• 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!

What is an acceptable reason for government regulation?

What is an acceptable reason for government regulation

  • To protect against any and all harm

    Votes: 5 31.3%
  • To ensure equal and fair outcomes

    Votes: 3 18.8%
  • To prevent unjust enrichment

    Votes: 6 37.5%
  • To set boundaries of individual conduct

    Votes: 6 37.5%
  • To prudently conserve public resources

    Votes: 7 43.8%
  • To provide orderly protections of individual rights

    Votes: 15 93.8%
  • To maintain social order

    Votes: 8 50.0%
  • To maintain social justice

    Votes: 8 50.0%

  • Total voters
    16

celticlord

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 10, 2009
Messages
6,344
Reaction score
3,794
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
On any given social topic, how much government involvement should there be?
 
On any given social topic, how much government involvement should there be?

what government? The level of government has a huge bearing on acceptable involvement
 
Any level. Pick a level and state the acceptable level of involvement.

In a society where you are guaranteed the right to freely move, the restriction I would place on community government is it must be desired by the majority and the minority can escape the regulations by voting with their feet (have time to move to escape regulation)
 
In a society where you are guaranteed the right to freely move, the restriction I would place on community government is it must be desired by the majority and the minority can escape the regulations by voting with their feet (have time to move to escape regulation)
What if the minority did not want to move?

Is any regulation justifiable merely because the majority wills it?

Also, is just a 50%+1 majority sufficient, or should there be a supermajority (60%, 66%, 75%)?
 
These choices are kind of vague...I think any of these choices could be acceptable reasons under certain circumstances, and not acceptable reasons under other circumstances.

To protect against any and all harm - Depends on the harm. Laws against murder and rape are good. Laws against adultery or gambling or drug use...not so much.

To ensure equal and fair outcomes - Generally no...although I guess it depends on your definition of "fair" (which would be different than "equal" IMO). I think that the government should do more to eliminate poverty since that breeds other nasty socioeconomic problems, but that doesn't mean that everyone needs to have equal incomes.

To prevent unjust enrichment - Again, I think this depends on your definition of "unjust." Are we talking about Jeff Skilling and Bernie Madoff? If so, then I think that government regulation definitely has a place to prevent unjust enrichment. Or are we talking about Bill Gates and Warren Buffett? IMO there is nothing inherently unjust about being successful.

To set boundaries of individual conduct - If we're talking about nutty religions that deny kids medication or file harassing lawsuits against anyone who disagrees with them, then yes. If we're talking about things that don't harm anyone else, then usually not.

To prudently conserve public resources - Yes, definitely. If we don't practice sustainable development, then our resources will dry up.

To provide orderly protections of individual rights - I can't think of any exceptions to this, so yes.

To maintain social order - What is "social order"? The police should be able to prevent riots and looting...but not peaceful protests.

To maintain social justice - What is "social justice"? I do think that the government needs to do more to provide health care and education to everyone, and to alleviate poverty.
 
Last edited:
What if the minority did not want to move?

Then they comply with regulations or face the consequences of non enforcement

Is any regulation justifiable merely because the majority wills it?

Define justifiable as it pertains to governance.

Also, is just a 50%+1 majority sufficient, or should there be a supermajority (60%, 66%, 75%)?

As I see it government doesn’t create rights, it defends rights. If people don’t have the government they want, why would they wish to defend that government? IF 51% do’t like what they have, what stops them from using violence to overthrow the government?

In the interest of protecting rights the best way we can, we allow a simple majority at lower levels to have a great deal of control of government as this is the best way of ensuring that a majority of people take an active interest in defending government if the time comes to where they need to.
 
These choices are kind of vague...I think any of these choices could be acceptable reasons under certain circumstances, and not acceptable reasons under other circumstances.
Yes, they are vague, and intentionally so.

I have observed that there are in many of the debates here a tendency to presume a default role for government (again, any level), without fully defining what the role is or why it should be thus. I would like to take discussion back to a fundamental question of what the proper role for government is, and how it is achieved.

So the choices are vague, and the hope is other posters will provide their own specifics, much as you have done.
 
Define justifiable as it pertains to governance.
Exactly what it means: A regulation is right and proper and appropriate solely on the basis of it being an expression of the majority.
 
Exactly what it means: A regulation is right and proper and appropriate solely on the basis of it being an expression of the majority.

