Indirect Government Advantages

Words: 598
Pages: 3

The first argument presented through the passage talks about the direct and indirect benefits received from the government. The first argument proposes that gratitude to a governing body should be shown by a prima facie obligation to obey the law, but assumes that those upon whom the law is enforced should be grateful for the law. Smith objects to the notion that most citizens have a duty to act gratefully towards their government. Smith makes the argument that most of the time that the government is not acting in your best interest, rather they are pursuing avenues that advance their agenda. He also states that if someone does something that makes the other person incur benefits for reasons other than that individual’s welfare, then that person …show more content…
Smith criticizes his statement on the foundation that there are other interpretations of consent. He goes on to say it would be very difficult to justify, but explains that both John Plamentaz and Alan Gewrith have revamp the idea of implicit consent. Plamentaz claims that there are two kind of consents. The first is direct and the other is indirect. Indirect consent usually takes place in democratic societies where individual vote. Gewrith’s argument and Plamentaz argument share an underlying foundation that a person’s vote establishes his prima facie obligation of obedience. Smith criticizes Gewrith’s argument as incomplete. Smith states his argument needs to be strength by suggesting Gewrith doesn’t carry the argument that the government is better protectors of human right and freedoms. Smith suggests Gewrith argument is vague in showing how one government is better than another solely on his concept on consent. Smith ultimately argues he fails to answer the main question which is whether or not citizen have a prima facie obligation to obey the law of the