• 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
J

joko104

Banned
Suspended
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 21, 2009
Messages
65,981
Reaction score
23,408
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I am astonished at the degree people demand the government control people to the finest detail. Of course, that also means demanding the government control you - ie protect you from yourself.

Way back at the start of this country, a French philosopher named Torqueville toured the USA marveling at this new concept of uneducated people running their own government. While he saw this new concept of almost unrestricted personal freedom as amazing, he predicted it would not last. In his opinion that due to human nature, people would vote to outlaw anything a person does not like or do. Since there is almost nothing everyone agrees on, then ultimately almost everything would be regulated, outlaws or restricted. In short, he predicted Americans would become the most regulated, watched and constrained people with endless new laws and regulations.

What is your opinion of the proper role of government?
 
joko104 said:
I am astonished at the degree people demand the government control people to the finest detail. Of course, that also means demanding the government control you - ie protect you from yourself. Way back at the start of this country, a French philosopher named Torqueville toured the USA marveling at this new concept of uneducated people running their own government. While he saw this new concept of almost unrestricted personal freedom as amazing, he predicted it would not last. In his opinion that due to human nature, people would vote to outlaw anything a person does not like or do. Since there is almost nothing everyone agrees on, then ultimately almost everything would be regulated, outlaws or restricted. In short, he predicted Americans would become the most regulated, watched and constrained people with endless new laws and regulations. What is your opinion of the proper role of government?
Click to expand...

Where's the poll?

But yes, I do. In fact I'm rather extreme about it most of the time and personal responsibility is very much the core of my political beliefs.
 
I believe there must be limits and constrai ts on society for it to work. Without them you have the chaos we see in the country today. Within those limits, personal choice is acceptable bit of beyond those limits.
 
it depends on how you define teh freedom

l can say for the second option that people are responsible for the consequences of their own actions as long as these consequences dont harm the others
 
We have moved so far from personal responsibility it is a damn shame. Government has overextended itself into all sorts of areas it has no business.
 
The proper role of government is such:

- Maintain a justice system to prevent/seek retribution for coercion/violence between citizens
- Organize national defense
- Maintain the few programs that would be near impossible in the free market, IE: public roads, radio spectrum division, etc.

The government has no role in legislating non-violent morality, or telling people what they should or shouldn't consume. It's our lives, our bodies, our decisions.
 
I'm huge on personal responsibility, I think people need to be held accountable for their actions, not only to themselves, but to society as well. We've lost any semblance of responsibility in the modern world, it's all a bunch of idiots with their hands out, whining about how nothing is their fault.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
The government has no role in legislating non-violent morality, or telling people what they should or shouldn't consume. It's our lives, our bodies, our decisions.
Click to expand...

And that's great, so long as it's your consequences as well. If someone is going to smoke, don't come crying to me when you get lung cancer and can't afford to pay for cancer treatments. Don't expect the taxpayers to foot your bills. You did it to yourself, you deal with it.
 
Cephus said:
And that's great, so long as it's your consequences as well. If someone is going to smoke, don't come crying to me when you get lung cancer and can't afford to pay for cancer treatments. Don't expect the taxpayers to foot your bills. You did it to yourself, you deal with it.
Click to expand...

I can agree, but then it gets really messy. What about the guy who ate McDonalds more than he should have? Should we all be paying for his triple bypass?

We all make ****ty decisions, often regularly. Where to draw the line between "group share" and "you're on your own, haas", is a really complicated subject.

Either way, the government shouldn't be involved.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
is a really complicated subject.
Click to expand...

No it's not. People make the decision to smoke, to eat non healthy food, to not exercise, to skydive, etc. The outcome of their decisions is their responsibility.
 
Arbo said:
No it's not. People make the decision to smoke, to eat non healthy food, to not exercise, to skydive, etc. The outcome of their decisions is their responsibility.
Click to expand...
I get that, but he was talking more about insurance aspects. His statement was essentially 'why should I have to pay for their health care?'. The fact is, when you have insurance, you're paying for people who make a LOT of ****ty decisions. For instance, what do you think is worse from a healthcare perspective: smoking weed, or eating mcdonalds every day?
 
What strikes me is how "Government" has replaced "God" to so many people. If someone is doing something "illegal," most people convert that to also acting immorally, exclaiming "That's illegal!"

Essentially everyone commits dozens of crimes a day, maybe hundreds a week. So it really isn't about what is illegal to people because they will claim the illegal stuff they do is petty - even if felonies - while what another person does that they don't like or do is "Illegal!"

Drive down any road and watch any car for a few minutes. 99% of them will commit numerous misdemeanors (traffic offenses are criminal misdemeanors). Or anyone working in their yard. 1 in 10 at gas stations filling up commit a major felony. Etc.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
I get that, but he was talking more about insurance aspects. His statement was essentially 'why should I have to pay for their health care?'. The fact is, when you have insurance, you're paying for people who make a LOT of ****ty decisions. For instance, what do you think is worse from a healthcare perspective: smoking weed, or eating mcdonalds every day?
Click to expand...

