govt tutorial materials

8/4/2019 Govt Tutorial Materials

1/29

Co\enrmentTutoriai matcrirlsThe Case for a Truth Conmission. By Pat ck l,eahy, 19 Februart 2oo9, TllUIi Mag]?_irrcMore than 3o years ago, a special Senate in\pstisrtjotr lecrcd irrtn ahusrs thlt included sp\ingon ihc American pcople b| thejr own govcrnment.'I'he llndings b)' Scrntor Frank Churclr's comDlittee, dmr\rn |-orr testimon| spanning Boo\lilncsses aDd thous.nds of pages o{ gorelnnrent documcnis, revealed ho$' po$'erfirlgovemrnent sun'cillance tools $er.e misused agaiDst the AJnericaJr people. Forinstancc, the FBI's COINl'ELPRO operation spent nore ihan h{o decades searchjl)g jn vain {orcommrn;st irflucncc iu the N,AACP and inliltraled domcstic groups that. 1br cxanlple,ad|ocated for r ,onlen's rights. The Church cornrnjtlee's $ ork led to creaijon of tbc SeDitte Se]ectCommittcc on Intelligcnec.rnd latel to tlre Forelgn Intelligence Sun,cillaDce Act r-clbrms thailalgel) hcld Lrntil the Bush ]ears.The prrallcls \!jlh todav arc clear, and so are thc lessons. Then, as in recent ]c:rrs, sornc'tl'crc r.illing, irr the D:rme of security, to tradc atvay the people's lights as if theyu'ele $ritten in sand, Dol stone. For much of this dccade, rve haye read about andwitnesscd sucb abuscs as the scanclal at Abu Chraib. the disclosure of lorture Drcrnos rnd therel clalions ibout ihc \^,arrantless sul.vcillance oLAmericitns_So \rhat is lo be clore about the abuses of the tsush lears? Somc sa\, do lrothing, ald I le\r'S-.nators ercn lr-ied to malie Attoi-ne! Genral Eric Holder pr.rmise in lris conllrlnrtion hearingslo lauDch no prosc'cutions for Bush eft la$'brealiing. At thc opposite end ofthe spedr-urr. otherssa) that e\en if ii lakes tnan\')cals cnd di\.ides tbe countn and distrrcts liorn the u.gentpriolitl' oi fixiDg, the econoDl}. \,|e nust prosecute Bush Adminislration officjals to l$'down arnarkcr. Ihe cou1s alc e)rcadl considelilg congrcssional subpoenas that \\'ele issued eat-lier as1lcll asclaimso{p \-ilcge aDd legal intmunitics. Those cases will stretch out fot sotre tjDe, as\rould prosecutions taking e\cn I dccacle or loDger. Moreoler, it is easier for prosccutors to nettlose far dortr the h(kler than thosc at thc lop? Nho set the tone aDdthe policics.'l'here is another option. a nliddle grouncl \rhose or,erarchlng goal is to lind the truth: \ve need to8et to thc bottoln of\!hat happcr)e(l andu.hy--totrakesurcitnclerhappensrg!in.


2/29

One path to that goal is to apPoirrt a truth {loding panel We coulcl dcvelop anrl ,rrthoriTe al)crscnr or group o{ pclplc unilersrlh recoglljzcd as tiiLminded aDd $ithoul rn ar to grind'lheir str.rightfbn\'ard nission would bc to find thc lrulll. Pcoplc Nould be invited to rornefon{arcl and sharc thcir kno\rledg{r and expenrnccs, not for purposes of construclilrg crinlinalindictmenls brrl to assenirle thc lacts. lf needed. srtch a process could iDrol\ e subpoeDa po\rcrsaDd evcIr llrc author-ity lo obtain innnu il) 1lont Pr-osccutio]r ir ordor to gct to the whole tnrlh.During thc past se\'er-al tcal.s, lhe t-.S. hils bccn deepl-r'' cii\'idcd. This has nl;lde our go\clnlllentlcss producti|e and our socici\'lrss ci|il. Presi&rt Obar121 is right in srlrDli lhilt \\c aannotalford cxlrcnle partisanship irlcl dcbilitating divisioDs.,{s \{c conlnlentorate the Ljncctnbicentellnial, there is a need, rg.rin. "to bind rrp the n.llion's wouncls-" Rath.'r thatl \'enteance,\\'e need iln irnpattial pursuil ol \\hat actualll happened and r sharcd undclstandinli ofthefajlures ofthe rccent past.This is nol a stq) lo bc taken hghill. Urc nccd to scc $'hether ther-e is inieresl Ior this in Cone,resslnd the ner\' Admlnistration. \\rc Deed to \\ork lhrough corlccrns about chssifled infolnrationand clains of Executile pririkgc. xlostofall,\cnecdlosccwhcthc. lhc Antcrican peoplL'arercady to trke this p.rlh.

ID the rncirlrtime, Conlir-ess will \\ork \!ith lhe Obama AdDriDistratiorr to lix lhosc parls (]1 otl]golern renl that \\'ent off coLrrse. BLrt b rcpair the damirge ofthe Pirst (right vcars a l:l rcsl()tc,\rnerica s lcputiltion rnd slerdin8, irl tlrc \rorld, \\'e should not simpl) turn lhc page nilh.^rtbeiDg abkr lirst lo rcad it. ,\ rcent USA Todal /Gallup poll shol{ed that more than 60%of Amcricairs agree that investigrting rhc f:dled national-scturitl policies of thep:rst eight l_ears should be corrsidered.Two)cals ago, I described thc scandals oftht'Bush Chcttc\ GonzalcsJustice Depnnnrenl as the\rorst since \{aterijrte. Ther wcrc. \te are stjll diggiDg, olll lionl ihc dcl)ris. We necd to gct lothc bottom of rvhat wcni $'rong aftcr a dartgcrous ernd disaslrotrs dilersion liomAnrerican la*'and values. Ihe,'unerican pcople ha1'e a light to klrora'\rhat lheirgovcfnmerlt has donc in their n:rrnes,(Leah), a six tclm Democr-atic Senator lronl Vermont, js ir lorr\er prost'crltor and the (hairtnanof ihe siclrrlc,Judicjarl Comnritlcc)Qucstiurs lo 0orldcr


3/29

2oo;,A Levcl question: Ilo\r_ Iar shollld a state havc the right tomonitorthe actions ofpeoplewithin its borders?

r. The use ofporre. by the govcrnment lv-hich infiinge on personal and ci\.il rights: is therca ljmit/ ljne?

2. I'he itspects of democmcy: ihc pcoplc (arld the elcctorate) has a ght tnrthttarrsparent inforlnation abo[t thc go\errment's actions. But as i]lustmtecl aboyc,can b-. di1]'icrrlt

andthis

s(dTt, tSN\ t't lRuLTr.l TTllSiD$tNr6rRA-[o{'5 f lFsr ]*sr'}crlS lFSlX! ro -rRy ,r,r,tD rftp-n{}85 ${AEr a

scfRt It tcA}$Rlwrt |ttfil\r$Glc(ljr oJR tttsf$rB-

a)b)

Are there 1{'.l\s lo sohe this difficu]tl?Or \\ill those in porrer al\\'als be r)blc to shicld thcir dcccls from thc nt:rsses, learingthc srstcm ofdeDroclacvbut a hollo$'onc?


