Two Views, One Country

One of the greatest things about living in America is our vast range of political ideologies. There are some who believe that the people need government intervention in their lives at all times, because letting them always get what they want would lead to the general population running amuck. In John McHugh’s essay, “Politics for the Really Cool,” we read about Sameer Parekh who has a few ideas of his own about how much control our country’s administration should have. He is a libertarian, which Merriam-Webster Online defines as “a person who upholds the principles of individual liberty, especially of thought and action.” In other words, he believes that the government should have no say in what he does, liberating him of any boundaries. In my point of view, I find valid arguments for both sides of the spectrum, so I see myself somewhere in between.

On the one hand, I am not fond of the idea that government officials have the power to pry into any aspect of my life. I know the importance of the Patriot Act, which authorized federal agents to tap into telephone conversations, e-mails, text messages, etc. after the September 11^th attacks because it’s supposed to be used as a security measure, but in my opinion, they’ve taken it way too far. In my social work class this semester, I learned about a sixteen-year-old boy named Ashton Lundeby who was arrested in the middle of the night by the FBI and other officers. He was charged with making a series of bomb threats, and they knew this because they tracked the IP address which led them to his computer. However, Ashton’s mom claims that someone had stolen his son’s IP address and made it look like the threats had come from him. The FBI has NOT been able to prove that Ashton is at fault yet he remains incarcerated at a juvenile detention facility. If the government that is supposed to protect me from terrorists is using their powers unjustly, how am I supposed to trust them?

On the other hand, I can’t imagine how chaotic this country would be without SOME form of government control. Currently, “the government policies what can be claimed about a prescription drug, what can be said in a real estate ad, who can talk about a publicly traded stock, and who can finance a political ad” (McHugh 440). If the president’s administration DIDN’T manage all of these things, there would be no point for different types of Advil, Benadryl, or because no one would know what they would be used for. Real estate ads might include vulgar language inappropriate for children to hear and anyone could run for office without the people knowing anything about them. Although our government can sometimes step out of line, there’s a reason why we still have them around.