People, not the government, should decide how to organize their lives. Discuss.

Imagine a world without governments where individuals are free to act as they wish – depending on your ideological inclinations; such an idea can be either immensely exciting or worrying.

Regardless, given the increased attention and debate surrounding government intervention in the lives of its citizens, such a discussion is highly relevant and important. In my view, although the government should play an active role in the organization in certain aspects of citizen life, a line has to be drawn –highly personal issues like religion and sexual orientation should still be left to the individual.

“Solitary, poor, nasty, bruttish and short” these are the words used by Thomas Hobbes, an 17th century political philosopher, to describe the condition of man in his most natural and primal state. This has been the principal justification behind the establishment of a powerful government as well as the exercise of its powers to organize the life of citizens. Given his selfish and hostile nature, it is thought that every man, in the absence of government intervention, will pursue his selfish interests without regard of the people around him. What results is a chaotic, uncertain and hostile environment where individuals harm and exploit one another to further their own interests and satisfy their own desires. In such a chaotic environment, cooperation and collective action cannot take place because individuals lived in constant fear and suspicion of one another. The government, as postulated by Hobbes, was thus created from the people’s desire to avoid such a mutually undesirable situation – by ceding certain liberties and freedoms to a central authority, it was hoped that peace, stability and order could be achieved. Government intervention is therefore justified, on grounds of establishing order and stability in society, which in turn provides a basis for mutual cooperation and civil progress.

The most direct and relatable form of such an organization of our lives is in the form of laws established by the government. To rein in our ‘selfish’ and ‘bruttish’ tendencies, laws are drafted to protect individuals from each other and to discourage unconducive behaviour in society. For example, laws against injury, murder, rape and theft are present in almost all modern societies. These laws effectively make use of punishments to rein in and suppress the tendencies of individuals to commit such offences. To this end, the government is effective because (by virtue of its security apparatus) it possesses an overwhelming monopoly of force and power. With stability and certainty established, individuals would then be able to interact and cooperate without fear. Such has been the basis that has underlied the proliferation of trade, commerce, and the growth of human civilization for the past centuries.

Another important reason why governments should play an active role in the organization of citizens’ lives concerns the nature and aim of a state. Individuals, due to their disparate nature and different upbringings, vary in terms of ideals, practices as well as tastes and preferences. It can thus be said that no two individual will possess the same desires and ideals of his good life.

Amidst such a sea of differences, the role of the government, or the state, is to facilitate the achievement of the common good, an ideal situation that is and beneficial to most members of society. Often, this requires a compromise of individual interests because the common good for society may not always align with that of every individual. Government intervention and forced-organization is therefore required because self-serving individuals will never compromise on their personal ideals to achieve collective welfare. A simple and relatable example would be the case of waste disposal. While we would all agree that a clean and rubbish-free environment would be beneficial to the general welfare of society, self-seeking individuals will find it much more convenient to simply dump their rubbish carelessly on the ground. Government intervention is thus needed to ensure their individual interests are held in check to achieve outcomes that are beneficial to the entire society.

Despite the merits and justifications of government intervention in the life of its citizens, surely there must be some limits to the powers a government can possess?

Ronald Reagen, a former US President, once said “The government exists to protect us from each other. Where government has gone beyond its limits is deciding to protect us from ourselves.” On highly personal issues such as religion, sexual orientation or even euthanasia, my view is that individual autonomy should still be respected. But what constitutes ‘highly personal’ matters? This can be defined as actions concerning the individual without any harmful consequences on others or the society in general. Such decisions can be in the form of religious inclinations, sexual orientation or even an individual’s decision to sell his organs or end his own life. As controversial as they sound, governments should avoid moralistic interventions in these aspects of personal life, both as a matter of principle and of practice.

In terms of principle, such interventionist practices can be seen as a violation of an individual’s freedom and liberty. While the ‘social contract’ between citizens and the government involved the cedeing of certain liberties to the government in exchange for security – these liberties only apply to actions that may compromise on the welfare of others. In issues like euthanasia and the selling of organs, although they often seen as controversial and ‘immoral’, they are actually completely harmless to all parties in society.

In practice, governments will also find it increasingly hard to adopt such a stance: as societies and states become increasingly diverse, the residents of these cosmopolites will have increasingly disparate ideals and beliefs. By hoping to organize personal life by promoting one narrow set of ideals, the government risks alienating minority groups and widening social divides in the community. Such oppressive policies, like the one by Beijing authorities to ban Muslim Uighurs in Xinjiang from practicing Muslim traditions like fasting and keeping long bears, will ultimately result in counterproductive backlash reactions, as seen from the resultant spike in protests and violent ‘terrorist’ reactions.

In modern politics, there is often a perceived antagonism between freedom and government intervention, liberty and state control. I believe this is a fallacious way of thinking – There has always been certain ambivalence between Freedom and Government intervention. While true freedom is unattainable without a certain degree of state control, too much of it will also result in the collapse of civil society which undermines individual freedoms. To find a comfortable balance between state intervention and individual liberty - such is the challenge faced by modern states worldwide.