4/29

Uelegorq!]llrent docs lrot me4n less lqlqdalrAn c\iract lntI Jr!!li;lg!\!l!rll! ljngqrl s!!I/,(si,;i, rh, ./,/irt o/'o,r5r1r1l//Lit's r/l(r1 's 'ru Ir"1'carq irdc/' "tflctutttt 'l PrttttPnl \i/c,nJ tlle f1PJonl t 'f ils clh/Lnsll.L. l\{errckcn once said, "All goverirnent, ofcoursc' is aiiainst libefiy'" tn a Dutshcll'this is the basic rDli_go\:ernmer)l vxrw ;l thc lelirlionshlP bctr\cLn g(^ cr nrnL rt T nd llcedom ltis assumccl thaL thc adions nt gn.,"rnir,",ri;,,"rireb\ in.l up iltcrn rinr,,\!ith ihe inclivjduali]ji:':il:ii;:;i";;;;ir,',".i""'i' s.,;r"l '"''rtr "'t.l' irce'lom *c 'h"ur'r rlso $rnr nrini.ralgovernrncllt.'lhis is one of lhc nrost appealing argumcrrts ihai lhc anti-governnrcnt rnolcmenl has agai st.'^.J"",j1,,, l, ..,n,,. it"-'"*,""i ,,,,,,i,.',',r. fr..,I,rn t quinrnss, rrtirlrr Ar,' ricJr' lr rs'ui",,.,i,.'i.,"r;,',rl .rlrrc:rn'l rr i'I lrrr'i'i'rrr'rt'l u'1 ul ouinrl 'nrl l"'lil (rl r'h nlil' \f'u ctl*iir"a''.iiit"'l-.i"';'"" ,'1" .l"g i" nt"-t*trinnnt inthcm Esseurialll" maru conserl',ti.es 2rnd,;]i!-*;';,;,',.',', ';;i,i"ti .'"..i't tr" iii'"'i"'.i"'. posiLior rhat "Indi'iduNl fr.ccdom andgo\,etrlmcnt po\{er atepolar LrPposrrcs More government m,cans lcssfrcedom "'lll short thclei.j,n inlrrrcll l..Ll.-ull l' '',,.' 1"'",',:''"'ul'n'i1'c''"nrrl lil'ir'u' -'r lri\l'';rrr r'f irl''l:l';i"J;;;,,,;;;";'"ii'c p'ndits likc lh'"1' l""i'"ust' '' n'l s''n-lr'lrrnrt] I t r\.it favoriie poiDt ol"li;l:-;'i:';;;';.;1-;.,1-i.i.i". "" ''"li 'rs Rondd lteasan liked-to'pul.it: "Runa''a];;;.""tt;";;,i th,*ut",'. .. lhe 1e11 prcser'\'trti.n oilreerl"rn ils(ll'- t lrrrll"rr H"sr-rr':i:l;l:f-';: ,,1,;;.,.f;,',*inri,, ioo,,. ',rr-rr-rt\ trrr, x,',r'nrrr.r.'r rr.r'r'cc"nrrrrr"rcrhrr;,i.i.il"."r.rr'r,.i iirl,' rlr'r,l1 rnr' r"lo1'pr'" ir'l'r"L'u-liunsinLl ' Un r''lsli rr'':tn".,, ,, ,,.n\' ,,n o.u"ct ol Arle can ljtc, plrl,lic or plil'.rte, that thc fl](leral :lovernmerlt

does llot*'i".f".";ttit:""i ,"til*"tii' "n", c" tu itt 'iiLt l' Lrn lrrd lirclorf' homc rrd school' unilclsio arrd',,.i,'.lr--.i,""i .t.it ani pt""..lltt"tna all arc ovcr'laicl nitlr a spiclcl nelrr'orli o{ lats',,;i"i;,,"..-rlfii"ii"rs "ncl b.i"nnj.,n pcn.rltics tl,"L st;flr thc :pirit, tlrc t'cr.gl', the creitli'c:l"i.iit i "l ,i '';"^', .r,


