Lina Sandoval English 1 A-Mr. VothAugust 26, 2000 RESPONSE TO TAKING RIGHTS SERIOUSLY After reading the essay “Taking Rights Seriously” by Ronald Dworkin, I realized that I don’t really pay any particular attention to our rights or even the limits to them. I didn’t even know there was a dispute of what particular rights we as citizens have. Dworkin says that “the Government will have the last word on what an individual’s rights are, because its police will do what its officials and courts say.” I think it is the government’s job to decide how to define our rights, that is why we vote them into office, because it is a difficult job and if we left it to the people, they probably would not give themselves enough limits. If the government gives society to much freedom than there would no respect for the laws and people would be running wild doing whatever they wanted. But if the government gives society to little freedom and sets limits on their rights than people would be complaining because they would feel that the government is taking over their rights.
So there must be a balance between the rights of the individual and the demands of society at large. There for our government officials must be very careful on how they define our rights, because “a mistake on one side is as serious as a mistake on the other.” The government has to compromise and stay in the middle; it cannot give one person more freedom than another person. As for our freedom of speech, I think it is important to speak your mind in a non-provocative way on the matters of your political concern, but there is a limit on what is acceptable. Such as rioting and putting people in danger, then I see why there should be limits.
The Essay on Government by the People
The population growth has caused concern for many Americans because of the terms of numbers and poverty that comes with this growth. There is a pattern showing of wealth transferring from poorer nations to the richer nations of the globe and the information technology revolution is speeding this cycle up. With population growth reaching new heights new concerns for increasing urban growth has ...
I do believe that the constitution is a well-written document. Of course it is not perfect, but what is? We must have limits based on some kind of law and the constitution is a good start. With out the constitution our country wouldn’t be one of the most powerful in the world. Other countries criticize but still here we are better for it.
In the beginning of Dworkin’s essay “he wants to show what a government must do that professes to recognize individual rights. It must dispense with the claim that citizens never have a right to break its law and it must not define citizens rights so that these are cut off for supposed reasons of the general good.” I think Dworkin believes that the government should set limits on the rights of the citizens because without the limits there would be chaos. In conclusion, I think that Dworkin gives the pros and cons on each side of the issue of our rights. I think everyone should have moral rights, such as freedom of speech. But if they take it to far and people get hurt then of course they should be punished. That is why we vote and have laws to make our neighborhoods safe for our children.
Everyone has rights and we all have the right to be safe.
