Imagine living in a country where letters on paper never existed. Society would not have the same movies and novels to decompress. But society might also spend more time enjoying the things around them. So there can be good and bad when governments create restrictions. When people are allowed to make their own decisions, society benefits. In contrast, there may be disorder in a society that is free. Ultimately, all people must still abide by the laws created by those in positions of authority. The books Fahrenheit 451 and The Giver illustrate the benefits and problems of dystopian societies, which parallel modern-day societies in a number of ways. Society is better when people have the freedom to make their own choices. Portugal has the liberty to obtain recreational drugs without facing consequences. The White House states, "In July 2001, Portugal decriminalized the personal use and possession of all illicit drugs" (Drugs in Portugal). Life in Portugal is free; this freedom allows …show more content…
In The Giver, written by Lois Lowry, society must follow certain rules, which are often unusual and confusing. For example, Jonas’s mother states that there can only be a certain number of people per house when she states, "Two children—one male, one female—to each family unit. It was written very clearly in the rules" (Lowry 8). This explains why their society has to obey the child-to-house ratio. Societies are censored from things considered to be dangerous. Similar to Fahrenheit 451, people are not given full access to what is available. "One cannot and must not try to erase the past merely because it does not fit the present" - Golda Meir. Society lives in fear when they censor things from others because they do not want people to know about the mistakes that they might have committed. Both governments have rebels. Both have rebels who do not want to follow the commands any