty and limited government improves our safety.
Obedience to authority can become very dangerous in this country when the authority limits personal liberty. Imperialism causes a reduction in personal liberty so continuing to follow these policies will only result in greater instability and less safety throughout the United States. Imperial foreign policies reduce freedom throughout the world and cause many nations to hate the American government. This leads us to war and also promotes terrorist acts against the nation, reducing our security. Likewise, domestic imperialism causes many citizens to hate its own government and also causes a dramatic increase in violence as citizens become criminals who would fight against their own government than give up their liberties. Because the reduction in personal liberty causes such a great risk to our security obedience to authority when it inhibits personal liberty becomes a very dangerous thing.
Works Cited
"American History Timeline." About.com. The New York Times Company. nd Web. 6 July 2011.
"The Declaration of Independence." USHistory. Independence Hall Association. nd Web. 6 July. 2011.
Leuchetenburg, William. "Progressivism and Imperialism: The Progressive Movement and American Foreign Policy". JSTOR. The Mississippi Historical Review. 1952. Web. 6 July. 2011.
Milgram, Stanley. "The Perils of Obedience." Writing and Reading Across the Curriculum. Laurence Behrens and Leonard J. Rosen. Tenth ed. New York: Pearson / Longman, 2008. Print.
Robbins, Dale. "Authority: What Christians Should Know. " Victorious. Victorious Publications. 1991. Web. 6 July. 2011.
"Theodore Roosevelt." Sparknotes. Sparknotes LLC. nd Web. 6 July. 2011
[ad_2]
Source by Brandon Polk