• 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 governments restrict freedom or provide it?

Do Governments Restrict Freedom or Provide It?

  • I lean right and govt restricts freedom.

    Votes: 18 64.3%

  • I lean left and govt restricts freedom.

    Votes: 8 28.6%

  • I lean right and govt does NOT restrict freedom.

    Votes: 2 7.1%

  • I lean left and govt does NOT restrict freedom.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • I am not American and govt restricts freedom.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • I am not American and govt does NOT restrict freedom.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    28
AlabamaPaul said:
Actually the role of government is to secure the rights of its people under which it was created. Key word being "under"...
Click to expand...

correct.....

to secure the rights of the people...that is the end of government.

james madsion- Government is instituted to protect property of every sort; as well that which lies in the various rights of individuals, as that which the term particularly expresses. This being the end of government, that alone is a just government, which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his own.
 
lizzie said:
It cannot do that without imposing restrictions via legislation.
Click to expand...

Our entire federal government was initially set up with no laws in place, and, as what usually happens, it keeps granting itself powers far beyond what was intended by those under which it was created...
 
JC_CT said:
Again, to restrict is to grant the freedom of restriction, and to not restrict is to restrict the freedom to restrict. You could go in circles all day.

Rules restrict by definition, and rules are necessary for any form of organization by definition, because organization needs structure to exist, and structure needs rules to exist. It really isn't any more nuanced than that, and it isn't where the conservative/liberal differences are, unless by conservative you really mean anarchist, which is doubtful.
Click to expand...

It sounds like you are saying that govts can only restrict.
 
ernst barkmann said:
correct.....

to secure the rights of the people...that is the end of government.

james madsion- Government is instituted to protect property of every sort; as well that which lies in the various rights of individuals, as that which the term particularly expresses. This being the end of government, that alone is a just government, which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his own.
Click to expand...

Understood but to clarify Im not asking about the stated intent or goals of govt-Im asking about the actual practice of govt.
 
AlabamaPaul said:
Our entire federal government was initially set up with no laws in place, and, as what usually happens, it keeps granting itself powers far beyond what was intended by those under which it was created...
Click to expand...

Exactly. As I said, that is the nature of government. In order to secure rights of the people, it must impose restrictions on people, to prevent encroachment by each other. In that process, we essentially consent to giving them the power to make and enforce the rules. If we had no government it would be anarchy, and although we might have freedom to do whatever we wanted, that freedom would be limited by whomever was the strongest and most feared. An elected government is the same thing, except that we vote, but make no mistake, they have the power and they restrict our movements and freedoms, no matter what we want to believe.
 
Van Basten said:
They don't provide them, they protect rights/freedoms that are inherently ours. And of course they restrict them within reason.
Click to expand...

So you agree that (even with your stated intent to provide rights/freedoms) that they can only do this by restriction? I was not asking in the op about intent , but rather action and outcome.
 
lizzie said:
It cannot do that without imposing restrictions via legislation.
Click to expand...

legislation creates law/ regulations, for punishment ....via rights violations[crimes] .....or threatens to health and safety[regulations]

it is not created to make us behavior as government desires.....that would make government a moral entity, and if it had that authority it could deem what is good and bad for us.

this is why you see people elected who think they are moral authority ,........who seek to redistribute health, raise taxes on people on people they think have to much money....

the words "deem necessary" are a very dangerous thing......because people believe article 1 section 8 clause 18 of the Constitution grants government the powers to do any necessary and proper for the people, .....however that is false.

government is only instituted to see the rights of the people are secure.........if rights did not need to be secure, no government would be necessary.
 
AlabamaPaul said:
Our entire federal government was initially set up with no laws in place, and, as what usually happens, it keeps granting itself powers far beyond what was intended by those under which it was created...
Click to expand...

that's correct and it does it many times under ..."necessary and proper".....which is false.
 
Freedom can neither be created nor destroyed, simply redistributed. Government is a mediator that works to negotiate the conflicts members of society have with one another. Without government the same freedom would exist, just shifted around between different elements and in ways less in keeping with ideals the founding fathers had.
 
lizzie said:
Exactly. As I said, that is the nature of government. In order to secure rights of the people, it must impose restrictions on people, to prevent encroachment by each other. In that process, we essentially consent to giving them the power to make and enforce the rules. If we had no government it would be anarchy, and although we might have freedom to do whatever we wanted, that freedom would be limited by whomever was the strongest and most feared. An elected government is the same thing, except that we vote, but make no mistake, they have the power and they restrict our movements and freedoms, no matter what we want to believe.
Click to expand...

If our elected representatives were truly in charge, I might agree, but now everyone rushes to the courts to decide issues which should be decided by those representatives and we all are now subservient to their RULINGS......
 
US Conservative said:
Understood but to clarify Im not asking about the stated intent or goals of govt-Im asking about the actual practice of govt.
Click to expand...

as for government, any government which is not limited, will always grow and exceed its powers.....its the nature of government to do that, which is why American government had many checks on the power of said government, but many have been removed or ignored.

government grows, liberty decreases.

the American people's rights are slowly shrinking every day.
 
Unrepresented said:
Freedom can neither be created nor destroyed, simply redistributed. Government is a mediator that works to negotiate the conflicts members of society have with one another. Without government the same freedom would exist, just shifted around between different elements and in ways less in keeping with ideals the founding fathers had.
Click to expand...

Fine but how can it mediate, beyond restricting as it sees fit to do such things?
 
JC_CT said:
But it should logically follow that a government can't enforce rights with enforcing restrictions.
Click to expand...

Governments are creations of a society, and a society is logically and sociologically defined as a group with similar beliefs. That has been lost with appointed judges now ruling from the bench...
 
Unrepresented said:
Freedom can neither be created nor destroyed, simply redistributed. Government is a mediator that works to negotiate the conflicts members of society have with one another. Without government the same freedom would exist, just shifted around between different elements and in ways less in keeping with ideals the founding fathers had.
Click to expand...

without government... first their would be anarchy, then followed by a dictator, .....people will live with a dictator before living with anarchy.
 
AlabamaPaul said:
Governments are creations of a society, and a society is logically and sociologically defined as a group with similar beliefs. That has been lost with appointed judges now ruling from the bench...
Click to expand...
I disagree. Society is defined by national, and to a lesser extent state and local, government borders, whether logical, similar or not. That is the major cause of the divide.
 
JC_CT said:
Rights are, in their very essense, restrictions on others to impose on them.
Click to expand...

rights are actions, others are to stand back and not hinder you from doing.

privileges....... require an action

government creates privileges and government must honor them...not the people or business.
 
JC_CT said:
I disagree. Society is defined by national, and to a lesser extent state and local, government borders, whether logical, similar or not. That is the major cause of the divide.
Click to expand...

You can disagree as you like, but you can't deny the fact that our government was created by its people to serve the people...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom