Limits to government interference

Are there limits to how much the govt can interfere with businesses? I think the question rests on who owns the fruits of our labor?

Ignatius said:

Are there limits to how much the govt can interfere with businesses? I think the question rests on who owns the fruits of our labor?

Click to expand...

Can anything be gleaned from the lack of responses to this thread even though there are over 40 views? So people think govt interference is unlimited? So people not think they own their labor? Its fascinating.

Ignatius said:

Are there limits to how much the govt can interfere with businesses? I think the question rests on who owns the fruits of our labor?

Click to expand...

Judging by the abuses against private property rights by government, the limits on interference exist only to slow the interference- not to eliminate it.

code1211 said:

Judging by the abuses against private property rights by government, the limits on interference exist only to slow the interference- not to eliminate it.

Click to expand...

What gets me is how willing people are to surrender their liberty.

Ignatius said:

Are there limits to how much the govt can interfere with businesses? I think the question rests on who owns the fruits of our labor?

Click to expand...

I think it is the job of a government to protect the basic human rights of its citizens in a modern developed economy. These include the right to food, clean water, shelter, a basic education, and access to healthcare.

This is not a new idea. The US spearheaded this and got all the governments of the world to sign on to it back in 1948 with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It's interesting that it's such a foreign concept now right back here at home as we devolve into a corrupt third world banana republic.

"Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,

Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,

Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations,

Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in co-operation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms,

Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge,

Now, Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction."

Universal Declaration of Human Rights | United Nations

ataraxia said:

I think it is the job of a government to protect the basic human rights of its citizens in a modern developed economy. These include the right to food, clean water, shelter, a basic education, and access to healthcare.

This is not a new idea. The US spearheaded this and got all the governments of the world to sign on to it back in 1948 with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It's interesting that it's such a foreign concept now right back here at home as we devolve into a corrupt third world banana republic.

Click to expand...

We agree on the fact that the govt is meant to protect the rights of its citizens. Where we part ways is the idea that food, clean water, shelter, education and healthcare are Rights. I don't recognize the UDHR since the constitution is what should direcrt the actions of the US govt. The govt needs to protect me from foreign and domestic invaders and then leave me alone. The rest I can provide for myself or voluntarily enter into mutually beneficial agreements with other citizens to get what I need.

Ignatius said:

We agree on the fact that the govt is meant to protect the rights of its citizens. Where we part ways is the idea that food, clean water, shelter, education and healthcare are Rights. I don't recognize the UDHR since the constitution is what should direcrt the actions of the US govt. The govt needs to protect me from foreign and domestic invaders and then leave me alone. The rest I can provide for myself or voluntarily enter into mutually beneficial agreements with other citizens to get what I need.

Click to expand...

It's just an approach that works better. If you hit hard times, you will find other citizens are often not that interested in you or your family.

Humane societies don't let 4-year-olds die of hunger or disease just because their parents hit hard times. Charity or "other citizens" have never really helped them enough. You need more formal systems to provide basic social safety nets.

Governments which provide such basic human rights safety nets tend to do much better- both in terms of being more humane, and, suprisingly, in terms of economic growth for everyone.

Thailand is the latest country to adapt a system of universal healthcare for its citizens. It has been a dramatic success. It still has a private medical system, which caters to the wealthy in the country and is a major destination for medical tourism from around the world, including the United States. But with the passage of UHC, its public health has improved dramatically. But what's interesting is that its economy has picked up steam and the extreme poverty rate in the country has been eliminated. How? It turns out that the biggest cause for extreme poverty was unanticipated catastrophic illness in an uninsured person. Entire families were going broke and falling into poverty trying to pay for the medical care of a loved one- with kids dropping out of school to go to work to help, and so never getting an education, etc... Once that burden was lifted off the shoulders of families, the economy improved dramatically.

Thailand gave healthcare to its entire population and the results were dramatic | World Economic Forum.

Ignatius said:

Are there limits to how much the govt can interfere with businesses? I think the question rests on who owns the fruits of our labor?

Click to expand...

Constitutionally.....during a national or even local crisis there are no limits to how much the government can interfere with business . They can shut you down, take over the premises and even use all your inventory.

ataraxia said:

It's just an approach that works better. If you hit hard times, you will find other citizens are often not that interested in you or your family.