5/29

lovc frccdom - lnd rr.c all do - thcn you should strongly oppose cver]' expansion ofgovcnrmcnt po\ler and acti\-irJ* bccause thel' trke orrr freedorn a\l'av.Or so jt seems. But things are nol al\|nts ils lhcl sccnr. r\nd in this case, as $,ith so many othctanti-go|crnmcDt argurnc|ls, this \ic\\,of the IelationshiI lx lrreen hccdoln and 8u\yr nmFnt i(inconlplele, distofted, aDd often \!rorg. It relics alnx)st entirely the prcvalent stereoq?cofgovefDrnelrl as "-tlig tsr'olher." Blrt if Ne can skrl l)ack and look at the pelfomrancc of(rurdcnlocratic go\ crDmcnt in a rrtorr objccti\,e and less dogmalic way, wc brigin to sec that rnan\ ofthe l)asic cLrnsL.rTrtj\'c assumpl;(rls about gol'ernmenl .rnd Ilccdorrl irr'L' mistakcn.i,ct-s sLart i)\'sccine, wh.t is wr()ng Nith lhc Jlost central rssunrlljon ol lhe euti go|elnlncnt\'ien of 1lt,ecbrn: that thcre is !n ine\,itable trade ofl bchrccn p,olcrnnlcnt and our inclividualri!,hts end libcr ticrs. TlxrY fcr\.entl\' bclic\-c ihat as llo|er.]]lnent gro\'!s. our- 1r.flknns must shrink.As Rcp. Dick Arnr.\' pul i1: "Tbe shecr Ir:rss of our fcdcral gor,crDmcnt is sjmply jncoosislcntrvith a iree socriet\'.'s But it is simPly r|'rong to bclicvc that the sizc or extenl ofilovernmenl has an]'thing to do $.ith horr oppressivc it is. For exaurple, you could havca couDtn \\'ith a nlini al public scctorthat !{as \'ery replessi\e to iLs cilizerrs- IlrouldhaYeloNiares, ii:r' srrial sen ice programs, aDd hardlv anl' rc8,uletions oD busirrcss. tsui it could illso bcincr-edib11'oppressile - allo*'irg, only one'patty electjons, blnninll h-r*: speech, muzzling theplcss, prcrcntiDg ticcdorl ol asscnrbh, jailing peoplc albitrail], etc. On the olher hand, \!ecould lrN1lr a socictt rvith a public sector nruch lare,cr then wL'havc that his all ihe lreedons o{ arnoclcrn clemocracl. Belgium, for cxalD]e, hrs i I]lrblic scctor NLuost t irc lhc size ofthe UnitedStates ,s ir plopo|lior of GDP, ilnd has mrl(fi m()ro extcnsi\r' hcalth carc. uncnlplo)rment, anLlpcnsion progrims. Ycl Bcle,ian cilizcns cnio!-' essentialll, the sarne r-ighls .nd liberties asAircricris. \'Ve scc \ery fe.l{ uelgian politicdl rclxg,ccs lpphing for asllunl in the U.S. bcc.luscth) are opprcssul in thr:il. houl{.land.So lhc sizc xnd c\l(inl ol govcrnrnenl n(li\itl'. br jlscll, tclls us Dothinjl aboul ho$- fiee oropplessive a socjet\ js. l hc nccessiry trade-off bet\*:en ir,o\crorncnl sizc aDd cjtizeD's lrec{lomsimplv dol's nol L'xist. And lhc rrirson it docs not exist js bccruse rnant of thc lnost cornnron?rctivilics of thc rnodcrrr sl:lte builcling loacls anrl highrrals, puttiDll olrt files. fightingrliserse,lreirting orrr scl1age, proricling collc.qc l():lns, lu dil]t basic scicntific research, proridingnredir:al c;rrc f{)r the ddell}, sr4rplying tlcrn N-.rlcr. licllirrg the poor, ptrr icling parks arxlIecrcatiorul llcilities, subsiclizing firrrnels, cdutatirrg our thildr'cn, tblecisting, thc Neilhir,scnding out Social Securitl chcclis, and so (D arc irot inhercDtly coelci\.e (tr oppl'cs\ircat all. So it is sirrlt\ rnist:1kcn lo aubmaticall] equatc rn{)rc g(^ crrllllrrl \rilh I ess Irccdor]l.'Ihe nljnirnal-go\ eDnrcnt cro\r(l Lrscs this "mor-e go\er-nment = lcss frecddn lbrmuh to trrekcall sofis of alarmjst cliirns. For e\rmplc, sonlc suggesl thai c\ eI increasc in gor-ernmcrlt poNeris a slep do\rn ihc roid l(r lotalii.rianisln an(l rePression.'l-his is a {a|onte rrrgumcllt of lllan}'conserl ati\,es rnrl thc| usc it l() ()pposc c|cn srllall ilnd sccrnin!,1! reasonabl(i incl-crses ingo\ernrnenl pro8lanrs ol lcgulati(ms. So th$ rr:,rrr is that if\\'e alloN thc go\'crllnrent to illsiston backgrolrnd che(lis to bu) guns, this uill leacl 1o mrrntlalor'-r !,un regjstlillion, \iirh \\illcvcnlualh lciLd Lo conllscatior ofguns, and Ihis \{ill put the ilovorrnrc i in a position to relrl'ssa disarned rrnd hclplcss citizL'ntt. Ol thel suggcst Ihet legaljzing assislcd suicide for tclmirall\ill patjents \\ill orrh sct lhc stirSc for jlo\1rrr)lrlL'nt eulhan:rsia proglenls rinr'tl rl lhchandicappccl arld othcrs. Or ih(i)'fcat that nrirDdrrLirrS, llon_sm.)king Irftrls is nnftlJ r sleJ)lo\rard outlx\!jng cigirrettes rllog(illrcr.In his boolr, I)4an(litltl Goucrnnl(rnl, Nlix NienlaD hrs labclctl this rrgrrrncnt lhe "llig BroLlrerIloarl to Dictatolshjp lt sug.lScsts that thc expaDsir)rI ()fgorcrDmenl portcrs in the Ll-S.


6/29

duling, the last 75 years has been inevitably lending us dox'n thc path towardtotalita anism. But as he hirs noted, tl']ere is re:rlly no lalid elidcncc 1br this theory' lf r'\'elook et hoN modern dictatorships herc cotne about, thc)-hale not been the product 01 graclualll_increasing social progr-|rns and tegulations ovcr property and business. As Neimarl .'xplains:It is comrnon ilmong consenalil'c c tics of public scctor acti\:ism to characterize au\ernmente,ro\rlh in the arena of social wellare, enYitonnent, consumer and $or-kcr protcclion, andincorrc sccuril'as sleps t(rward the loss of liberl), and c\,en totalitarianjsm. Xllany critics oftbecmergc cc ofthe modern social rrcllare state ... lla\'e tricd io co cv thL' sense that tbe road tototalitarian hcll is paved \\'ith lhc good irtentions oI the soci.rl dctnocratic progmm- .-.l here isno recol.d. hoNevcr, ol any opp,essive regimc having taken portel bI ach ancing on the social\\r:llnrc fiort. Leniu and Stalin, llussolini, Mao Tse_tullg, Fidel Caslro, and Chile's Pinochet didnot consolidate poNer b) !,raduall) increasing social r'reJfare programs, tnxes, ind regt ation ol'the cn\.iroruent or wolkplace. Rather, these assaults on personal freedom aDd detnocraticgo\errarcc inyoh,ed lirnitalion on civil dghts and political ights. the leg;timization ofoppression and discliminatjon against disfavorcd or unpopular groups, Ind the centralizatjonlnd c\pansioD of rnilitaLr' and polic\- forces. Hitler clid not bccon,c thc suprcrle Luler oflhc Nazistate by first taking over the hcalth department.TSo ihere is not an iDhcrent trade off betwccn govcrnment alrd fieedor]r. Much of whatgovernrnent does is not coercive at all, arrd cxpansion ofgovernment plograms isnot goiDt< to lcad us down a slippery slope to totalittrian rulc. But all oi this is not todenv that some governmenl :rctivitjes do curtail our lreedom. Consenativcs are correct tosay that m:ury lau's and rcgulations are inhcrentll,. coercile llrey prevent peopleand organizations liom doing $,hat thcy $'ant to do. Bul arlti-golemmentconsenativcs secm to think this coercion is a bad thiD8. It is rrot.What anli gorernmcnt zealots fail to appr-eciate is that \,!hen our ddlrocr-atic govcrnmcntrcstricts people's beha\.ror-, this is al osl alwil)-s a uety good t/rirg. \\ie u-'dnt the govenlnreDt tor-estrict thc freedom of many people peoplc \\,ho $ould othcr\{ise do a gleat deal ofdanrage tous, oul fanrilies, alld our socict)'- We don't \\'ant burglars free to rol], or rapisls lrce lo atlackworncn, or murders fi-ee to kill pcople. Nor do we want shady busjnessmen fr-ee 1() tle{raudinvcslors aDd customels) or factories lrec to dump poisons in our air antl !fik'r', or drugcomp:lnies liL'e to sell dangerous or'\\'othless rnedicincs- Ii) creatc an ordered, prospclous,:urd just society somethinu rvc all rvanl - we ine'r'itably have to h.tve agoYernrDent thal B'ill nol let everyone do what the) $,ant. In short, restrictirrg somepeople's freedom ;s in the public interest. Naturall), ]1e don't al\r'a!s agree oD \\ hen ihcsccoercive ineasurcs alc justified. Sometjmes lhe hann to inclividuills nray not be \\'ofh the SaiDsio thc public jDterest. But whiic \ae can disa8ree oD such matters, \!hrt is not disputable is thatotrentir es il is cntirely legitimate to restricl peoplc's fteedon in pu$uit ofthe public intcrest -and that \{e are all much saler ,nd bcttcr off for it.*'hjle nost coDse[vatiles \{il] readily idmit t]rat lhe SoYcmrncDt is lcgitinlate jn restrictingcrinrinal bchavior, they do not th;nk it is icgilimate for it to reslrici lhe ireeclorn of nonnal, lawabidiDg cilizcns. lror example, they belieYe it's wIoDIj for the overn rcrt to usc zonitrg la\'vs lorL'sh ict how people use their prilate propcrty, and for jt to forcc peol)le kr'!!ear nrotolcyclehelmets or to pleleDt the lronr smoking in public lacilitics. fhe) jD1!l{e the specter of "BjgBrother" intluding iDto the prj\ale li\'cs ofcitizens telljnS, us \that to clo in our-evertday lives.But in \inuall) e\.cry casc in $hjch Jlo\crnmcnt tties to regulnte lhc l)chjr|iol of ordinatlcitizens, jt docs so for the sarre reeson it rest cts the lr'ccdotn of crirnjnals to prc\'cni ha talrd to pronlotc the Sood ol societ! as a Nhole. Wben pcoplc's actions onl) allect thclnseh'es, \\e


