-
deepak1485
- Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
- Posts: 16
- Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2010 9:02 pm
ESSAY QUESTION:
"The purpose of government is not to ensure the financial well-being of its citizens, but rather to maintain order."
From your perspective, how accurate is the above statement? Support your position with reasons and/or examples from your own experience, observations, or reading.
YOUR RESPONSE:
The stimulus above states that the main aim of any government is to maintain order and not ensure financial well being of each citizen . I agree with this prompt because doing so will ensure that government can ensure that there is less friction as well as social welfare .
First,with the fall of former USSR it has become clear that capitalism which rewards creative and enterprising individuals is a much better system than socialism in which wealth is controlled by government . If the government takes control of wealth and tries to distribute it equally then individuals will have no motivation to innovate,since irrespective of thier innovation they would make same amount of money . The classic example of this scenario is Former USSR where the wealth was controlled by government and every citizen was entitled for his share,hence there was little innovation from the private sector. It eventually collapsed because of the friction between people who wanted to move forward make more money and people who wanted to maintain status quo.
Second, The enterprising individuals need protection in order to thrive . No one can make money if they are not assured that they can use it in whatever way they deem fit. Consider Afganistan for example ,the country has large amount of natural resources but is still poor because no one is willing to invest in Afganistan. This reluctance to invest stems from the extremists who loot money from people,hence the resources lie unused leaving ordinary afgans live in poverty .
On the other hand some may argue that if every one has enough money then the citizens of the country will be happy they cite examples of middle eastern countries ,who with there enormous oil wealth have created an enviable lifestyle for their citizens ,but they fail to notice that innovation from this region is virtually non - existent making them vulnerable to price of oil in the world market.If the oil price drops precipitously there would be riots as the government cannot afford to pay the citizens.
In conclusion, If government can maintain order enterprising citizens can take care of the financial well being of the country but if government steps in to control distribution of wealth it may have disastrous effects .
"The purpose of government is not to ensure the financial well-being of its citizens, but rather to maintain order."
From your perspective, how accurate is the above statement? Support your position with reasons and/or examples from your own experience, observations, or reading.
YOUR RESPONSE:
The stimulus above states that the main aim of any government is to maintain order and not ensure financial well being of each citizen . I agree with this prompt because doing so will ensure that government can ensure that there is less friction as well as social welfare .
First,with the fall of former USSR it has become clear that capitalism which rewards creative and enterprising individuals is a much better system than socialism in which wealth is controlled by government . If the government takes control of wealth and tries to distribute it equally then individuals will have no motivation to innovate,since irrespective of thier innovation they would make same amount of money . The classic example of this scenario is Former USSR where the wealth was controlled by government and every citizen was entitled for his share,hence there was little innovation from the private sector. It eventually collapsed because of the friction between people who wanted to move forward make more money and people who wanted to maintain status quo.
Second, The enterprising individuals need protection in order to thrive . No one can make money if they are not assured that they can use it in whatever way they deem fit. Consider Afganistan for example ,the country has large amount of natural resources but is still poor because no one is willing to invest in Afganistan. This reluctance to invest stems from the extremists who loot money from people,hence the resources lie unused leaving ordinary afgans live in poverty .
On the other hand some may argue that if every one has enough money then the citizens of the country will be happy they cite examples of middle eastern countries ,who with there enormous oil wealth have created an enviable lifestyle for their citizens ,but they fail to notice that innovation from this region is virtually non - existent making them vulnerable to price of oil in the world market.If the oil price drops precipitously there would be riots as the government cannot afford to pay the citizens.
In conclusion, If government can maintain order enterprising citizens can take care of the financial well being of the country but if government steps in to control distribution of wealth it may have disastrous effects .