Humane societies don't let 4-year-olds die of hunger or cancer or the cold just because their parents hit hard times. Charity or "other citizens" have never really helped them enough. You need more formal systems to provide basic social safety nets.

Governments which provide such basic human rights safety nets tend to do much better- both in terms of being more humane, and, suprisingly, in terms of economic growth for everyone.

Thailand is the latest country to adapt a system of universal healthcare for its citizens. It has been a dramatic success. It still has a private medical system, which caters to the wealthy in the country and is a major destination for medical tourism from around the world, including the United States. But with the passage of UHC, its public health has improved dramatically. But what's interesting is that its economy has picked up steam and the extreme poverty rate in the country has also been eliminated. How? It turns out that the biggest cause for extreme poverty was unanticipated catastrophic illness in an uninsured person. Entire families were going broke and falling into poverty trying to pay for the medical care of a loved one- with kids dropping out of school to go to work to help, and so never getting an education, etc... Once that burden was lifted off the shoulders of families, the economy improved dramatically.

Thailand gave healthcare to its entire population and the results were dramatic | World Economic Forum.

Click to expand...

Your pleas to emotion with " 4 year olds die of hunger or cancer..." are not only not convincing but make it much less likely that i can take you seriously. If you have no reasonable argument then just say so. I would rather be free then safe. You, it seems would rather be safe than free.

Let me ask you a few questions about the UDHR. Article 17 #2, are the efforts of my labor, my "property"?

Article 25 #1 who determines the "standard of living adequate for health and well being...."? How is it paid for? By taking my property?

Article 26 #1 a right to education but it shall be compulsory? That sounds more like a mandate than a right. Can you reconcile that for me?

vegas giants said:

Constitutionally.....during a national or even local crisis there are no limits to how much the government can interfere with business . They can shut you down, take over the premises and even use all your inventory.

Click to expand...

I am not talking about emergency powers I am talking about eveyday affiars. It is my opinion however that emergency powers have been abused especially now during covid but my concern is the much broader interference that the govt brings to bear.

Ignatius said:

I am not talking about emergency powers I am talking about eveyday affiars. It is my opinion however that emergency powers have been abused especially now during covid but my concern is the much broader interference the govt brings to bear.

Click to expand...

Give me an example of government over reach not during a pandemic

vegas giants said:

Give me an example of government over reach not during a pandemic

Click to expand...

A good example is from another thread about the baker and his refusal to bake a cake for a gay wedding. Another is forcing businesses to not allow smoking in their establishments or requiring them to build handicap accessible ramps.

Ignatius said:

A good example is from another thread about the baker and his refusal to bake a cake for a gay wedding. Another is forcing businesses to not allow smoking in their establishments or requiring them to build handicap accessible ramps.

Click to expand...

Compelling interest. The government has compelling interest in enforcing civil rights of accessibility to the marketplace

Ignatius said:

Your pleas to emotion with " 4 year olds die of hunger or cancer..." are not only not convincing but make it much less likely that i can take you seriously.

Click to expand...

You've never worked in a healthcare setting, have you? This is stuff that happens every day. It's pretty barbaric.

If you have no reasonable argument then just say so. I would rather be free then safe. You, it seems would rather be safe than free.

Click to expand...

So I say let's start with getting rid of traffic lights, bicycle helmets, and food and drug inspection.

Let me ask you a few questions about the UDHR. Article 17 #2, are the efforts of my labor, my "property"?

Click to expand...

We take your property to give you a police department, roads and highways, antitrust protection against getting scalped, and a court system. We can stop if you want.

Article 26 #1 a right to education but it shall be compulsory? That sounds more like a mandate than a right. Can you reconcile that for me?

Click to expand...

We have had mandatory public education in this country for over a century and a half now. Even the founding fathers of this country believed it was fine to "take your property" to make sure we all live in an educated society.

“Preach, my dear Sir, a crusade against ignorance; establish and improve the law for educating the common people. Let our countrymen know, that the people alone can protect us against these evils (exploitation) and that the tax which will be paid for this purpose, is not more than the thousandth part of what will be paid to kings, priests and nobles, who will rise up among us if we leave the people in ignorance.”
– Thomas Jefferson, letter to George Wythe, August 13, 1786

So are you going to tell me that Thomas Jefferson was a communist Muslim anti-American Nazi too now?

vegas giants said:

Compelling interest. The government has compelling interest in enforcing civil rights of accessibility to the marketplace

Click to expand...

