I lean right and govt restricts freedom.
I lean left and govt restricts freedom.
I lean right and govt does NOT restrict freedom.
I lean left and govt does NOT restrict freedom.
I am not American and govt restricts freedom.
I am not American and govt does NOT restrict freedom.
as to the OP, democratic forms of government are vile forms, and do not protect the individual rights of the people, democratic forms are about rights of the collective, and what they wish to create for themselves... majority rule.
democratic forms are very factious, full of special interest which buys and sells or our politicians for their own gain.
"when the people become uneducated and dont know what kind of government they have, it will turn into a democracy, followed by dictatorship"
Anti-Democracy advocate, Mixed government is the only good government
THE second point to be examined is, whether the [constitutional ]convention were authorized to frame and propose this mixed Constitution.
Government can be used to restrict freedom of course. For example, government can try to dictate who can marry who, government can put people to death for chewing gum, government can commit genocide, etc.
Governments can also obviously create freedom where it didn't exist before or protect freedom that already exists. For example, government could repel a Nazi invasion, a government could emerge in a country dominated by slavers, etc.
Everybody who thinks about it for a second would agree, I think, that both those things are possible.
Where it gets more controversial is when you drill down to specific types of governmental action where conservatives and liberals might disagree about whether a particular measure is increasing or decreasing freedom. For example, take the scenario of a kid who is born into famine, who has no real options in life except to scramble to try to get enough food until he dies from malnutrition at 5 years old. Most liberals would tell you that that kid has practically no freedom at all and that anything government can do that gives him more real options- like giving him enough to eat to live to be old enough to do something about his situation- increases his freedom. On the other hand, conservatives seem to define freedom not as the presence of options, but as a lack of government involvement. So, by their measure, government giving that kid food decreases his freedom.
The thing is, the conservative answer to that sort of scenario is sort of silly. They're just trying to define their way to an answer- they define freedom as a lack of government and then walk around feeling like they have proved that government can't increase freedom. But is that a meaningful definition? Who cares about "freedom" if all it means is a lack of government? If a person who doesn't have the freedom to actually do anything is maximally "free" according to a definition of freedom, then that definition seems to me like it could use some work. If freedom is to be an important concept, it seems to me that it needs to mean something useful. Some kind of ability to be what you want to be. Stripped of that core meaning, it would be a pretty empty concept IMO.