Afiqah: How far should a state have a right to monitor the actions of people within its borders?

A state has a right to monitor the actions of people within its borders only with the objective of ensuring those actions do not compromise safety or welfare of the general public. The primary role of the state is to maintain order in the running of daily activities and in order to fulfill the responsibility in making certain that the people in its borders are not endangered or vulnerable to threats and being implicated in a harmful fashion by the activities of another, the state has a right to be informed of their people’s whereabouts and activities to allow it to take effective measures. For example, the state of New York intervened appropriately when there was a homemade bomb that was strategically placed in the boot of a car parked along one of its busiest streets. With immediate instructions ensued to a team of bomb specialists and police officers who helped to steer the crowd clear from the street, the situation was able to salvaged successfully. However, the state should not abuse its right of being in the know in an authoritative fashion by restricting its people to carry out activities of their own preference. This can lead to the state governing in a strict and inflexible manner, verging on practicing soft paternalism. This would upset its people should they be confined to choices provided by the state government only. For example, Singapore does not approve of same sex marriages hence offending homosexuals in the state. It is thus without doubt that the state should be in informed of the activities of its people but not abuse the same knowledge in accordance to their laws.