What I find justifiable is a travesty to others and vice versa.

In the area of governance, justification is quite grey.....and irrelevant.
 
On any given social topic, how much government involvement should there be?

It sounds like you're approaching this issue from what is generally referred to as 'negative liberty.'

The concept of negative liberty has several noteworthy aspects. First, negative liberty defines a realm or "zone" of freedom (in the "silence of law"). In Berlin's words, "liberty in the negative sense involves an answer to the question 'What is the area within which the subject -- a person or group of persons -- is or should be left to do or be what he is able to do or be, without interference by other persons."
[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty]Liberty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]



I don't know how best to answer because the question is so broad. I suppose the simplest answer is that in most forms of democracy the people will decide with their votes. When government becomes overly intrusive, we will vote the ******** out.

;)
 
Simply put, only to protect individual rights. In a nutshell, basic public health regulations are good, companies should not be allowed to sell products harmful to the public by defect knowingly, fraud should be regulated, as well as predatory business practices as these all infringe upon the rights of those affected. Other than that, regulation is overbearing, burdensome, unnecessary, and completely out of the realm of acceptable governmnent intervention.
 
It sounds like you're approaching this issue from what is generally referred to as 'negative liberty.'
Pretty much. How would you approach the issue? Negative liberty or some other basis?
 
Pretty much. How would you approach the issue? Negative liberty or some other basis?

Honestly, I hadn't even heard of 'negative liberty' until I started considering your question. The poll did cause me to think about liberty and freedom which is why I checked the definitions.

;)
 
Only such regulation, that is absolutely necessary and vital to such a degree that the vast (super-)majority agree it must be done. I would go further and say all such regulations should be reviewed by an independent body and tested for necessity, involving a vital intrest to nearly all the people, that it is actually of benefit and effective and efficient, and that the regulation's repeal would do substantial harm to many.
 
Simply put, only to protect individual rights. In a nutshell, basic public health regulations are good, companies should not be allowed to sell products harmful to the public by defect knowingly, fraud should be regulated, as well as predatory business practices as these all infringe upon the rights of those affected. Other than that, regulation is overbearing, burdensome, unnecessary, and completely out of the realm of acceptable governmnent intervention.

So basically it is not acceptable to criminalize public nudity at any level of government? Towns can't elect to be "dry"?
 
So basically it is not acceptable to criminalize public nudity at any level of government? Towns can't elect to be "dry"?
Negative, towns can determine their own laws to that extent, I could care less about that as an issue, also, I see no reason to criminalize public nudity as it doesn't provably cause harm to anyone and certainly doesn't pose an immediate danger to anyone, but again, location location location. I thought we were discussing federal regulation here, not locals. There are things that local/state governments should be prohibited from regulating such as bill of rights protections and the like, but I don't advocate that "no regulation" should exist.
 
In a society where you are guaranteed the right to freely move, the restriction I would place on community government is it must be desired by the majority and the minority can escape the regulations by voting with their feet (have time to move to escape regulation)

Why should someone vacate their home just because 50%+1 of his neighbors have decided that he's not paying enough taxes to fund their public swimming pool?
 
So basically it is not acceptable to criminalize public nudity at any level of government? Towns can't elect to be "dry"?
I would say no, it is not acceptable, unless a clear and demonstrable harm can be shown by mere nudity.

Where there is no harm, there should be no law.
 
So basically it is not acceptable to criminalize public nudity at any level of government? Towns can't elect to be "dry"?

Depends.

It should be a felony for Roseanne Barr to run around nekkid.

Michelle Obama might be all right.

How about if we implement an oversight board to approve public nudity permits, renewable annually by permission only?
 
I would say no, it is not acceptable, unless a clear and demonstrable harm can be shown by mere nudity.

Where there is no harm, there should be no law.

I think one could make a strong case that defecating in one's front yard poses no 'harm' to the public. I think there's a solid basis for public decency laws.

;)
 
I think one could make a strong case that defecating in one's front yard poses no 'harm' to the public. I think there's a solid basis for public decency laws.

;)

Why? It's OK if I let my dog defecate in my front yard, so why shouldn't I be able to do it myself? :confused:
 
Why? It's OK if I let my dog defecate in my front yard, so why shouldn't I be able to do it myself? :confused:

Your dog might lick itself in the front yard, too... might it not?

;)
 
Back
Top Bottom