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?
Any level. Pick a level and state the acceptable level of involvement.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.
What if the minority did not want to move?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%)?
Yes, they are vague, and intentionally so.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.
Exactly what it means: A regulation is right and proper and appropriate solely on the basis of it being an expression of the majority.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.
On any given social topic, how much government involvement should there be?
[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty]Liberty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]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."
Ok....why?What I find justifiable is a travesty to others and vice versa.
In the area of governance, justification is quite grey.....and irrelevant.
Pretty much. How would you approach the issue? Negative liberty or some other basis?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?
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.
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.So basically it is not acceptable to criminalize public nudity at any level of government? Towns can't elect to be "dry"?
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)
I would say no, it is not acceptable, unless a clear and demonstrable harm can be shown by mere nudity.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"?
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?
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.
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?