Social 30-1 Position Paper The source given discusses the prominence of the commonly debatable topic of individual rights and freedoms being neglected to fulfill the goals of the state. The source is clearly biased and against modern liberalism; in favor of a more collective society focusing more on the survival and prosperity of the state, rather than individual rights and freedoms.
The source evidently identifies collectivism as well as authoritarianism as its most prominent ideological perspectives. If this source was a legitimate society in today’s world it would undoubtedly reject the natural rights of individuals as well as rule of law, egalitarianism along with the general will of the people. This can be most strongly supported by the following sentence stating, “The individual must serve the interests of a state. The evidence taken from the source depicts a very strong presence of an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. This type of a society most commonly resembles the life in the medieval period, where everything and anything was used to benefit the state before benefitting its people, due to the divine right of the kings, which left no room for individual worth.
The source states “Individual rights and freedoms are less important that the survival and prosperity of the state”, this is an excellent example of the thinking of the early English philosopher Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679). Hobbes believed that people are motivated by selfishness and greed, to avoid disorder and turmoil; he thought people should give up their freedom to a government that will ensure order, which this government would be strong and able to suppress rebellion. The thinking of Thomas Hobbes and the source, both disagree with liberalism.
Both Hobbes and the source given prefer the people of a society to peacefully hand in their rights, so that one single body of government can lead to the progressivism of the state through reform and by creating and fulfilling laws rather than having another revolution. To what extent should we embrace the ideological perspectives reflected in the source, is a very complex issue,one perspective suggests embracing the ideological perspective to absolutely no extent because living under a strongly collectivist government would mean that even though there is a trong sense of self-reliance and the motivation to work , but taking previous history as evidence, it is clear that authoritarian governments feel the need to ignore the will of the people and focus more upon the order and security of the state that they control as dictators. A collectivist government would also mean that collective controls or restrictions on society for example media censorship would be imposed. Others, however, believe that we should strongly embrace the perspective to a very li ecause some people may view collectivism as slavery; individuals who ? ust serve the interests of the state? before themselves. Collectivism requires a form of self-sacrifice for the interests of others. In evaluating the issue it is clear that we should embrace the ideologies to a moderate extent. Although it has some benefiting aspects such as individual security and true independence, the underlying pejorative aspects play a heavier role, such as the disregarding of the individuals that make a collective, as well as the overlooking of their personal rights and freedoms.
I believe we should fully reject the ideological perspectives of authoritarianism and collectivism that are presented in the source because, I believe to have a successful society you must have a balance between individualism and collectivism; authority has to be effectively executed but should still be obligated to accomplish securing the rights and freedoms of an individual.