7/29

usually could care less u,hirt the]' do. But rvhen individuals' aclions bctiD to har-rrl olhcrs, lhelt\re do carc and \rc \\'ant lo stop it. No one cales ii]ou snroke in your o\,rn horne; but if ]ou do'1n a public place rrrur sec(nldhand snrokc can hilr'Jl others - as has been showlr ltv ttumetous

studies.Perhaps the best cxample of this kind of jssue |as bccn lrtotorc)'clc hclmet la\\'s Nhjch hil\ebecome a Jightcning rocl fol pro-ftecdom/antj go\trnn]ent aclirisls. For thcln, this is thealthetlpal cxanple of go\crnmenl brrrealrcrats intcfcrin!! r,ith our ght to malte our ourrdecisions about our li1,es. lf Iiders r\ art to irlcrerse thcir chanccs of dving in a crash, that's theirorLn busjness - thc gorclnDlcrt should nlind jts oNn business. But li)c problcDr hcrc is not sornuch tlrc lrevdrtablc d.rths ()1 thcsc l'iclcls 'lhe pro}lem is that oft(n tbe\ don't dic.\{otorq'(ic ri(lcrs \vithorrt hdDrets t}Iicrrlly cxpcr'icncc more ficqucnt and rrore sercle hcacliniuries in au:idents. rLhjch cir! oltcn nreln prololgcd irlcl erpclsir'c stals in hospit:rls rndnursir!{ honres. Ancl this docsn't iusl aftect thcn: it affects all us in tenns ol hiS,hcr insurrncc(x)sts, and jncleased lloverDnent health car-e rripend;lurcs. For cxilrrlplc, bclbre cnactjng ilsuniYeNal helmet larv in r99r. California's siate medical proliram paid oLrt $4o million fbrlreatrnenl 01 motorc)cle-related head injuries. Afler passagc of thc la\d, that fiilrre droppcd to$24 million. Also, a Nalional lligh\ret l'raffic,,\dlninistration studl has sho\n lhri ifall siateshad mandLrt&l 1oo% hellllct usallc belr{ee 1g8q and 1996, thc total cost sn\inIis oYer those 13vears uoulcl harc bccn $4.633,173.956.8 Ihis is mone]'that came oul of nll our pockcts :1ndcould he\c trccn pul io belter use. As Judith Lcc Slonc, prcsidcnt ofAdvocatcs for High\\,aY e d-,\uto Safel\., hirs obserl c{: "Citizens nust fiilhl li)r e\ cry penny lrL lhc statc Bo\.crnnrent level andr_({!gnizo tho tr-rde-ofi.s l{belc thel exist. In lhc case o{ motorcvclc hclilct larrs, clearl} thcDmney spenl oD heaLi iniulics nlcans lhlt lcss nonel wil] be availlrble to prv policc ofllccrs orlcacllcrs.- 9 And as on.i statc scr)ator..lohn Cullerton of llliDois, has concluclcd: "On bchall ofthelaxpelcls I rcpr{rscnl. I rnust rsk: ls it \!o h spendinti thcse millions of dollars to pe). ibr the$'incl in the hair of motorc}clists? Mt an$\'er is No. 'o Ard ret in sp;tc l)1 thc large public costsl)eing imposed on taxpavcrs b! lhc absence oi these hlvs, lhe Republic.rl Congrcss repealedferleral inccntires lo lbe strtes to adopl thesc lir\vs in 1995. As r rcsult ofthjs adioD rnd thcgrorting porrer-of conscnati\es jn state logislrlLrres, nlorc slrlcs har-c hccn repealing anclNealit'ning thci| bclmct laNs, and noN onl\- 20 slales hrve larvs that ([cr :r]l ridcls. t\re urr allr\,olse olf 1br this.


8/29

1. Is thcre an ilhcrent contradiction bet$een ci! il fr-eedorD and golerDrrreni?2- trVill Big GovelnnlcDt inliinge irore strongl) into cjYil1iedoDr?3- Is go\ernfienl control thal curbs cilil tlecdonr neccssarilv a bad thing?And then there are some $ho belje\e wholeheartedlv in small or'ljnrjted govemment...hitp://r!\\ !:.r.r:n!erlqqru!lgo\ ell!!rn!!.eo!l


9/29

,\ poinl oivic$ll) B an \{rilldcn- 22 XIelcb 2oo5, BBCIn his !r'eekJ1' opinion colurnn, Brian \ny':rlilen considers thc debalc on big versussmall lioverrrnrert, and $'hy thcre is no ministry oflove.\\'hen I \!as a bln l uscd to collect cigatelle cards, bccause it rras a cheaper hobbT thancoliectins strnps. One o{ tbe celebritics clcpicted on a card jn m} collcclion $'as the Holl}n{oodactr-ess, Jean ]Jarlo\!, the "blonde bombshell" ol lhc r93os rr'ho u'as pose


