• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Do you believe in personal freedom and responsibility?

Is it the proper role of government to pass laws to protect you from yourself?

  • Yes, if the government passed laws to protect me from myself, it then protects everyone else too.

    Votes: 4 6.7%
  • No, people are responsible for the consequences of their own actions.

    Votes: 43 71.7%
  • IDK/Other

    Votes: 13 21.7%

  • Total voters
    60
What is your opinion of the proper role of government?

The proper role of government is to protect people and promote their freedom. Social darwinism is currently a favorite concept of many conservatives, and especially libertarians. Such a concept is contradictory to the idea of democracy. For instance, the civil rights act goes against social darwinism. Black people aren't allowed to use public drinking fountains? Not allowed to eat at the same restaurants as white people? Too bad, the government isn't there to force anybody to do anything, right?

Except black people weren't born equal for most of this nation's existence. The only way to solve this problem was through legislation and regulation.

And why would the US enter world war 2? Other countries are fighting over land and resources? Not our problem. Slave labor? Not our problem.

Part of responsibility is making sure that everybody else has the same freedom and opportunity you do. If you don't think the government should allow people these opportunities, than maybe it's you who isn't terribly responsible.
 
The proper role of government is to protect people and promote their freedom. Social darwinism is currently a favorite concept of many conservatives, and especially libertarians. Such a concept is contradictory to the idea of democracy. For instance, the civil rights act goes against social darwinism. Black people aren't allowed to use public drinking fountains? Not allowed to eat at the same restaurants as white people? Too bad, the government isn't there to force anybody to do anything, right?

Except black people weren't born equal for most of this nation's existence. The only way to solve this problem was through legislation and regulation.

And why would the US enter world war 2? Other countries are fighting over land and resources? Not our problem. Slave labor? Not our problem.

Part of responsibility is making sure that everybody else has the same freedom and opportunity you do. If you don't think the government should allow people these opportunities, than maybe it's you who isn't terribly responsible.

The proper role of government depends upon what government we're talking about (state, local, federal) and what powers and restrictions that government has been granted. Sociology is nowhere in the grant for our federal, state or local governments. I don't believe the word "opportunity" is even used in our Federal Constitution. Perhaps it could be in one of the 50 state's constitutions.
 
No, you're just looking for some way to shift the blame. I don't care if it costs taxpayers $1.95 a year, if it's something they're not supposed to be paying, they shouldn't be paying for it. It's not the only problem out there by any means, or even the largest, but that's where this thread has gone and pretending that just because there are bigger issues out there, we can ignore anything not at the top of the pile is asinine.

So when someone asks you about your views on personal responsibility, your go-to talking point is how free ER care is wrong? This apparently to you outshines all of the real examples of personal responsibility.

Tell me about all of these government programs where you pay for someone else's cancer you mentioned on page 1.
 
Last edited:
That is is right and proper to do so.

All those posts for that? I mentioned civil commitments because it's an even more straightforward example of how people's liberties are suspended for their own protection. Of course, it requires that there be probable cause of mental illness with subsequent risk of harm to self.

The state can intervene if you're threatening suicide or driving drunk. So therefore... what? I.e., how does this tie back into personal freedom and responsibility?

It really depends on what we're talking about. Do I believe in owning the responsibilities of the decisions you make? Yes. That's part and parcel with liberty.


But that doesn't automatically mean the government has absolutely no use.


Who ever suggested that?
 
Last edited:
It's actually a really weak-knee argument to try and claim that "Vice users are oppressed". It's a societal vice. A vice activity is naturally destructive to society. You as an individual forfeit your freedoms when you choose to engage in vices that attack the greater society.

Taxes and laws are 'An eye for an eye' in this respect.

When you as an individual make a choice to do clear viceful damage to the societal collective then that societal collective has a right to open your bank account and 'charge you' for your societal trespass.


So the Libertarian argument is actually illogic attempting to pass itself off as logic when it is anything but. "I should be able to puff smoke in your breakfast at the cafe and insodoing rape society yet society should not be able to penalize me". Absolute illogic.
 
For example, ever have been filling up and it doesn't cut off right and a little bit of gas runs down your car and some on the ground. Did you then drive off?

OMG! That's ILLEGAL! YOU committed a hazardous materials spill. Even if not deliberate and you not liable, YOU DID NOT REPORT THE HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SPILL YOU CAUSED! FELONY! FELONY!

And then I get to rage that you grotesquely endangered the lives of others. A bus of children with an electrical short could pull up, and that HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SPILL YOU DID AND DIDN'T REPORT could burn every innocent little child on that bus to death - a horrible way to die! You evil bastard engaging in ILLEGAL dangerous actions without giving a damn about anyone but yourself!

And if I don't drive a car, then I get to rage at you and everyone else in cars as pure evil, willing to burn little children alive, destroy the land, water and air... at least you - because of your ILLEGAL activities!
The outrage comes when people feel like there isn't any justice and that is why they turn to the law. So if they can't petition the government for laws to protect them and provide justice then what other recourse do they have but to revolt and take the law into their own hands? Why would the government want the governed to do that?

No laws are going to be 100% effective and the notion they have to be in order to deter crime or provide security and justice is nonsense. I'm unaware of any law that makes not reporting a minor gas spill while filling up a felony. Do they post signs at gas stations stating what the law is? They do for things like "no smoking" and "breathing vapors are harmful to your health". I think smoking a cigarette near a gas pump is illegal...and if it not, it should be. Or is that too much government intrusion? Imo, it's not.

