by Bob Schmidt

Created on: June 28, 2009   Last Updated: April 15, 2011

It would seem obvious that governments should try to manipulate undesired behavior of those being governed. However, attempts to change individual behavior patterns can result in losses of individual rights of the affected citizenry.  Therein lies the problem, the question of how much control a government should exert upon the governed. 

When governments impose excessive burdens and mandates upon their populations, displeased citizens may rebel and demand changes in their leadership. There should be a broad consesus that any behavior manipulation be based firmly upon serving the general good of the country. Otherwise, revolution will eventually result by citizens who refuse changes that contradict their own deeply held beliefs about what powers a government should wield.

The American founding fathers did not want government, or anyone telling citizens how to behave. The only higher authority that most of them embraced was a belief in God. They saw fit to make sure that no religion was enforced upon the citizenry, and that no specific morality had a place in the structure of government. The founding fathers wanted the right of self determination and government by the people.

By comparison, countries that are run by Dictators have no personal behavior options. That characteristic is the key to the rule of most tyrants. Fidel Castro's iron-fisted rule of Cuba serves well as an example of total manipulation of personal behavior during his reign. The USSR was a great example of socialist attempts to dictate behavior of diverse populations. Freedom, and personal rights were all but nonexistent in either instance.

Within the United States, there have been past efforts to manipulate the personal behavior of citizens. That is what Prohibition was all about. Even though a majority of American citizens might have agreed that alcohol was a curse to society, the same citizens revolted against such morality issues being determined by governmental mandate.

What constitutes an instance of when a government should try to manipulate personal behavior should be approached carefully by any governing body. Issues that are morality-based and not a question of being in the area of public safety should be avoided. Most people reject the idea that they should adopt the morality of someone else in areas that do not affect anyone else.

As with so many things, personal perspective plays a role in each person's opinon about matters such as this question. Since few people live in isolated regions where small groups live and interact with only others of the same background, governments have greater responsibilities to not infringe on traditional individual rights. It is possible for different thinking people to co-exist with their fellow citizens.

In a final analysis, every citizen has natural personal behavior traits that represent the beliefs and habits taught by their individual life experiences. As people live together under a common government, they should adapt to the reality that each person thinks as an individual but belongs to a larger group. Personal behavior has to be acceptable to the larger group, and governments sometimes have to force some changes of thinking for everyone to be able to co-exist.

Providing that government is impartial to who might be favored, some personal behaviors of individuals require change for the overall survival of a benign government. Excessive manipulation will never be tolerated forever by citizens, and isolation from all other groups of people is not an option either. For that reason, governments should cautiously try to manipulate personal behavior for worthy reasons.

Learn more about this author, Bob Schmidt.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.