10/29

She tilt surc llrat ils hel NlP I \\as iust thc rriln to sort out her faiher and rnalie him !!ive hisconsert. \"cIV deljcatell :tnd at sonrc length I t(td h$ lhal ]lly les pons ibil it ics lo hcr djdD'tcrlend qllite that f,rr. She r\'as tlisappointcd, ])ut tben a thought stnrck her.'led He:rlh's Conscll'ati\.c go\-ernment \!as jn powcr al the lime arld she \or)drred. since Icrlrltln t h91p her, if I could lilv thc casc belbre Nlr lleath so that he could take action. I said thatcvcn Nh Heath \\ool(Ln't bc ablc to assist iu so prjvate a nratter. She rvas llric;us. "Do You meank) tcll mc," she sajd, "thirt Ilr Hcrtll inLl hjs go|ernment ha\eD't fiot a po]iry on lo!e?"You scc sonle peoplc \\'aDt l,jovernment to leavc thcm alonc :rnd olhers $'antgoYernnrctrt ro do prxeticalll' cvcrl,tlrinrj t'or thcrn. \^rbat has put all of this inlo n1\' herdr\'es Gorclon I} o\\ rr's brrdgct o| \\'ednesda). 1 listened to the catalogue of lax changcs, bencfilchanges giYeaN.ars and trlcl)acks in stlrnncll rc|ercnce. l\'hat the budgct brought holnc to incr\'|s the size, scope iurd complcxity of rnodcrn goricrnnrenl. Cood|ess ltno\rs rlhat theDaughtc.s olthc Contetlcraq, $ould ha\'e thought oi a governnrolt this big.I thi|k l;lanklin Roosevclt. hiDrself, r'oultl hale been inrpr-essul. Hc kncr,{ Stalin's Russia andIlitler's Clelmrn], L,uL lir a d.rnocralic govcrnnrcnt to havc so mirly lingers in \u rnrln\ piesnright have surprised hjm. Especiallr il hdd learnt thlt the Britjsh golernment rrirs ir no rrclexccllional and that most of ihe go\'enrrnents of Western [urope undertake a vastriuge ofactir'itics in elcrl field ofhulrall eDdealour.lnc;dcntailf that's qujte ilrtspective of their pdjtical complexion. lD sonrc qllar'telis e li-'eblepretence is nuinlrincd Ih.rL lhcrc's N dillcrcncc ir attitudc lo big !,o!cr-Drrent bet$ceD the SocialI)cmocrats rnll ( hrisli.ln Denr(xrrNls i Cernr.rry, or lhe Socialists and Gaullists in |rancc. Ilihcre js in theol, I mrlst su\ I IriNcn't nolicctl an\' dillirt'nce in prarlice.Small feetLel mc e,i\'c an illushation. l hlough nredia tlicnds and [,lPs I kncn lbrnrcr I'rcsident Rich.]rdNixoD, \!'ho had to lesign o\,ri l\raterg:rle but \\'as as sharp:rs a fox about politjcs. ,\(lmitiedlvsornc ol his idras \rclc l little stlaDgcr. He sajci to me once "Halinli s all feet is veN jmportant-llao ]'sc l Lrng told nrc tlritt nrcn \\'ilh sBrirll Let hitlc donrjnaDt personalitics incl thc)' donliDl]lethr: $orlcl. ' Ghncing clo\rn I notjced thrt Njxon's Let \reren't too lrrge.But rnucb ol $hlt hc seid was rcrr'shlewd, elen if c\rrir:al. I chlllcngcd hirn ihri though hc $ase liepublican ancl supposed to be in lir\oLlr ol srn:rll g(^crnntc l I didn't thiuk hc'd .lonc rnuehabout jt. He rct)licd "Surc I didn't. Iln not a knucklehead. People back home holler that thel'\\irnt less go\enrmeJlt. Gj\e it to'cm rnd cxccpl in lLc St;uth ll)e11ll go out rncl rolc lirr lhcDemo(rals."Sirce Ni\on's time lnoderrr governmcrrl has tricklcd into cvery nook and cranny oflife. ln Britain thc authorlics don't contlnc their elfolts io the NHS, schools, transport, socialscn'ices ancl thc rcst. 'l hc irrts and spor-ts are jn the lnix as rYcll. They're even preparcd to help)ou bl tL'lling ]'ou \\'hat )olr ought lo wcigh, \lat you ought to cat and how hard Iou shouldsnlllck rour childr.en.Fr.rm tirne to tinre thc |rrblic l)cconrc restless urrdor all thjs supcn'ision itnd \{ht]lt thc) dopolilki.ns drop the hjni lhrlt il nighl bc cut back. L)ont biDk on it. Onc of tlrc dilTiculties:rbout rcdueinil the sizc of big govcrnmcnl is that thc civil sert'icc, lrho are thc


11/29

pcoplc $ho $ould have to do it, are part of big govcnrment and so \vould be$r)rking themsclves {)ut of a job. it's a bit like asking tlte brcNcls to thjnk up a schente forrecluciDg the salc olalcohol.I lla\c to si\, lLat therc's a lireat rcluct|rce to licc the tnlth about big governmcnr. It's as ifsomeihcrc embcclderl in thc thinljng n{ m.Lnl of s is rn urJs\' jcilinx that this m[chgorernnrcnt can l be liood lor- us. People hear references to the "nannv state,, and thcv fljnch.Sur, h l'.\ f. .l .1-ilJr', rr r, lro rr cJ., hit lorcrnmFnl to look rltcr'.rprn,llrrblic opinionB i big govei-nment didn'l happen by ltccident. We'vc got it lrccause most of uswiurt it. Not all olcoursc; I know thcrc clc pcople rvho'd lilte the go\.crnlr]ent to pull in its homs,but thc\'re iD the minority. You don't suppose that polilicians, who speDd a lait antollnt ofiheirtinre sludving loflrs gtoups and opiniorr polls. wouldn't havc llolicea if Nc rcally .r\.aDted snrallgolcrn m ent? 'fhelrd bc sh cluting for ; l iiom thc I ooliops. Ancl ih ey're not.lD Filctice the politicians.!vho gcnuineh, do belier,e in snlall golet.ntncnt l)rve to Natch iheirslep. It's a lo\e thrt hardly clnre speak its onme. What some of ihcn tn.to sitt, is thal theno\i r'rinp .ol ,lhe:rn.l"rjrnd ,,rr rr,,ul,lr,' r.ticc.But \nurr,,rrl,l Ilvorr'dlir,.dirlJrrUKi]hunc[r:d lears ago I'ou cou]d halc had rll thc srrrcll gorernrncnt \,,u \\inteLl. But most people\\ ouldn't hirle likcd it. :a'ha l'.s hou, srrrall gover.n ;ent got to ie bigl goter-nrncnt in thefirst pktce, Bec/jtrse tlte Dtajoitu utante.l ihe gouet iient to interferebcrrcuolently in theil liues.The idc:r that the government exists to solvc our problenrs has become so deep-scaled lhat it is rcflected in the mcdia by thc iarnous qucstion '\ryhat is tlicfjov-erlrr enl going to do?" This is rrot confined to w:u., or firnine, or everr lack ofbeds in hospitals. It pops up even'rlherc from teenagc drunkenness to okl folk lefton ihcir ou'rr - the iss[cs ofthc pcople.I had :r dcar lricnd \!ho ah,ays uscd rs hjs e]cciion slogan the brttlecr1. ,,1 bclie\,c in people,'cxu-sc peoplc mattcr utost." On onc occasion I hillted that this was a ratltcr cntptv appcil. iAlltbc bcttcr 1.rr that," he saicl, "thc1, car fill in tllc detajls for.themseh cs." ,'\!hat da1:rilst; I nsl(ed.",\1J tirc aooclies \!c're going to gi\.e 'em. Remember always rtltl as S:tnlr Clltus but never be.f,l.ifi, \.t :r I,i!l.nut,,, t,.r UiBSo\,.-r,.nen,.BLlt i can offcr some consolatiur to tLose $'ho don't like big go|ernrneDt. Cheer up. Ther.e isn't ago\elnnlcnt deparlment oilove - \.ct.QLresli(Ds to ponder-

1. Considcr tbe pros and cons ofsnlall nnd l)ig govet nments.z. Cen citne| u bc, JiJ ro l,p {rt', ri,,r I lri., rl,; oth.r:3. Consider thc lasl section tiilcd "Public Opinion". Is thjs truL' ol ,singipore? Do \\,e, as aPcople, desirc the goverDntcnt's 'bener'oletrt interference" iD our lj\ es?