A lot of laws intended to protect people are lobbied for by insurance companies to help save them the cost of paying benefits for something that's easily prevented...ie: helmet laws helped prevent a lot serious head injuries.
 
On the whole I believe the fewer laws and regulations passed the better.
 
All those posts for that? I mentioned civil commitments because it's an even more straightforward example of how people's liberties are suspended for their own protection. Of course, it requires that there be probable cause of mental illness with subsequent risk of harm to self.

The state can intervene if you're threatening suicide or driving drunk. So therefore... what? I.e., how does this tie back into personal freedom and responsibility?

Its pretty simple. There is nothing wrong with passing laws to protect people - even from themselves. Drunk driving is a perfect example of that.
 
Its pretty simple. There is nothing wrong with passing laws to protect people - even from themselves. Drunk driving is a perfect example of that.



I would argue that the main rationale for banning drunk driving is to protect other people from the drunks.
 
I would argue that the main rationale for banning drunk driving is to protect other people from the drunks.

And that is one aspect of it to be sure. There is no denying that is a part. And another is to protect people from the negative consequences of their own behavior.

The law about buckling up when you drive would be another example of a law which protects people from the negative consequences of their own behavior.
 
And that is one aspect of it to be sure. There is no denying that is a part. And another is to protect people from the negative consequences of their own behavior.

The law about buckling up when you drive would be another example of a law which protects people from the negative consequences of their own behavior.

The one about wearing a safety belt is indeed a better example of a reasonable government regulation designed to prevent someone from harming themselves.
That being said, it's best not to make too many laws and regulations restricting people's freedom.
 
The one about wearing a safety belt is indeed a better example of a reasonable government regulation designed to prevent someone from harming themselves.
That being said, it's best not to make too many laws and regulations restricting people's freedom.

I would agree that we should keep this to what is the least necessary and should be cautious when doing so.

A part of this comes back to the eternal questions about the balance between the individual and society. We have the famous line about "no man is an island" and that is certainly true. A person may take what they see as a private action which does not hurt others but it often does.
 
Republican government (the belief system, not the political party) endows its citizens with greater freedoms in the anticipation they will be responsible enough to keep society from slowly grinding its way toward ruin. That includes people with money and power helping those without it in anyway and every way they can, not just through government. The Founding Fathers were very self conscious about this, with many of them losing money or going bankrupt in their efforts to form a republican government. George Washington would not accept a salary even when his plantation was trending down economically.

Whenever it comes to trying to make ends meet on any specific issue, the only demographic in the United States that consistently makes any compromises or takes on any burdens is the middle class. Everyone else thinks they should get every scrap they have and more.

My response is broadly the same as the response of tyrants in the Roman Republic: people who can't take the responsibility along with their freedom can't be trusted with either.

This was never supported by the founders.
 
What is your opinion of the proper role of government?

In my opinion, it is to provide for a legal mechanism to settle disputes. Of course, if it were performing this role, it would have no legitimate authority to protect you from yourself.
 
What is your opinion of the proper role of government?

To provide "liberty, equality, brotherhood".
Not to tell me what I should eat, do or think. :cool:
 
A part of this comes back to the eternal questions about the balance between the individual and society.

I guess it all depends on who you mean by "society".
 
Similarly, I guess it all depends on which people you mean by "the community".

Society.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society

A society, or a human society, is a group of people involved with each other through persistent relations, or a large social grouping sharing the same geographical or social territory, subject to the same political authority and dominant cultural expectations. Human societies are characterized by patterns of relationships (social relations) between individuals who share a distinctive culture and institutions; a given society may be described as the sum total of such relationships among its constituent members. In the social sciences, a larger society often evinces stratification and/or dominance patterns in subgroups.
Insofar as it is collaborative, a society can enable its members to benefit in ways that would not otherwise be possible on an individual basis; both individual and social (common) benefits can thus be distinguished, or in many cases found to overlap.
A society can also consist of like-minded people governed by their own norms and values within a dominant, larger society. This is sometimes referred to as a subculture, a term used extensively within criminology.
More broadly, a society may be illustrated as an economic, social, or industrial infrastructure, made up of a varied collection of individuals. Members of a society may be from different ethnic groups. A society can be a particular ethnic group, such as the Saxons; a nation state, such as Bhutan; or a broader cultural group, such as a Western society. The word society may also refer to an organized voluntary association of people for religious, benevolent, cultural, scientific, political, patriotic, or other purposes. A "society" may even, though more by means of metaphor, refer to a social organism such as an ant colony or any cooperative aggregate such as, for example, in some formulations of artificial intelligence.
 
A part of this comes back to the eternal questions about the balance between the individual and society.

Oh, so you mean the balance between the individual and the other individuals that make up society.

Yes, I agree. Every individual is only free to act as long as his actions don't damage the person or property of any other individual.

And when a person's actions DO damage the person or property of another individual(s) (either purposefully or accidentally), that's why we need a system of government to determine the appropriate legal penalty.
 
Oh, so you mean the balance between the individual and the other individuals that make up society.

Yes, I agree. Every individual is only free to act as long as his actions don't damage the person or property of any other individual.

And when a person's actions DO damage the person or property of another individual(s) (either purposefully or accidentally), that's why we need a system of government to determine the appropriate legal penalty.

The concept of society is beyond the concept of an individual or a collection of individuals with only personal interests.

Of course, this has already been discussed many many times in many many threads.
 
The concept of society is beyond the concept of an individual or a collection of individuals with only personal interests.

Of course, this has already been discussed many many times in many many threads.

And in this "balance between the individual and society" how exactly does society act to express it's preferences?
 
Back
Top Bottom