Two Sides of the Spectrum

As far back as I can remember, there have been certain set of rules I was brought up with. From being in kinder garden and being told to raise my hand if I had something to say, to learning how to drive and seeing "red means stop", we have been brought up with a certain set laws and regulations that are ultimately designed with one motive; to protect us. Even as simple as raising your hand in an elementary classroom, without that rule, a bunch of students would be speaking at once and it would be so chaotic that the teacher could not do what they are there to do- teach. Now being older, you realize that that are rules in almost every aspect of our live; school, family, work, law and society. I believe that the elimination of these rules we have grown to be so familiar with, would cause our country to become corrupt and unsafe, and ultimately result in chaos.


After reading the article "Politics for the Really Cool", it is clearly evident that Sameer Parekh was at the far end of the spectrum believing that all government should be stripped away. He has been selling a cryptographic product which would be useful to anyone who can't afford to leave behind a paper trail (McHugh 436). That would be someone running an illegal gambling business, distributing child pornography, or arranging details of a cocaine shipment, or simply someone who just doesn't want to pay taxes (McHugh 436). It is outrageous to think that these kinds of products even exist; that someone would think it is ok to produce a product that helps an individual get away with distributing child pornography! It is these same products and technology that federal authorities have been attempting to limit the spread of. But just think of if the government was completely stripped away, who would be fighting to limit such things? Without the government control these actions would be increasingly more common and nobody would attempt to control or limit them.

The article also discusses how a "key escrow" bureaucracy that would hold cryptographic keys that could, if law enforcement deemed it necessary, be used to unscramble any encrypted message (437). It brings up the question do we really want to put that much power in the hands of bureaucrats? If so, we are looking at kidnappings, terrorist attacks, banking scandals, and things of those sort possibly being prevented. I personally wouldn't mind giving up some of my privacy if it means preventing a terrorist attack or kidnapping, but how far is too far? If we discuss the opposite end of the spectrum which Parekh lays, we would be talking about complete government control. I do not believe in this side of the spectrum as much as I am against Perkhs side.

When the government attempts to control every aspect of our life, then that is too far. I lie in between these two sides of the spectrum, but more towards the side that prevents our country from total chaos. Our government is here for a reason. Without it, our safety and our country as we know it would be at stake.