I disagree that a civil right exist which forces me to do business with someone I wish not to do business with. It's rather fundamental that I own my labor, its,mine not the govts and I am alone should be free to decide who I will sell it to.

Ignatius said:

I disagree that a civil right exist which forces me to do business with someone I wish not to do business with. It's rather fundamental that I own my labor, its,mine not the govts and I am alone should be free to decide who I will sell it to.

Click to expand...

That is your opinion.


Scotus disagrees

ataraxia said:

You've never worked in a healthcare setting, have you? This is stuff that happens every day. It's pretty barbaric.



So I say let's start with getting rid of traffic lights and bicycle helmets.




We take your property to give you a police department, roads and highways, antitrust protection against getting scalped, and a court system. We can stop if you want.



We have had mandatory public education in this country for over a century and a half now. Even the founding fathers of this country believed it was fine to "take your property" to make sure we all live in an educated society.

“Preach, my dear Sir, a crusade against ignorance; establish and improve the law for educating the common people. Let our countrymen know, that the people alone can protect us against these evils (exploitation) and that the tax which will be paid for this purpose, is not more than the thousandth part of what will be paid to kings, priests and nobles, who will rise up among us if we leave the people in ignorance.”
– Thomas Jefferson, letter to George Wythe, August 13, 1786

So are you going to tell me that Thomas Jefferson was a communist anti-American Nazi too now?

Click to expand...

I don't care it's not a compelling argument to me. If you want me to take you seriously you need some other argument. Repeating how terrrible it is is useless.

Helmets yes traffic lights no. The fact that you posted this indicates you are just repeating rote talking points

Yes it is taken the question is what is the proper role of govt and has the govt practiced any overreach of their power. Also you didn't answer my question.

Again making it compulsory takes away the virtue of education as a "right" which you conveniently ignored. Again does the constitution allow the govt to educate people?

vegas giants said:

That is your opinion.


Scotus disagrees

Click to expand...

Yes of course Its my opinion but legal doesn't make something right or just.

Ignatius said:

I don't care it's not a compelling argument to me. If you want me to take you seriously you need some other argument. Repeating how terrrible it is is useless.

Helmets yes traffic lights no. The fact that you posted this indicates you are just repeating rote talking points

Yes it is taken the question is what is the proper role of govt and has the govt practiced any overreach of their power. Also you didn't answer my question.

Again making it compulsory takes away the virtue of education as a "right" which you conveniently ignored. Again does the constitution allow the govt to educate people?

Click to expand...

The right is to free and appropriate primary education to every child in America (FAPE)

Ignatius said:

Yes of course Its my opinion but legal doesn't make something right or just.

Click to expand...

Then your opinion is noted.


If we let business pick and choose who they can do business with black people in the south would need an updated green book to determine where they can eat

vegas giants said:

Then your opinion is noted.


If we let business pick and choose who they can do business with black people in the south would need an updated green book to determine where they can eat

Click to expand...

So if slavery were made legal again would you have an opinion?

Do you have evidence of that or is that a stereotype? Jim crow laws were govt sanctioned discrimination which is what the constitution does not allow.

Ignatius said:

So if slavery were made legal again would you have an opinion?

Do you have evidence of that or is that a stereotype? Jim crow laws were govt sanctioned discrimination which is what the constitution does not allow.

Click to expand...

I would oppose slavery. You are entitled to an opinion.


You want to allow discrimination in the marketplace. I oppose that.

vegas giants said:

I would oppose slavery. You are entitled to an opinion.


You want to allow discrimination in the marketplace. I oppose that.

Click to expand...

Just like i oppose this govt overreach. Saying the SCOTUS disagrees is irrelevant.

No I want people to have the constitutional right to free association they are entitled to. I can't for the life of me figure out why any business would turn away any customer but should they be free to? I think so since the govt is not allowed to discriminate but individuals can.

Ignatius said:

Are there limits to how much the govt can interfere with businesses? I think the question rests on who owns the fruits of our labor?

Click to expand...

No. Who would limit it?