• 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 do you think the roll of the U.S. Government should be?

What do you think the role of the U.S. Government should be? Check all that apply.

  • Total voters
    28
Goobieman said:
So... choice is a great thing, so long as you agree that a certain choice should be given.
Click to expand...

I think citizens should always have a choice at the voting booth. If a majority does not agree with me, I have no right to dictate my preferences.
 
Last edited:
MaggieD said:
Any civilized society will provide for those less fortunate. This falls under "protect the general welfare." I suppose we could just let our old and sick float out on an iceberg...
Click to expand...

I disagree with the structure of your sentence.

Less fortunate implies that it wasn't behavior, that caused people to fall but just bad luck.
That isn't true most of the time.
 
megaprogman said:
Yeah, look at the destitution of the poor before many new deal programs. Retirement (Soc sec) is a part of that. Also, I think single payer socialized systems are better for society and private business cannot make it happen, so it falls on government.
Click to expand...

There were lots of adequate private systems prior to Soc sec and Medicare.
They don't get their fair shake in the history books though.
 
Everyone starved before the New Deal don't you know? I thought everyone knew that.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
There were lots of adequate private systems prior to Soc sec and Medicare.
They don't get their fair shake in the history books though.
Click to expand...

I was not aware of this, I am curious to know about them, got any links?
 
megaprogman said:
I think citizens should always have a choice at the voting booth. If a majority does not agree with me, I have no right to dictate my preferences.
Click to expand...
Noce dodge. That's not what I am talkling about and you know it.

Why do you believe that people shoud not have a choice in deciding how to plan for their retirement?
 
Goobieman said:
Noce dodge. That's not what I am talkling about and you know it.

Why do you believe that people shoud not have a choice in deciding how to plan for their retirement?
Click to expand...

Ahh, I thought you meant choice in general.

Nothing says they cannot save beyond social security. In fact their are many tax incentives to do so, some of which I utilize myself. do think people should have a choice given my support for and utilization of those laws.
 
megaprogman said:
Ahh, I thought you meant choice in general.
Click to expand...
No - it will soon be clear that there are choice you think people should have and choices you do not - and so, your support of choice is based on how that choice plays into your ideology.

Nothing says they cannot save beyond social security.
Click to expand...
But they have no choice in saving thru social security - they MUST do this.
Why do you support people not having this choice?
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Working on it.

Like I said though, history hasn't given life before it a fair shake.
It's hard to find info about it.
Click to expand...

That and as technology improves, so does documentation of daily life.

But I appreciate you being my google proxy :)
 
Last edited:
Goobieman said:
No - it will soon be clear that there are choice you think people should have and choices you do not - and so, your support of choice is based on how that choice plays into your ideology.
Click to expand...

Actually, I agree with that. I do think some things should be coded into law because I think its better for society. I don't see why you would think I was ashamed to admit it or would want to hide my thoughts on the matter.

Goobieman said:
But they have no choice in saving thru social security - they MUST do this.
Why do you support people not having this choice?
Click to expand...

As I stated, I think it is better for society. However, given that I do believe there should be certain baseline things, I never said people should not go above and beyond that if they are able and choose to. I see no conflict between having a basic arrangement and having a choice beyond that.
 
Last edited:
megaprogman said:
Actually, I agree with that. I do think some things should be coded into law because I think its better for society. I don't see why you would think I was ashamed to admit it or would want to hide my thoughts on the matter.
Click to expand...
Good to see you'll admit that your positions are based on your ideological bigotry rather than sond reasoning.

As I stated, I think it is better for society.
Click to expand...
Hmm. So you are Ok with focing people to behave a certain way when you think it is better for society that they becahse that way.

I have lots of ideas to that end. You'll lose all kinds of choices, and you'll not have a leg to stand on when trying to argue against them.
 
Goobieman said:
Good to see you'll admit that your positions are based on your ideological bigotry rather than sond reasoning.
Click to expand...

Reasoning is how I arrived at my ideology :shrug:
I started off pretty much a libertarian (not formally, but I had a lot of the common attitudes about responsibility and social darwinism and stuff) and have become more liberal as I have gained life experience and understanding.

Goobieman said:
Hmm. So you are Ok with focing people to behave a certain way when you think it is better for society that they becahse that way.
Click to expand...

Yes.

Goobieman said:
I have lots of ideas to that end. You'll lose all kinds of choices, and you'll not have a leg to stand on when trying to argue against them.
Click to expand...

That's fine, you should vote for what you think is right.
 
megaprogman said:
Reasoning is how I arrived at my ideology
Click to expand...
Really.
What sound argument led to your conclusion that to havea right creates an entitlementto the means to exercise that right, and what sound argument led you to your selective application of said conclusion?

