Discuss the line between an individual's right to expression and the role of the government to protect its citizens from harm?

Solution Preview

Remember, this is not a complete paper. It is an organized set of points that you can expand upon or ignore. As a historical example that wraps up the whole topic, I cited its most famous case: DeShaney v. Winnebago County (1989).

Discuss the line between an individual's right to expression and the role of the government to protect its citizens from harm? What are some examples of this conflict in our past? Have we come any closer to reconciling these issues in our society?

The Federal government of the US was created partly in response to the populist rebellions in Pennsylvania and Massachusetts. The key element was the mentality of the Federalist party, who saw a stronger central government as a means to collect debts and to control the rebellion of the "backwoodsmen."

There are two approaches to protection and, at the same time, freedom of will in social life.
First, the negative concept. This approach is common with libertarians of all sorts. The state cannot legislate any moral end. That is up to the people. Human beings will naturally reach equilibrium if they are all free to respond to demand in any necessary way. The state, on the other hand, does not know the market, does not know what people need and does not grasp local conditions.

The negative concept is the same for protection: the federal state has a limited role. Law-abiding citizens are to be armed. The sheriff can call a county muster (a common custom until the early 20th century), and villages were very cohesive. Crime was a local matter. Federal agencies had no right to use its resources against subversion. In fact, there was no real federal police services (like the FBI) until World War II.

Second, the positive view is more complex. Here, the state must be actively involved in life. To put faith in spontaneous human action is to invite anarchy, or worse, oligarchy. Decentralization often leads to the rise of local strongmen that are more directly tyrannical than a distant federal government. In writers like Rousseau and Hegel, the state is not just a bundle of coercive agencies, but is the best means of organizing public goods. Loyalty to the nation (this is not necessarily the state) is more important than any specific self-interest. The private sector privileges the few at the expense of the many. Big business is owned by a handful of investors. At least in the public sphere, all Americans are legally equal. This alone shows the need for federal intervention and mobilization.

The duty to protect is also expansive in the positive view. The problem with leaving people alone is that power vacuums are quickly filled. If ...