Whether or not governments should take control of resident’s life options has recently been controversial. among residents recently. Some may agree with this policy while others argue that it is essential for government to let people make choices by themselves. This essay will provide an in-depth analysis of both views before coming to a rational conclusion.
On the one hand, it is compulsory for people to be under control, to maintain the safety of citizens and society. To be specific, the government should intervene and restrict harmful practices such as smoking, alcohol consumption, and dangerous sports. For example, age limits on purchasing cigarettes and alcohol should be imposed to deter teenage accessibility. As a result, society can prevent the development of addiction to alcohol and nicotine at an early age.
On the other hand, I believe that the government should not strictly impose laws and regulations to overcontrol the residents’s lives. Specifically, taking control of what people are doing or working on not only cannot solve any issues but also may increase popular distrust. Moreover, it might lead to the appearance of communities or organizations disagreeing with the policies, which may perform public disorder such as protesting or maybe rioting. All of them might end up with people living in concern and insecurity.
All things considered, I am convinced that the government must step in for the sake of securing residents’s lives. However, they ought not to bind people’s lies by enacting principles, resulting in negative consequences.