That's fine, you should vote for what you think is right.
Click to expand...
I am sure that if it ever happens, you will be among the first to squal like a stuck pig.
But, sonce what's good for the goose is good for the gander, your complaints will have absolutely no standing.
 
megaprogman said:
That and as technology improves, so does documentation of daily life.

But I appreciate you being my google proxy :)
Click to expand...

Ok, so far I've got this.
It shows the trend in people retiring in their elder years before SS.
Economic History of Retirement in the United States | Economic History Services

It's hard to find information because when you type in "life before social security", you get links to things talking about retiring in modern times before you can collect SS.
 
Goobieman said:
Really.
What sound argument led to your conclusion that to havea right creates an entitlementto the means to exercise that right, and what sound argument led you to your selective application of said conclusion?
Click to expand...

As to the sound argument thing, I think I have stated it before multiple times. But I will do it once more, I believe that if a person has a right and is unable to exercise it, that right is effectively useless and might as well not exist because in practice it is the same thing.

I know you don't think this argument is sound, but honestly, I don't care if you think it is sound or not. I will continue to believe what I believe until I see a good reason not to.

As far as selective application, I am not sure what you mean.

Goobieman said:
I am sure that if it ever happens, you will be among the first to squal like a stuck pig.
But, sonce what's good for the goose is good for the gander, your complaints will have absolutely no standing.
Click to expand...

Maybe, maybe not, it depends on what you are voting for. If you are trying to do harm to me, I certainly would complain and try to change things. But you are right, my complains do not have to have meaning to you if you choose to ignore them.
 
Rightwingnutjob said:
So the government should have an active role in religion? No.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily, but the government should promote conditions that lend themselves to spiritual growth and uphold public moral sentiment.
 
megaprogman said:
I believe that if a person has a right and is unable to exercise it, that right is effectively useless and might as well not exist because in practice it is the same thing.
Click to expand...
How is this sound?

As far as selective application, I am not sure what you mean.
Click to expand...
You only apply it to certain rights.
For instance, you do not believe your argument applies to poor people that cannot afford to buy a gun.

Maybe, maybe not, it depends on what you are voting for
Click to expand...
I plan to take away all the choices you believe you should have and give you choices you do not like.

You'll not like it, and you will complain - but since your position is that its perfectly OK for you do to the same thing to me, you'll have no standing in your complaints.
 
Last edited:
Korimyr the Rat said:
should promote conditions that lend themselves to spiritual growth
Click to expand...
I have no problem with what you said except this part. Why should the government have anything to do with lending themselves to spiritual growth?
 
Rightwingnutjob said:
I have no problem with what you said except this part. Why should the government have anything to do with lending themselves to spiritual growth?
Click to expand...
Because it promotes the general welfare!!!

:D
 
Goobieman said:
I wonder how many of the people that agree with you/thanked you understand the full implication of what you said here.
Click to expand...

Knowing the political affiliation of those that thanked my post, I'm pretty sure they did. The only one who surprised me was rivrrat... though she's the one person on this forum who will surprise me, consistently, when she agrees with me.
 
Goobieman said:
How is this sound?
Click to expand...

What do you mean by sound? You keep mentioning sound arguments, but I don't know what you mean by that word.

Goobieman said:
You only apply it to certain rights.
For instance, you do not believe your argument applies to poor people that cannot afford to buy a gun.
Click to expand...

Oh that. As far as I can tell, the word arm means weapon (I just looked it up, the dictionary says weapon :shrug:). You use just about anything as a weapon. I don't see what the big deal is. I think that practicality has to be balanced with intervention. In other words, if it is practical and easy to someone to do something than I don't think it is the concern of government to intervene (in this case grab a broom stick and hit someone in the head) whereas if enough of society has issues doing something I consider a right, I think the government should help. Now, I can see where you think I am selectively doing things as you seem to want all or nothing with everything, but I think the line to make these sorts of determination are fuzzy and not always easy to discover. Also, you have to consider practical matters such as whether we have the resources to accomplish the goal or if it would get in the way of other important things.

Ultimately it means every case is unique with its own considerations and constraints and that is where smart people will disagree even if they have the same ideology that I do. Its a messy system, but I think overall it is a good one.

Goobieman said:
I plan to take away all the choices you believe you should and give you choices you do not like.
You'll not like it, and you will complain - but since your position is that its perfectly OK for you do to the same thing to me, you'll have no standing in your complaints.
Click to expand...

If you can get enough of society to agree with it and change/reinterpret any laws, precedent, etc that get in your way, there is nothing I can do to stop you. But I am not too worried about your ability to make that happen.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom