The Giver

Before I begin my essay I would like to apologize in advance for any inconvenience my essay will give you. It is a fact that we are human, and therefore we might have different opinions on various topics. Some might feel rather emotional over certain views that I've pondered, and therefore I've apologized. Yet, I do not think differently about my opinion. Also I'm not to judge who is right and wrong. Some of these topics are far to complicated for an average individual to come to a conclusion; yet it is extremely important for one to take some time to think about it.

We see in this western society the value of freedom of choice. It is so valued that Thomas Jefferson decided to phrase it in the most influential document in American history. The phrase pursuit of happiness is the foundation of freedom of choice. In other words, everyone has the right to choose to live in happiness. Yet, the ironic thing is Jefferson was a slave owner. Perhaps it is fair to say that in order to live in happiness one must take away someone else's happiness. Is too much freedom necessarily a good thing? After all we live in a world where we think only about ourselves. We elect leaders to enforce our views that to us seem right. Then we take the burden to enforce such rules on the rest of the world.

In the book The Giver the right of choice is clearly forbidden. The citizens of this utopia came to a resolution that the supreme law of the land would be in the hands of the elders. These elders came to the conclusion that everyone would be equal. In order to assure equality the elders had eliminated the right of choice. The elders would make decisions for the citizens, and the citizens would be forced to follow their command. The elders made sure that the community would have an equal share of necessities, and that the workforce was assigned in a coordinated fashion. This totalitarian form of government was established in order to secure the citizens. After all, the main responsibility of government is to make sure that what is done is for the common good. The community wanted a government that would take away the community's problem; so far this community is successful.

It is important to understand why the community made their decision to have such a government. First, one must understand that human beings tend to take choices for granted. With the freedom of choice an individual will try to full fill his needs with all means necessary. This will not only pertain to necessities, but also luxuries as well. The demand of society will go up, and soon the government will loose in meeting the resources that is essential to their citizens' demands. This forces the government to interact with other nations so they can fulfill the needs of their citizens. However, many nations in the world do not follow such interactions peacefully. They end up occupying the nation with the recourses. This is an example of Iraq's 1992 invasion of Kuwait, and George Bush's occupation of Iraq. Indeed, greed is a poison. By excluding freedom of choice citizens will be forced to enjoy what they have, and will not take things for granted.

By limiting the freedom of choice people might live more peacefully. We see that as an individual chooses to express his or her belief another individual tends to take offense. An example of this is freedom of press. Recently, a Danish journalist made cartoons of Prophet Mohammed, and as a result it has disgusted 20 percent of the world population. Another example of this is the Jim Crow laws that took place in the early 19th century in the United States. People chose to live in a society that was separate but equal. It is possible that man is not perfect. At least I have not met a perfect man anyway; then how do we know that our choices are right? In other words a persons choice has a large influence on another person's beliefs.

By giving up the right of choice society can be a more peaceful place. As we give up our rights to a higher authority we can be assured more security. An example of this today is homeland security. When the events of 9/11 took place America was shaken to reality. We understood that only the government could protect us from total anarchy. We also understood that as a nation such attacks should have been prevented from ever taking place. In order to protect us from these so-called "Terrorist" our congress approved the patriot act. Ever since this act was approve there has not been a single attack on American soil.

Although this totalitarian form of government has its advantages it is also important to see its disadvantages. Let's not forget that god endured all men to have rights. One particular right is the right to believe in the ultimate. It's understandable why this form of government eliminates god all together. After all, according to history religion and violence goes hand and hand. Yet, if one eliminates god then technically he eliminates faith, and then there is no difference between him and an animal. If society eliminates laws, then man becomes an animal. We see this in the book Lord of the Flies, and in Louisiana after Hurricane Katrina. In any society laws are strongly associated with religion. The American constitution is associated with the Ten Commandments, and The Saudi Arabian Constitution is associated with the Koran. It is under his kingdom that the world is in, and therefore it makes sense to base our laws on his judgements.

A totalitarian government may ensure safety and equality, but it lacks on the value of man. It goes against John Lock's theory of life liberty and property. With out these three things man is no other than a machine. He has no purpose to live; what he has is not his, and what he achieves is taken away from the higher authority. There is no sense of motivation, and therefore, it has no taste. Yet, I can't say that this form of government is wrong. I have not personally witness this form of government, but it does go against the theory of Hugo Gortius, and John Lock. However, this government is supported from Thomas Hobbs' point of view. If this government is not in the will of its' citizens, then the only people who are capable of changing it are its' citizens. Therefore, I don't have the right to say if this government is legitimate or not. As for Jonas' totalitarian society I can only give them my wishes that they remain happy no matter what decision their community makes. I can understand both the democratic society and the Totalitarian society, but I can't say which one is right. However, I do know that although democracy might not be the best form of government, it is certainly not the worst.

P.S. Doctor Pierson I tried my best, but to link all this together; man I'm lost.
Blessings: Abuhttp://www.oppapers.com/essays/Giver/116114

The Giver 9.8 of 10 on the basis of 2368 Review.