12/29

Passage A1 When N,4artin Luther Kjng said, "l have a drear. lhat my four children will one day live jna naiion where they will not be judged by the colour of iheir skin but by lhe conient of iheircharacter," he was dreaming of a world where his children could count on equal lreatntent,not equal shares. He was dreaming oi the kind of equality that is not conlra.y tomerilocracy bul is jnstead merilocracy's foundalion.2 Very roughly, a regime is merilocratic to the extent that people are judged on the valueof their performance. A meritocracy will satisfy lhe principle of equal pay for equal work."Rewards will track pedormance, al least in the long run. A pure meritocracy 's hard toimagine, but any regime is likely 1o have medlocratic elements. A corporation ismeritocraiic as il ties promolions to performance, and deparls from meri{ocracy as il liespromotions 10 seniority. No one needs 10 inlend that rewards track performance. While aculture oI merilocracy is often partially a product of deliberate design, a corporation (orespecially, a whole society) can be merilocratic lo a degree without anyone having decided10 make it so.3 Paying us what our work is worth may seem like a paradigm of fairness, bul somephilosophers see conllict between equality and meritocracy. Norman Daniels says many"proponenis of meritocracy have been so concerned with combating the lesser evil of non-meritocralic job placemenl that they have lelt unchalienged the greater evil oi highlyjnegalilarian reward schedules. One suspects lhat an elitisl infatuation lor such rewardschedules lurks behind their ardor for meailoc.atic job placement."4 Such remarks are, if not typical, at leasl not unusual in academia, but liberalism has anolder, populist tradilion that deployed the concept of meritocracy against heredilaryarislocracy. Even the socialist lradilion once was parlly a meritocralic reaction lo a socalhierarchy that prevented workers from earning fair wages. ln fact, merilocratic lolerancelought against eliiism, nol for it. Liberalism won, and indeed won so decisivelv that lodaywe hardly remember lhat a battle had 10 be fought. ln the western world today, no oneexpecls us lo bow. No matter how rich or poor we are, the proper way lor us to inlroduceourselves is wilh a handshake, which implies ihal we are meeling as equals. Mundanethough thal facl is, the very fact that it is so mundane-thal we lake it for granted isinsp ring.5 Today, we see people as commanding equal respect qua* cilizen or qua human being,yel we need not and do not pretend thal every auto mechanic (tor example) is equallycompetent and equally honest. We know perfeclly well that aulo mechan;cs do notcommand equal respecl in every respect. We paefer to do business with people who aregood at whal they do. There would be something wrong with us if we did not. ln everydaylife, egalitarians inluitively grasp that genuine respecl has merilocralic elements, and thuslo some extenl traaks how we distinguish ourselves as we develop our diflering polentialsin difJerent ways

Adapted from "On Equality and Meritocracy"by David Schmidlz

'10

20

15

25

30

35

*qua in the capacily of / as

n.r c l--{ ,- 2-


13/29

Passage B1 The United States likes to think of iiself as ihe very embodiment o{ meritocracy: acountry where people are judged on their individual abilities ralher than their familyconne;tions. The original colonies were settled by refugees lrom a Europe in which therestrictions on social mobility were woven into the labric of the state, and the Americanrevolution was partly a revoll against feudalism From the outset, Americans believed thatequality of opportunity gave lhem an edge qver the Old World, lreeing lhem fromdeb;litaling snobberies and at the same time enabling everyone to benetit from the abilitiesof the entire population- They still do.2 Io be sure, Amer;ca has often betrayed its fine ideals The Founding Fathers didnol admit women or blacks io their merilocratic republic The country's elites haverepealedly flirted with the arislocralic principle. whethel among ihe brahmins of Boston or,more flagrantly, the rural ruling class in the South. Yet America has repeatedly succeededin living up to its besi self, and loday mosl Americans believe that their counlry still does areasonable job of providing opporlunilies for everybody, including blacks and women lnEurope, majorities of people in every counlry except Brilain, the Czech Republic andSlovakia believe lhat forces beyond their personal conkol delermine their success lnA'nFflca. only 32oo la\e such a {atdlislic v ew.3 All this may sound a bit impressionistic, bul more and more evidence from socialscientisls suggests thal American sociely is much 'slickier" than most Americans assumeSome researchers claim thal social mobility is aclually declin;ng. There ls also growingevidence that America is less socially mobile than many other rich counlries The evils areclearly beginning lo appear. However, there are lew signs of a reiorm movemenl so far'Why not?4 the main reason may be a paradoxical one: because the merilocralic revolution ofthe first half of the 20th century has been a1 leasl half successfui. Members of theAmerican elite live in an intensely compelitive universe. As children, ihey are ferried fronlpiano lessons to ballet lessons to early reading classes As adolescenls, they cram in asmuch after-school coaching as poss;ble. As sludents, they compele to get inlo the beslQraduate schools As young professionals, they burn the midnight oil lor lheir employersAnd, as parents, they agonlse about getting their children into the best universities. lt ishard for such people to imaqine that America is an)'lhlng bul a meritocracy: their lives area perpetuai competilion. Yel, il is a competition among people very much likethemselves-the offspring of a tiny slither of society ralher than among ihe full range oftalents that ihe country has lo otfer.5 The second reason is lhat America's engines of upward mobility are no longerworking as effeclively as they once were. The mosl obvious example lies in the educalionsyslem. Upward mobility is increasingly determined by educalion. The income of peoplewith jusl a high-school diploma was flat in 1975-99, whereas lhat of people with abachelor's degree rose substantially, and lbal of people with advanced degrees rocketed6 The educal;on syslem is increasingly stratified by social class, and poor childrenhave a double disadvanlage. They allend schools wilh {ewer resources than those of theirricher conlemporaries (school finances are largely determined by local property taxes)Dumbed down schools are padicularly harmful lo poor children, who are unlikely 10 beable 10 compensale for then at home.7 America's great universities are increasingLy reinlorcing rather than reducing these

3

10

15

2A

30

35

45


14/29

Read the passages in the insert and then answer allihe quesiions which follow below. Notethat up 10 fifteen marks will be given for the quality and accuracy of your use of Englishthroughoul lhis paperNOTE: When a queslion asks for an answer lN YOUR OWN WORDS AS FAR ASPOSSIBLE and you selecl lhe appropriate materialfrom the passages for your answer,

you must still use your own words to express it. Little credit can be given to answerswhich only copy words or phrases from the passages-Questions on Passage A1. ln a merilocracy, how is the principle of "equalUse your own words, as far as possible. pay for equal work' satisfied? (line7)[1m]

According to paragraph 2, when is an organisation considered merilocratic andwhen is ii not? Use your own words as far as possible. [2m]

From paragraph 3, explain in your own words, why some people strongly supportthe practice of matching job to ability. [1m]

4 Accordinq to paraqraph 4, what have the meritocratic principles challenged? [3m]


15/29

5. "Mundane though the fact is, the very facl that it is so mundane - lhat we take it forgranted - is inspiring." (line 28 - 29) [3m]a What is described as mundane?

b Why is jt described as mundane?

\ai

c Describe the writer's tone in this senience.

Questions on Passage B6. What "fatalistic view" do some people in America take (line 17)? Answer in yourown words as far as possible. [1m]

7. Using your own words as far as possible, explain the paradox mentioned inpaftgtaph 4. [3m]


16/29

B. Using material from paragraphs 5 to I, explain how ihe American educationalsystem has failed lo make meritocracy work.

Write your summary in no more than 140 words, nol counting the opening wordswhich are printed below. Use your own words, as far as possible [8m]"The American educatianal system has failed because...

F


17/29

Questions on Passages A and B9. VocabularyQuestions

Frcm Passage A[5m]

deployed (line 22)intuitivery (lrne 36)....From Passage Bideals (line 9)....evrls (line 2')..........terried (line 26).......

10. ln Passage A the writer feels that ihe intention behind meritocracy is to fight againsielilism, not lor it, and thal meriiocracy has achieved some measure of good forMan. Passage B explains how merilocracy has failed in some ways in Amer icaUsing information from boih passages as well as from your own knowledge andexperience, evaluate the successes and failures of merilocracy in your counlry Youshould not confine your discussion to the practice of meritocracy in education. lBml


18/29

r


19/29

SERANGOON JUNIOR GOLLEGEJC2 COMMON TEST 20OSGENERAL PAPER

Passage 1Jim Holt writes aboul the rise of soft paternalism in America.Whe'l lhe go\Frnnenl lellc you lhal you canl\moke ndrUu:na or rhal yolrrnusl wear a helmet when you ride your motorcycle even if you happen to ]ikethe feeling oi the wind in your hair, il is being palernalistic. lt is largely trealingyou the way a parent treats a child, reslricting your liberly for whal il deems 10be your own good. Palernalistic laws arent very popular in this country. Wehew 10 lhe princlple that, children and the mentally ill apart, an individual is abetler judge of what's good for him than the slate is and that people should befree lo do whal lhey wish as long as their actions don t harm others.But what if i1 could be shown lhal even highly compeient, well-informed, well'iniormed people Iail to make choices in lheir besi interest? And what if thegovernmenl could somehow slep in and nudge lhem in the right directionwjthout inlerfering with their liberty, or at least not very much? Welcome to thenew world of soft palernalism". The old hard' paternalism says, We knowwhal's besi for you, and we ll force you 10 do il. ln contrast, soft paternalismsays, You know whai s besl for you. and \,ve ll help you do 11.ln some slales with casino gambling, like Michigan, compulsive gamblers havethe option of putting their names on a blacklisi, or 'self-exc[]sion" list thal barsthem from casinos. Once on lhe iisl, they are banned for life lf they violale theban. they risk being arrested and having their winnings confiscaied.The voluntary gambling blacklist is an example ot what's called a self-bindingscheme ll is a way of restructuring the external world so thal when tuturetemplations arise, you will have no choice but to do what you've judged to bebesl for you. The class c case is lhat Ulysses, who ordered his men to lie himto the masl of his ship so that he could hear the song of lhe Sirens withoulbeing lured lo his destruction. As a freely chosen hedqe aoainst weaknessesof the will, self binding would seem 1o enlarge individual liberty, nol reduce il.So what is there lo objecl to in a programme like N4ichigan s?Plenty, say liberlarian critics. To begin with, they dont like sofl palernalismwhen r1 involves the slale s coercive power; theV are much happier wilh privatesel{ binding schemes, like alcoholism clinics and Weight Watchers clubs. Whalbolhers them is lhe way solt palernalism relies for ils justilication on lhe nolionthal each of us conlains multiple selves and thal one of ihose selves is worthmore than lhe olhers

10

2t)

15

25

30

The shorl-run self cares only aboul lhe present. lt is perfectly happy to indulgetoday and offload lhe costs onlo future selves For example, recenl sludies 35show that teenage smokers are aware of the rlsk of getting lung cancer asadults, bul they simply don t mind making the future self suffer for the pleasureof the momenl The prudenl resolulions of the long run self are conlinuallyPage 1 oi4


20/29

ignored.But why, some sceptics ask, should the government side wiih your prLldentlong-run self against your hedonislic shorl_rLln seli? lf the goal is to promotetreedom, there is an interesting argument favouring the former' A distinclivequality of humans i3 thal we do not simply have desires, we also have feelingsaboul our desires. Take the unhappy heroin addict; he gives himself aninjection because he desires lhe drug, but he also has a desire to be rid of thisdesire.So why can't soft paternalism be left 1() the private seclor, as some libertariansprefer? The problem is thal private self binding schemes are easily subvertedwhen someone can make a quick buck off your weakness of will OneMichigan man who s'gned up for the casino's private self-black;istingprogramme found the owners all too accommodating when he had a change ofheart- 'Within half an hour. I was back in, he said.Besides soft paternalism, there are certainly more exalled ways to achievemastery over unwelcome impulses. Existentialist thinkers insisl that each of usis free 1o redefine his character through an act ot conscious choice. For thereligiously inclined, an access lo divine grace mighl be what is needed 10stiffen the will.But what if you are one of those people who rely on more mundanestrategems, like self-binding? The general problem you face is this: For a givenuphill Ooal and a given streaglh of will, does there exisl a path, howevercircuilous, that will get you to the top of the hill? By adding a new path hereand there, state soft paternalism makes il more likely thal the answer will be'yes'.Source: New York Times, 3 Dec 2006

40

10

50

55

60

si'

Page 2 of4


21/29

Passage 2Daniel B.Klein writes about lhe moral consequences of palernalismPicture a man gobbling a second helping of chocolale cake, or chain smokinga pack oi cigareltes, or injecting heroin inlo his veins. ls aggression or violencebeino done 10 an innocent pelson?ln a sense, yes. A fleeting, shod term, self that enjoys chocolate nlcoline, orheroin is working his will on an enduring self thal pays the cosl 11 makes sense 510 describe ourselves as a bundle of multiple selves that overlap, intermingleand sometimes confliciAllhough you may not think oi yourself in the plural, lhe idea of multipie selvesis really familiar Some people recognise a dark self - a Mr' Hyde - ihat lurkswilhin, an acl slrategically to defeat him. lf such personal tactics are insuflicient 10in subduing Mr. Hydes that lurk, perhaps lhe government can lend a helpinghand. Atter all, subduing bad guys is whal the government is all about Thisreasoning underlies numerous paternalislic laws worldwide.Laws help us nol to overuse a huge variety of substances, from heroin {openicillin. Other laws protect us from buying on impulse, from nol saving for our 15old age, and from murdering ourselves. Alllhese laws are offered as a serviceto the erstwhile partaker Yes, people sometimes do things they regret You'dbe ridiculous to say lhat you never make rfistakes, that you never do lhings toexcess. Bul does thai mean the governmenl should step in and prolect us fromouTselves? 20One good reason to rejecl paternalism is that public officials do not, in faclknow belter whether an activity is detrimenlal to our enduring self Passingblankel restrictions on behavioLlr rides roughshod on individualily Somepeople drink too much, or gamble loo much, but many others do not Anotherreason to rejecl paternalism is that it sels a nefarious precedent Up to whal 25po nt does the governmenl gel to play nanny? Where does il end? Somelimesit is lhe government lhal seems to sufler addiclion 10 power and it is lhe onethat needs to show restrainl Furthermore, lhe juslification oI "it's lor your owngood ls bound lo be abused ltwill usedlo justify all mannerofspecial intereslplunder, such as excessive licensing laws. 30Bul the chief reasons for rejecting pale.nalism do not deny irrationality in theprivate individual, nor even wisdom and benevolence in government stewardsThe chief reasons to reject paternalism are its moral and spiritualconsequences.Paternalism is demeaning 1o lhe individual because it demeans his exislence 35It i-trakes exislence arbitrary and alien, ralher than purposeful andpersonalized. The autonomous individual admits his inconsistencies, his

Page 3 of4


22/29

contradictions, his bedevilling impulses, but insisls nonelheless: Grant me lhedlgnlty of choosing which behaviours deflne my being, and charge me with lheresponsibility for Mr Hydes ihal lurk. lf you suspect that some Mr. Hyde seeksto undo me, then lsay, go ahead and lel him try.A first moral consequence ol llbedy, lhen, is dignity, the romantic sense ofbeing lhe caplain of ones soul and reJishing the drama of one's existence.There is a second moral argumenl against paternalism- To give our existencebeautiful meaning, lo make ourselves becoming, we must learn how tomanage our troublesome impLrlses. But how do people leaan selt-command?The best teacher is liberty himseli. The second moral argumenl is that libertybreeds personal responsibililyln the intimaie contest o{ seltcommand, hubris often prevails. Beforehand wesay we won't gamble al all, we won't get angry, we won't watch TV, we won't,we won'l| We forget that lhe mood and vision in which plans are laid may varygreally lrom the mood and scenes experienced as the road ls travelled. SohLrbris produces unhappy experiences and a feeling of regret. From experiencewe gain awareness of the need for betier self-command and a wil' to defeatour entrenched jmpulses.Ralher than leaving lhe individual free to learn from experience and example,paternalism weakens the moral facully of choosing one's own course. Bypresuming that the individual is incapable of choosing competently, apaternalistic government may actually make him incapable. Wean a person ina world of decrees and prescripiions, and he may fear personal independenceand.esponsibility.lf a Mr. Hyde sometimes makes me eat too much chocolate cake or smoke loomany cigarettes, that is my problem, and everyday I must practice the art ofsubduing and negotiating with him.Source: The Freeman: ldeas an Libefty, May 1994

45

50

10

11

60

Page 4 ot4


23/29

Civics Group GP Tutor

SERANGOON JUNIOR COLLEGEJC2 Common Test 2009

GENERAL PAPERPaper 2

lnsert & Question PaperCandidales answer on the Ouestion PaperNo Additional Materiais are required.

RFAI} THFSE INSTRIJCTIONS FIRSTWrite your name and civics group on alllhe work you hand in.Wrile in dark blue or black pen in the spaces provided on theQuestion Paper.Answer all questions.At the end of lhe tesl, fasten all your work securely together.The number of marks is given in brackets [ ] al the end of eachquestion or parl question.The lnsert contains the passages for comprehension.(Note that 15 marks out of 50 will be awarded for your use oflanguage.)

I

I

this Ouestion Paper consists of 6 printed pages (Pgs 2-7)

Monday grh March 2009t hour 30 minules

For Examiner's Use

Summary

[Turn over]


24/29

PAPER 2 (50 marks)Read the passages and then answer all the queslions which follow below Note that up to fifteenmarks will be giv;n for the quality and accuracy of your use of English throughout this paper'Note:WhenaqueslionasksforananswerlNYOUROWNWORDSASFARASPOSSIBLEandyou select the appropriate material from the passage(s) for your answer. you must still use yourown words to express it. Little credit can be given to answers which only copy words or phrasesfrom the passage(s).

Questions on Passaqe 1 :

1. According to the author in paragraph 1 , why are paternalistic laws not very popular? Useyour own words as far as Possib/e.

12 ml

2. What are the differences between the "old hard paiernalism" and the new softpaternalism" (line 131? Use your own words as far as posslb/e-

t2 m1

3a. According to the author, how do sel{-binding schemes help the individual manage "futuretemptations" (line 21-22)? llse your own words as far as posslb/e.

....[1 m]


25/29

3b. ln the analogy of Ulysses (lines 23-25), what represents "future temptations"?

[1 m]

4. ln paragraph 8, what does the author say about the nature of companies offering privateself-bindinq schemes?r

7

[1 m]

5. using your own words as far as possib/e, explain the alternatives to soft palernalismsuggested by the author in paragraph 9.

[2 m]Questions on Passaqe 2:

6."After all, subduing bad guys is what the government is all about " (lines 12'13) What dothese lines imply about how the government perceives the world?

[1 m]


26/29

7. Why does the author put the word "my" (line 63) in italics?

[2 m]

B. Using material from paragraphs 5, as well as 7lo 10, summarise the author's argumentsagainst paternalism. Write your summary in no more than 110 words not counting theopening words below- Use you own words as tar as possib/e.one of the reasons why paternalism should be rejected is

$'


27/29

Questions on Passaqes '1 and 2:9. Explain the meaning of the following words as they are used in the passage You inay writeyour answer in one word or a short phrase. [5 m]

? (a) nudge (Passage 1,line 11)...... .. .

[9 m]

(b) hedge (Passage '1, Line 25)(c) hedonistic (Passage 1, line 41)(d) distinctive (Passage '1, line 42)(e) fleeting (Passage 2,line 4)

knowledge. Ie1

10.Jim Holt presents some arguments in support ol soft paternalism in Passage 1, while DanielKlein is not in favour oJ it. Which writer's views on paternalistic governments are the majorityof young people in your country inclined to support? Explain the reasons for your choiceYour aniwer must refer to ideas raised in BOTH passaqes, as well as your own ideas and


28/29

s


29/29

?

r

END OF PAPER1

govt tutorial materials

Documents