Argument: A government should not tell its citizens

“Argument: A government should not tell its citizens how many children they can have.
Support 1: The government would be intruding on the privacy of its citizens by doing so.
Support 2: It’s not a necessary step in curtailing a large population increase.
Support 3: A globalized economy will assuage the pressures brought on by today’s growing society.
Thesis: Because placing a limit on the number of children a couple can have is an unnecessary abuse of power, a government should not interfere in
this aspect of its citizens lives.
B. Model Essay
I do not think that a country should tell its citizens how many children they can have. First off, this is an unnecessary intrusion of the government
into people’s personal lives. Secondly, the birthrate around the world is dropping on its own, because of the increased freedom of women. And
finally, with interdependence made possible by global trade, strained resources can be easily supplemented. So the world has adjusted to allow for
more children to be born and to live without fear of starvation.
The first argument against the restriction of children to a certain number is that it is an invasion of privacy carried out by an intrusive
government. People already perceive their privacy to be under threat by the enormous amount of security and surveillance in multiple public
settings. Coupled with the perception that the government can snoop on anyone that is suspected of being a terrorist, despite what evidence there
is to the contrary, this power can be expanded or even abused to enforce the state’s own viewpoints or practices upon its citizens, a clear violation
of civil rights. The state, if it imposes a child limit on families, can use this surveillance power to intrude on families and take away their children
arbitrarily. This is a power that no citizen would ever want its government to have because it leads to tyranny.
The next reason why it’s wrong to put an arbitrary limit on the number of children in a family is that the problem it’s supposed to solve,
overpopulation, is actually being solved on its own. In the developed world, more women are taking control of their lives and their bodies.
Contraceptives are now widely available and they’re cheap enough for anyone to buy. Also, more women are starting careers of their own and do
not have to rely on getting married or having children to secure their futures. The by-product of this is that they’re having fewer children than in the
past. This means that soon, the birthrate in the developed world will be much lower than that in the underdeveloped world, creating a more
balanced population. This coupled with the impending deaths of senior citizens will shrink or stabilize the world population by the middle of the
century.
The last reason is that we now have a globalized economy that can relieve the fear of strained resources. A lot of countries have much lower
populations than the rest of the world, so they often have a surplus of necessary resources. Those countries with higher populations but with
resources not necessary for survival can trade those goods for the surplus goods that are enjoyed by the richer world. This has in fact happened
and in the parts of the world with large populations, they are turning themselves around and finding the benefits of trade and raising their quality of
life.
So imposing a limit on children is unnecessary and tyrannical because the world is already finding a solution to the problems it’s supposed to
fix. The power to enforce this law would entail more government spying and curtail people’s freedoms. The women of the world are also taking
control of their lives and can dictate themselves on how many children to have. Finally, the world has become more open to trade and this has
helped alleviate resource strains throughout the world. That’s why it’s wrong to impose a limit on the number of children families can have.
C. Useful Expressions
1. First off, this is an unnecessary intrusion of the government into people’s personal lives.
2. And finally, with interdependence made possible by global trade, strained resources can be easily supplemented.
3. People already perceive their privacy to be under threat by the enormous amount of security and surveillance in multiple public settings.
4. Coupled with this is the perception that the government can snoop on anyone that is suspected of being a terrorist, despite what evidence there
is to the contrary.
5. The state, if it imposes a child limit on families, can use this surveillance power to intrude on families and take away their children arbitrarily.
6. The by-product of this is that they’re having fewer children than in the past.
7. This coupled with the impending deaths of senior citizens will shrink or stabilize the world population by the middle of the century.
8. This has in fact happened and in the parts of the world with large populations; they are turning themselves around and finding the benefits of
trade and raising their quality of life.
9. The power to enforce this law would entail more government spying and curtail people’s freedoms.
10. The women of the world are also taking control of their lives and can dictate themselves how many children to have.
Q125. When you begin working, would you rather a) earn a lot of money working in a job that you don’t like, or b) earn less
money doing something you truly enjoy?
A. Essay Outline”