Get government out of health care and make people responsible for their own care and we can stop paying for those that are irresponsible.
 
Arbo said:
Get government out of health care and make people responsible for their own care and we can stop paying for those that are irresponsible.
Click to expand...

I agree the government should be out of it, however, you'll still be paying for others no matter what insurance plan you have. If there was a "I only eat broccoli and rice cakes and run 10 miles every day" health insurance plan, you'd be right. That however doesn't exist, so you'll be doing it anyway.
 
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!
 
RabidAlpaca said:
I agree the government should be out of it, however, you'll still be paying for others no matter what insurance plan you have. If there was a "I only eat broccoli and rice cakes and run 10 miles every day" health insurance plan, you'd be right. That however doesn't exist, so you'll be doing it anyway.
Click to expand...

But if you get government out, and let the free market work, let companies work across state lines, you will probably get far more choice than what you have now. It may not be the exact plan you quote, but I bet it would be closer than the generics they plan to force down everyones throat.
 
Arbo said:
But if you get government out, and let the free market work, let companies work across state lines, you will probably get far more choice than what you have now. It may not be the exact plan you quote, but I bet it would be closer than the generics they plan to force down everyones throat.
Click to expand...

I dont' really understand what you're trying to accomplish here. I already agree the government should be out of health care. However, the person I initially replied to implied he doesn't want to pay for someone else's ****ty health decisions. I then pointed out that this was already the case, you already pay for other people's ****ty health decisions in your insurance premium.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
I dont' really understand what you're trying to accomplish here. I already agree the government should be out of health care. However, the person I initially replied to implied he doesn't want to pay for someone else's ****ty health decisions. I then pointed out that this was already the case, you already pay for other people's ****ty health decisions in your insurance premium.
Click to expand...

You said we pay for others. If we get government out, more options will become available, options that allow you to pay for you, not for you and everyone else.
 
Arbo said:
You said we pay for others. If we get government out, more options will become available, options that allow you to pay for you, not for you and everyone else.
Click to expand...

So magical non-insurance options will appear? And yes, I said when you have insurance, you are currently paying for others. Would you like to provide a rebuttal with facts that this isn't the case?
 
RabidAlpaca said:
I can agree, but then it gets really messy. What about the guy who ate McDonalds more than he should have? Should we all be paying for his triple bypass?

We all make ****ty decisions, often regularly. Where to draw the line between "group share" and "you're on your own, haas", is a really complicated subject.

Either way, the government shouldn't be involved.
Click to expand...

It's not complicated at all. If you caused your own problem, you pay for the solution or you drop dead. Your fault, your problem. It cleans out the gene pool.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
I get that, but he was talking more about insurance aspects. His statement was essentially 'why should I have to pay for their health care?'. The fact is, when you have insurance, you're paying for people who make a LOT of ****ty decisions. For instance, what do you think is worse from a healthcare perspective: smoking weed, or eating mcdonalds every day?
Click to expand...

Actually, I wasn't referring to insurance at all. Everyone ought to have it and if they do something stupid that requires medical attention, then yes, everyone who bought into the insurance already knows what they were buying into and it's funded by the group. The stupider people probably weigh heavier on the group, but they ought to be charged more for having bad habits in the first place.
 
joko104 said:
I am astonished at the degree people demand the government control people to the finest detail. Of course, that also means demanding the government control you - ie protect you from yourself.

Way back at the start of this country, a French philosopher named Torqueville toured the USA marveling at this new concept of uneducated people running their own government. While he saw this new concept of almost unrestricted personal freedom as amazing, he predicted it would not last. In his opinion that due to human nature, people would vote to outlaw anything a person does not like or do. Since there is almost nothing everyone agrees on, then ultimately almost everything would be regulated, outlaws or restricted. In short, he predicted Americans would become the most regulated, watched and constrained people with endless new laws and regulations.

What is your opinion of the proper role of government?
Click to expand...

I don't think it's the proper role of government to protect you from yourself. I do however believe it is the proper role of government to protect us from each other.
 
Arbo said:
No it's not. People make the decision to smoke, to eat non healthy food, to not exercise, to skydive, etc. The outcome of their decisions is their responsibility.
Click to expand...

Right up until they go to the emergency or operating room, can't pay for their treatment, and someone else has to foot the bill. Being responsible for your decisions is great - as long as you and you alone are responsible for the consequences. That simply isn't what happens in reality.
 
StillBallin75 said:
Right up until they go to the emergency or operating room, can't pay for their treatment, and someone else has to foot the bill.
Click to expand...

I don't think we should. They were the one sucking down 2 packs a day, they're the ones who have to be responsible for the cost of their treatment. If not, let them die.
 
Cephus said:
I don't think we should. They were the one sucking down 2 packs a day, they're the ones who have to be responsible for the cost of their treatment. If not, let them die.
Click to expand...

Which sounds nice in principle but in the emergency room it's hard as hell to determine just what is the cause of a particular emergency or ailment when the surgeon is trying his damnedest just to save a life. How do we make a distinction between people who end up on the operating table because they made stupid decisions and people who end up there because they simply got the short end of the stick?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom