• 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 you believe in personal freedom and responsibility?

Is it the proper role of government to pass laws to protect you from yourself?

  • Yes, if the government passed laws to protect me from myself, it then protects everyone else too.

    Votes: 4 6.7%
  • No, people are responsible for the consequences of their own actions.

    Votes: 43 71.7%
  • IDK/Other

    Votes: 13 21.7%

  • Total voters
    60
To subordinate them to the broader association of individuals.

Correct. To subordinate some individuals to another group of individuals. Not to "society", just to another group of individuals.
 
there it is reality!

so instead of following the constitution, to want to follow what washingtion does based on reality, and not constititonal law.

i can see Madison getting your shoe in his rear as you kick him down the steps of congress while saying" get out of here with your stupid constitution"

They are following the Constitution.
 
You use the phrase "the people" a lot. You mean "some particular people", which obviously is NOT "every person".

When someone uses the term "the people", I know I am dealing with a collectivist, and an intellectually dishonest collectivist to boot.

The Constitution uses the phrase WE THE PEOPLE.
 
Perhaps. But they are all still individuals. And the people who voted for them are all still individuals.

None of these particular individuals are "society". They are merely a subset of the total set of individuals in society.

If you can tell me what "society" wants and prefers WITHOUT having those words come out of the mouth of some individual but from "society" itself, then perhaps I will be convinced that this "needs of society" stuff is not simply collectivist claptrap.

Your argument has been soundly refuted. And you ignore what has been said to you.

What you are ignoring is the reality that the people in our elected government are acting as much more than mere individuals.

When an individual person is elected by the people to a legislative body, and they are empowered by the people and that body is empowered by the people with authority to act on behalf of the people as its legitimate government, they transcend and go beyond a mere individual. They together become the Congress or they together become the Legislature or they together become the Council. And that is not an individual entity. It is a group entity acting on behalf os society and is empowered by the people to do that.

The Constitution of the United States is clear. Go back and read it. Start at the beginning and read the words WE THE PEOPLE. It does not say "I as an individual". Its WE THE PEOPLE.

Continue reading and you will see phrases for collective action for the community - not the individual. Acting for the COMMON DEFENSE and the GENERAL WELFARE. Those are very communitarian concepts that are the opposite of individualism. And its right there in the Constitution of the USA as the purpose of the document.

Catherine Bowen wrote a book called MIRACLE AT PHILADELPHIA about the writing of the Constitution. You should read it. One of the miraculous things about our Constitution and our system of government is that it truly works a miracle in that it transcends normal individual people into much much more - the voice of the people and the people are just another word for society.

And that is the miracle of America. For 225 years we have been trying to balance the needs of society with the needs of the individual. Sometimes we get it right. Sometimes we don't. But in the end its like many have observed - we are still the best form of government going on the planet.

To continue to say we are only individuals and the people we elect into government for all of society is to ignore what has been explained to you. And the ostrich defense is never a solid one.
 
Not really an argument you can't hope to win. It was supported by Anglo-English culture, of which most the Fathers were adherents, and starts recorded history when King Athelstan opened the first almshouse in York.

When did the federal government under the founders control open up their first almshouse?
 
I am astonished at the degree people demand the government control people to the finest detail. Of course, that also means demanding the government control you - ie protect you from yourself.

Way back at the start of this country, a French philosopher named Torqueville toured the USA marveling at this new concept of uneducated people running their own government. While he saw this new concept of almost unrestricted personal freedom as amazing, he predicted it would not last. In his opinion that due to human nature, people would vote to outlaw anything a person does not like or do. Since there is almost nothing everyone agrees on, then ultimately almost everything would be regulated, outlaws or restricted. In short, he predicted Americans would become the most regulated, watched and constrained people with endless new laws and regulations.

What is your opinion of the proper role of government?

the thread title is not consistent with your op.

you would be pretty hard pressed to find many people who don't believe in personal freedom and responsibility - although for my money the emphasis should be on responsibility.
the role of government is a completely different question. According to many on the right I am a supporter of nanny statism, but nothing annoys me more than people who refuse to take responsibility for their own actions .... which in my experience is not an indication of voting intention.
 
it depends on how you define teh freedom

l can say for the second option that people are responsible for the consequences of their own actions as long as these consequences dont harm the others

What you said didn't make sense.

Why would somebody not be responsable for their actions if it affects somebody else.

So if I kill somerbody I am not responsable for that because it affected somebody else?
 
No it's not. People make the decision to smoke, to eat non healthy food, to not exercise, to skydive, etc. The outcome of their decisions is their responsibility.

So if a doctor has apatient that comes in with a heart problema, the doctor will have to analyze every day of that patients life to discover if he did it to himself or it was just a fluke?
 
For example, ever have been filling up and it doesn't cut off right and a little bit of gas runs down your car and some on the ground. Did you then drive off?

OMG! That's ILLEGAL! YOU committed a hazardous materials spill. Even if not deliberate and you not liable, YOU DID NOT REPORT THE HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SPILL YOU CAUSED! FELONY! FELONY!

And then I get to rage that you grotesquely endangered the lives of others. A bus of children with an electrical short could pull up, and that HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SPILL YOU DID AND DIDN'T REPORT could burn every innocent little child on that bus to death - a horrible way to die! You evil bastard engaging in ILLEGAL dangerous actions without giving a damn about anyone but yourself!

And if I don't drive a car, then I get to rage at you and everyone else in cars as pure evil, willing to burn little children alive, destroy the land, water and air... at least you - because of your ILLEGAL activities!

Just to be curious, how do you drip anything when the American pumps have the rubber hose cover?
 
They are following the Constitution.

no hay, they are not....do you see education, housing in the constitution...no.

where does the congress get legislative authority outside of d.c. .. say on private land or state land.......their is no authority in the constitution for congress to exercise power over such.

where is congress authority to redistribute wealth from one american to another...........?

even you know congress is outside its 18 powers.
 
When did the federal government under the founders control open up their first almshouse?

Why are you asking me about the government when the assertion you challenged was that private individuals have a responsibility to take care of those less fortunate than themselves?
 
I am astonished at the degree people demand the government control people to the finest detail. Of course, that also means demanding the government control you - ie protect you from yourself.

Way back at the start of this country, a French philosopher named Torqueville toured the USA marveling at this new concept of uneducated people running their own government. While he saw this new concept of almost unrestricted personal freedom as amazing, he predicted it would not last. In his opinion that due to human nature, people would vote to outlaw anything a person does not like or do. Since there is almost nothing everyone agrees on, then ultimately almost everything would be regulated, outlaws or restricted. In short, he predicted Americans would become the most regulated, watched and constrained people with endless new laws and regulations.

What is your opinion of the proper role of government?

it is at its best when it protects the minority against the tyranny of the majority ....
 
I am astonished at the degree people demand the government control people to the finest detail. Of course, that also means demanding the government control you - ie protect you from yourself.

Way back at the start of this country, a French philosopher named Torqueville toured the USA marveling at this new concept of uneducated people running their own government. While he saw this new concept of almost unrestricted personal freedom as amazing, he predicted it would not last. In his opinion that due to human nature, people would vote to outlaw anything a person does not like or do. Since there is almost nothing everyone agrees on, then ultimately almost everything would be regulated, outlaws or restricted. In short, he predicted Americans would become the most regulated, watched and constrained people with endless new laws and regulations.

What is your opinion of the proper role of government?

It's a mix, yes there has to be room for great extensive personal freedoms and responsibilities, but there has to be a strict framework behind it if you overstep you personal freedoms and responsibilities if they should endanger others or infringes on the personal freedoms of other so much that the law has to step in to protect the people who's personal freedoms and rights are being infringed upon.
 
it is at its best when it protects the minority against the tyranny of the majority ....

Right up until the minority think they get to impose their will on the majority, that is.
 
Right up until the minority think they get to impose their will on the majority, that is.

I was thinking Brown v. the Board of Education and The Civil Rights Act of 1964, for example ... Would you include either of these in your list of the minority imposing its will on the majority?
 
Your argument has been soundly refuted. And you ignore what has been said to you.

What you are ignoring is the reality that the people in our elected government are acting as much more than mere individuals.

When an individual person is elected by the people to a legislative body, and they are empowered by the people and that body is empowered by the people with authority to act on behalf of the people as its legitimate government, they transcend and go beyond a mere individual. They together become the Congress or they together become the Legislature or they together become the Council. And that is not an individual entity. It is a group entity acting on behalf os society and is empowered by the people to do that.

Up until this point I think you are right. I pretty much disagree with your political views across the board I think, and I'm pretty sure I'm in strong agreement with Federalist's political views, but I'm afraid this isn't one of his best arguments, and you make solid points here.

But...

Continue reading and you will see phrases for collective action for the community - not the individual. Acting for the COMMON DEFENSE and the GENERAL WELFARE. Those are very communitarian concepts that are the opposite of individualism. And its right there in the Constitution of the USA as the purpose of the document.

Catherine Bowen wrote a book called MIRACLE AT PHILADELPHIA about the writing of the Constitution. You should read it. One of the miraculous things about our Constitution and our system of government is that it truly works a miracle in that it transcends normal individual people into much much more - the voice of the people and the people are just another word for society.

Why was there such collective "we" language back then? Was it because the Founders were actually all about we and common and general welfare? Was it because they wanted adults who happened to not have much to be supported by those who did, as though the former were dependents of the latter? Or was it because they wanted to communicate to the world that at that moment in time there was collective agreement that the territories wanted to form their own country and do right by its citizens? That's the real question. Was the use of the phrases "We the People" and "promote the general welfare" in order to proclaim that those who are suffering here are owed care by those who are not suffering? Or was it to proclaim that there is collective agreement about the establishment of a new country and the agreement that the government thereof would be intended to promote freedom generally, rather than be devised for ulterior motives?

If you (haymarket and Federalist) are going to keep going on about whether the US is really all about collectivism or individualism, you have to think critically about what people in those days were really trying to communicate (rather than try to use what they literally said to our own present day political advantages).

If the U.S. is in fact really about collectivism as evidenced by "We" and "general welfare," then why is there freedom of ideas (i.e. speech, religion, press)? After all, if it's all about "we," then we really ought to believe the same thing, right?

And that is the miracle of America. For 225 years we have been trying to balance the needs of society with the needs of the individual.

I agree about the "balance" part. But "needs?" No I don't think that this is actually about society's needs nor about individuals' needs.
 
Last edited:
When an individual person is elected by the people to a legislative body, and they are empowered by the people and that body is empowered by the people with authority to act on behalf of the people as its legitimate government, they transcend and go beyond a mere individual. They together become the Congress or they together become the Legislature or they together become the Council. And that is not an individual entity. It is a group entity acting on behalf os society and is empowered by the people to do that.

Once again, you make the error of assuming that some number of particular individuals (in this case, certain voters) are able to indicate the preferences of society. This is a false premise.
 
"Is it the proper role of government to pass laws to protect you from yourself?"

No, it isn't - but that doesn't preclude welfare and other forms of help we should give to people in certain situations.
 
"Is it the proper role of government to pass laws to protect you from yourself?"

No, it isn't - but that doesn't preclude welfare and other forms of help we should give to people in certain situations.

I generally agree that government should not protect me from myself, but at the same time I don't mind not having lead paint as an option even though it may be cheaper and I'm a cheapskate.
 
I generally agree that government should not protect me from myself, but at the same time I don't mind not having lead paint as an option even though it may be cheaper and I'm a cheapskate.
To me, things like lead paint are not just protecting you from you - it's protecting others from you.
 
Back
Top Bottom