One school of thoughts reckons that authorities should take control over the citizens' decisions. On the contrary, there is a counter argument that folks should have rights to make their own resolutions. I am going to scrutinize on both aspects in forthcoming paragraphs.
First of all, individuals have the rights to live according to their wishes. In some democratic nations, the government provides basic rights and freedom to Denizens for better prosperity of their lives. For instance, masses can live anywhere in their own built houses and find their desired job to fulfil their needs and amenities. Consequently, individuals can only dwell by self dependents and reliance, and if, in case of external interferences, they feel uncomfortable and cannot do anything freely. Moreover, the masses become responsible and self dependent by making significant decisions of their own.
On the contrary, it is mandatory for law making bureaucrats that they should impose some restrictions on offensive crimes. For example, drugs dealing, alcohol mining, bank robberies should take into consideration seriously by police and law making administrations. Nevertheless, if crimes and offences become basic priorities for criminals, so it results into worse circumstances for societies. Moving to another instance, wake of COVID-19 affected throughout the world, which provoke the governments of all nations to take steps of lockdowns in entire nations. Meanwhile, the situation becomes so tense, that's why for the better maintenance of people authorities make decisions. Therefore, some decisions which are inappropriate regarding people should be controlled by the authorities.
To recapitulate, it is irrefutable that decisions are mandatory for every individual as a basic right, but I personally believe that some legal decisions taken by government have significant role it.
One school of thoughts reckons that authorities should take control over the citizens'
decisions
.
On the contrary
, there is a counter argument that folks should have
rights
to
make
their
own
resolutions. I am going to scrutinize on both aspects in forthcoming paragraphs.
First of all
, individuals have the
rights
to
live
according to their wishes. In
some
democratic nations, the
government
provides basic
rights
and freedom to Denizens for better prosperity of their
lives
.
For instance
, masses can
live
anywhere in their
own
built
houses
and find their desired job to fulfil their needs and amenities.
Consequently
, individuals can
only
dwell by self dependents and reliance, and if, in case of external interferences, they feel uncomfortable and cannot do anything
freely
.
Moreover
, the masses become responsible and self dependent by making significant
decisions
of their
own
.
On the contrary
, it is mandatory for law making bureaucrats that they should impose
some
restrictions on offensive crimes.
For example
, drugs dealing, alcohol mining, bank robberies should take into consideration
seriously
by police and law making administrations.
Nevertheless
, if crimes and
offences
become basic priorities for criminals,
so
it results into worse circumstances for societies. Moving to another instance, wake of COVID-19
affected
throughout the world, which provoke the
governments
of all nations to take steps of lockdowns in entire nations. Meanwhile, the situation becomes
so
tense, that's why for the better maintenance of
people
authorities
make
decisions
.
Therefore
,
some
decisions
which are inappropriate regarding
people
should
be controlled
by the authorities.
To recapitulate, it is irrefutable that
decisions
are mandatory for every individual as a basic
right
,
but
I
personally
believe that
some
legal
decisions
taken by
government
have significant role it.