Make a case for less state interference in our lives?

Charlie Mcsweeney Miss Kinney

The gaol of the state is to create a justice system which has harsh enough penalties to put citizens of a crime or wrong doing, this would be to create a good sense of deterrence within the society. A state that has little interference in our lives is as not as rare as you think in may places the government will “give in” or ignore the fact of certain gangs due to not wanting to start trouble with them.

For

State is the not the enemy in our lives, many Americans believe that weapons should be used to protect themselves. This is where state should interfere in our lives and stop weapons reaching every household, if we had little or no state interference in our life’s then things like this would be happening That is having weapons in many households, which is certain to lead to many more deaths, robbery’s, and youth delinquency’s.

Password

Confirm Password

I agree to the terms of service and privacy policy

I believe that the state stops many troubles through interfering, example if the state did not think to interfere with the weapons of mass destruction in Afghanistan.

This is a preview of the whole essay

I believe that the state stops many troubles through interfering, example if the state did not think to interfere with the weapons of mass destruction in Afghanistan.

Also if there was little or no state interference in our lives then, it would create delinquency amoung younger people. For example: Due to them seeing criminal activity or unsuitable behaviour for them on TV then they would not know what is fit for them to see and follow this footage as an example. But this is what defines a good parent, when to let there children see the certificated footage, songs or TV programmes this is why we have interference. The state’s interference in our lives differs from restriction of ages to buy videos, cigarettes, and magazines. States should interfere in our lives seeing as they are “in charge” of us to a certain extent so monitoring us to keep peace and stop violence.

Against

At the same time state do not have the right to intrude in our lives finding out about our personal details making people uncomfortable to live in a society with people constantly monitoring them. Many parents believe that they know what is best for there children and as you look around in society there tends to be a pattern that children who have been let to do what they want have either turned out a youth delinquent or wanting everything for themselves. A good parent could decide what is good for there child and not a government because we are all different and mature at different ages. A government should act as a guideline to these people and not demanding how they raise there children. The government does not have the right to look into our personal lives to check for something that has slipped past them because they weren’t doping there job properly, and believe we should not have to pay with our privacy for the governments mistakes.

Conclusion

I think that the government should keep these rules but just change them to guide lines for example, for the parent to follow so if you do get a parent that it is not sure what to do then they should just follow the guidelines I believe that some parents are not sure how to raise there children in the society these days and there is no specific way to parent. I believe the more strictly enforcing issues like guns being made legal and the production of mass destruction gives the government a right to look slightly into our lives trying to get evidence about these issues but should finish there and not go routing around into our private life. And still believe that our privacy should not be invaded due to the government allowing drugs, guns or other simaler objects into the company and out of there possession.

639 Words