I already know that the society in the Giver is a bad one, but what about the government system? Does it meet the standards that every government should? Is is protecting the people and the place itself?
Every government has a set of expectations that should be met. Governments should protect the people from outside threats, and those inside. Part of doing this is deciding who enters and leaves the territory or country. If any government was to let anyone in under any circumstances and didn't guard their borders, they would be overthrown very quickly. Armies could get inside without the government knowing it. And as for leaving, if a criminal escaped from prison, he or she would head strait for the border and cross it. In doing this, the criminal would have escaped justice and could continue to do things like his past crimes without punishment. This connects to the government needing a force of men to fight in wars or keep laws. If there wasn't any army, the country would be crushed by nearby societies, and there would be no stopping them. If there were no police, people could get away with anything they want. The government also needs to meet the people's needs, such as food, shelter, water. If the people of a country don't have their basic needs, there won't be many people who can contribute to society because they would be so weak. However, one of the most important reasons for a government, is to to prevent conflict and establish peace. If there was no government, everyone would be separated by families. Blood feuds would happen easily, and families could kill each other and no one would do anything about it.
Thinking back to the community of the Giver, were all these requirements met? If you think about it, yes, they were. The people in the community were protected completely. For one, there was no pain, because the government made anti-pain shots and meds. There were no outside forces in the book, and in the movie they were above the clouds on a giant plateau. No one committed any crimes because they were brainwashed, and they could think of doing something against the law. This means no murder and no thievery. Does the government have the means to fight off a war? They don't have armies, but with how advanced in technology they are, they probably have missiles, or an army of robots! Also, in the beginning of the book, they say they have the means to shoot down a jet, so they could easily launch the rocket ,or whatever they would shoot the jet with, at an army of soldiers marching to destroy the community.
Eric, I liked the idea that you had for your first paragraph, but most of the time you were focusing on one thing; people crossing borders. Although this is important for a government, it isn't crucial and you failed to mention other things, like giving choice to the people and improving and developing the country, which are both crucial. Another thing you tried to mention is the government keeping order. You had the right idea, but you sort of went off topic in the last few sentences. I liked your 2nd paragraph more than the first, but you got some concepts wrong here and there. For example, the people in "The Giver" could feel physical pain, but I got confused whether you meant that or emotional pain. However, I like your reasoning about how they could fight off an army, but you went off topic when you started mentioning an army of robots and rockets, since these things are barely related to the main topic. Overall, I think your blog post needs a bit of work, but the ideas and reasoning you had were awesome.
ResponderExcluir