1. Social 30-1 Position Paper<br />By<br />Sam Fath<br />The protection of the rights of all is a topic that is treated differently within every society and form of government, millions have had their rights abolished or restricted in the name of their government. By disregarding these rights the government is directly ignoring the pillars of liberalism, two of which gives every citizen the right to influence their government and the leaders, as well as conflicting with each of these individuals’ rights and dignity within society. A person who agrees with liberalism would argue that if one chooses to violate these individual rights they may find that later in life their own rights are taken away for this action, however one could argue that people have violated the pillars of liberalism that were stated above, and got away with almost zero challenge. A topic like this cannot be treated with any absolute, however it does have good values of which a government should follow, however if they create a precedent that will violate their own rights is up to argument.<br />The violation of the two pillars of liberalism, that everyone has the right to influence their government and that every person has the right to freedom and dignity can be justified within a society that needs to take drastic measures in order for the betterment of all. The philosopher Thomas Hobbes highlights this philosophizing that Humans are naturally deceptive vulgar creatures, and that humans need to be monitored and controlled by the government, lest they hurt and deceive each other, for their own personal gain. However by creating an environment that does not ensure the rights and dignity of all creates a populace that yearns for complete freedom and the ability to do what they want, creating an environment that is very prone to a revolution. This environment supports radicalism, chaos and political extremism, and any attempt that the government makes to quell these feelings will only increase the magnitude of emotion. Examples of this could be seen in nations that have undergone a civil war or a revolution, such as the French Revolution in the late 1700’s. The French Revolution was the upheaval of a total monarchy style of rule that had ruled over France for century’s. France during the time was commonplace to severe class distinctions, with the wealthy political elite controlling the lower, poverty-stricken peasants. The severe mistreatment of these peasants freedoms creating a country that was one act away from a complete revolution, and the final act of frustration upon the Bastille started the revolution. This revolution stripped the leaders of their rights and freedoms, having the current king and queen being killed by the mobs of revolutionary peasants<br />This precedent referred to by the source is no absolute in my opinion however, even <br />if one breaches the rights and freedoms of another, and violates the two previously mentioned pillars of liberalism. They do necessarily create a precedent that will reach themselves, violating their own rights and freedoms. Human nature is to wild and unpredictable to be able to definitively say what may or may not happen after they commit an action that violates the rights of others. Our current legal system is based upon this precedent theorized by the source. According to our legal system those who commit a crime will receive a adequate punishment to their rights and freedoms for infracting upon the rights of another. However, hypothetically, a person is able to breach the rights and freedoms of another, and have almost no consequence for their actions. This precedent is based upon the idea that the government or person are able to be held accountable for their actions, or it is under the premise that circumstances may make these actions needed. In times of war the rights and freedoms of many are breached, In WWII conscription sent young men to die and breach others rights in the name of their country, some whom had no inclination to fight. This action by the government violated the freedom of not only their enemy's, but of their own citizens. And the winner of the war was able to keep their rights and freedoms, even though they violated many others.<br /> <br />