<p>Many people believe that our government should do more to solve our problems. After all, how can one individual create more jobs or make roads ssafer or improve the schools or help to provide any of the other benefits that we have come to enjoy? And yet expecting that the government - rather than individuals - should always come up with the solutions to society's ills may have made us less self-reliant, undermining our independence and self-sufficiency.</p>
<p>Should people take more responsibility for solving problems that affect their communities or the nation in general? Plan and write an essay in which you develop your point of view on this issue. Support your position with reasoning and examples taken from your reading, studies, experience, or observations.</p>
<p>Here's my essay:</p>
<pre><code> There are many great economics thinkers in history; the most notable of whom, Adam Smith, whose ideas about the 18th century England propelled the beginnings of the modern day social science known as "Economics". Smith's idea was that the government should adopt a "laissez-faire" (which literally means "leave-to-do" in French) attitude towards economics control In other words, he wanted an economy completely independent of government interference, and that the economy would automatically correct itself whenever a downturn occurred, ensuring a constant state of prosperity. Based on this philosophy, one can assume that people, not the government, should take the initiative towards a panacea of economic uncertainties.
A notable historical event that demonstrate this idea in its entirety is the French Revolution, which was completely unprecedented in the magnitude of its effectiveness. Oppressed by the morally corrupted absolute monarch, the people banded together to overthrow the government of that time. The coup d'etat was successful, and it paved the way for new ideas in science, politics, and economy. This historical example proves how citizens, suffering from a damaged economy, was able to correct it by inciting a revolution. In support of Adam Smith, the French Revolution is undoubtedly an irrefutable event.
Furthermore, government intervention is often detrimental to society. By contributing the nation's assets to the wrong resources, the more potentially profitable businesses and ideas remain in the shadows, forever unknown to the world as a benefit. The current American market exemplifies this idea; the Obama government, desperate to get banks back into a state of wealth (which is claimed to allow the rest of the country to become wealthy again), is neglecting the long-standing problems that have constantly plagued the country, such as the issue of health care. True, education and public safety remain socialized, but the dilapidated state of the facilities and resources available to these institutions are due to the so-called "government help". The current American government, like its predecessors, is not aiding the economic recovery, so it will be the people themselves who need to take initiative.
Adam Smith's policy of no government intervention is appropriate in that it describes how common people (like those in the French Revolution) can, and will need to, incite changes for the better of schools and health care. The governments blunders will ultimately prove to be detrimental to society, thus the society, should, and must, support itself.
</code></pre>
<p>Please be brutal, and expose every error! When writing this essay from my paper to online, I realized...more than a dozen ways that I could have fixed this up D: Then again, when writing on paper, I only had about a minute left or so for editing. D:</p>