With a hundred years ago, an adult would be considered unacceptable the idea of asking for State help in problems that were holding and personal destiny. The idea that the State would have been involved in the creation of jobs, wages, in saving in pensions and so on i would have seemed incompatible with the idea of dignity derived naturally from itself its man.
Today, things are totally different. Today, individuals feel morally obliged to ask the State to intervene in almost every area of their lives. What now a hundred years would have been perceived as an abasement, as a lack of humanity, each of us has become a common practice in the meantime and honorable. How was this? How people have become prisoners of the State? And how this has changed the relationships between individuals and imprisonment?
in terms of changing attitude, probably the most plausible scenario is that of gradual evolution. It's reasonable, I think, suppose if a man i would be required to choose between freedom and slavery, he would prefer freedom. This point deserves to be pointed out, that if things are indeed so, then transforming the individual into a State prisoner is an indirect consequence of unforeseen and revaluation of the role of the State in relation to its citizens.
To be clearer, I will take up an example: apparently neproblematic of prostitution. Most of us believe that prostitution is a moral flaw, a type of action dismissed our moral standards. as a result, most of us will consider morally obliged to act in the sense of limitation of this flaw, or at least to support each others ' actions in this regard.
If these actions remain virtually no results, we will find ourselves in a deadlock. A possible way out of the impasse is to ask the State to solve this problem. In other words, we will carry out a transfer of moral responsibility from individuals towards State institutions.
This one has a purpose: solving a problem. Any man who accepts the transfer will not consider doing so, like, give up his man. If you believe otherwise, they would not consent. But, since the results that consents, from the point of view, or freedom will not be diminished. None of those consenting to the transfer makes it to become a prisoner of State. On the contrary, the belief is that the transfer of responsibility (generally, but not exclusively in this matter) not to put in jeopardy its capacity as a free man.
What effect has this transfer of responsibility? Abandoning his concern is more of a problem themselves, declare their moral individuals virtually inability to solve that problem. Furthermore, they accept that the State is, in this respect, the only competent authority. as a result, they expressly disclaims the ability to control the State, obeying its is unconditionally. In other words, under this aspect, individuals assume virtually minoratul. The State gets the right to guardianship, to solve this problem of morality as he sees fit, without having to be able to be controlled by its citizens.
I repeat: the individuals consent to such transfer of responsibility in order to solely and explicitly to solve a problem of morality. The default result is undesirable and that doing so, they become basically minors from politically.
The same scenario remains valid for any situation in which individuals are asking the State to act in their place. Of each date, individuals will explicitly define the limits and purpose of State action. and, each time, against their intention, they will discover that basically lost their freedom. And representatives of the State, as beneficiaries of the entire process will be quickened to assert that acting "instead of" it's the same with citizens to act in the name of "citizens".
From this point on, people's behavior will be one schizoidally. On the one hand, they will understand soon enough minority political benefits. In fact, the benefits arising from their status as minors, inconsistent with the right to vote. under these conditions, they will use the vote to emphasize the role of the State to which they belong in a increasingly larger. People will tend to vote on such those candidates proposing Government projects increasingly wider. From individuals, they will turn into the worshippers of the State.
On the other hand, however, we should not forget that the prisoner is a consequence of unforeseen and unwanted transfer of responsibility. Usually, individuals asking the intervention of the State without having to consider as this will limit significant freedom in any way. The fact that the right to vote are not withdrawn help them keep their long this illusion.
However, people come to find that State institutions are becoming increasingly autonomous, gaining almost godlike in nature. State officials can no longer be controlled; on the contrary, they are the ones who control the lives of others. The State is thus perceived as a hostile foreign entity and that keeps us captives apparently without us.
People become exposed and also rebels. The pensioner who loathe the system of State pensions will require all State pension high. intreprinzatorul outraged by the absence of economic freedom will claim subsidies. Big_boss252 desperate condition that will require increased assistance to State (or possibly a job). Examples may continue endlessly. They don't do nothing but strange would gradate portrait of the new kind of believer, forced to fight daily against the God that created him alone and you adore.