• 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
Self-interest is a fundamentally natural trait of living things. Living things tend to want to survive and thrive. Therefore their behaviors are inherently competitive. You need to shake yourself of this idea that something fundamentally natural is "disgusting."

Some competition is. But when you pretend that it's all competition and no cooperation merely because you're coming out on top, that makes you a selfish prick and a liar.

No, it's about recognizing that the only way to learn and grow is to notice and acknowledge that our own personal actions have personal consequences (naturally), and that if we don't like those consequences, we can change our actions.

Which is a fine philosophical argument, but is still continually invoked to claim that poor people deserve to be poor.

You're straw manning.

I don't think you know what that is. I did not set up a caricature in order to discredit your ideas. I criticized your ideas for their inherent flaws. Don't deflect by incorrectly invoking a logical fallacy that I did not do.

It also doesn't allow any person to choose if they want to be associated with all those schemes. If a person wants nothing to do with you or your ideas, he should be able to opt out, foregoing both the work/sacrifice as well as the rewards. You know what forced work is, right?

And yet your philosophy never manifests as opting out. It manifests as reaping the rewards while discharging the obligations. It's like the morons who don't want to pay for schools because they personally don't have children attending them. They want to reap the benefit of an educated society but not have to contribute to paying for it. It's a small-minded and self-centered mentality.

It's up to each person to decide if they feel morally obliged to help others, and how they think it's most appropriate to try to do so. You can't legislate a sense of morality into people. You can only restrict their freedom or property for your own ends.

No, it's not. It's not up to each person to decide if they feel like being moral. It's right to help other people. It's wrong to hurt others for selfish benefit. Period. That's what's right and wrong. A philosophy rooted in selfishness, which this form of modern American libertarianism is, is wrong. Pretending that selfishness is a moral choice is wrong.
 
Some competition is. But when you pretend that it's all competition and no cooperation merely because you're coming out on top, that makes you a selfish prick and a liar.

I never said everything about life is competitive, I said that competition is natural. It's not reasonable to regard self-interest or competitiveness in general (pejoratively you call it selfishness) as "disgusting."

Which is a fine philosophical argument, but is still continually invoked to claim that poor people deserve to be poor.

No one is trying to declare what one person deserves or doesn't deserve. They're trying to defend people's freedom to make (and learn from) mistakes. It's up to the individual to devise a strategy to succeed, just get by, or survive. Some will thrive and some will flounder. Are there benefits in cooperation, charity, assistance, and other things you believe in? Of course there are. But institutionalizing them as mandatory takes the personal decision-making out of it and thus robs it of its real benefits. It just makes people more resentful, actually.

And yet your philosophy never manifests as opting out. It manifests as reaping the rewards while discharging the obligations.

How so? You're completely wrong, FYI, but I'm interested to know why you think my philosophy does this (e.g. with a real-world example).

It's like the morons who don't want to pay for schools because they personally don't have children attending them. They want to reap the benefit of an educated society but not have to contribute to paying for it. It's a small-minded and self-centered mentality.

Well everyone pays generally for everything we decide to do at a federal level. If that's someone's real and only basis for opposing government-funded education, then yeah I'm inclined to agree, that's fairly moronic.

No, it's not. It's not up to each person to decide if they feel like being moral. It's right to help other people. It's wrong to hurt others for selfish benefit. Period. That's what's right and wrong.

But it's up to the individual to discover and believe that. It's up to parents to instill that. It's not up to you to impose your charitable notions onto him. You (pretending for a moment you're the government) taking money from a supremely selfish adult to go help others with it... still reflects zero sense of morality on the selfish guy's part. He's not deciding anything. He's still just as immoral (or perhaps I should say amoral). How is he more moral just because you took his money and helped someone else with it?

A philosophy rooted in selfishness, which this form of modern American libertarianism is, is wrong. Pretending that selfishness is a moral choice is wrong.

You're starting to sound a bit dogmatic.

Look, if you really believe cooperation is in everyone's best interests, then why can they not be permitted to choose cooperation on their own? Similarly, those who do not choose cooperation will not (and should not) reap those same benefits. Why is that wrong? They freely chose not to cooperate, which you warned against, but you would not allow them to have to face those consequences?
 
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?

I think the strong absolutist personal freedom and responsibility arguments have several problems.

1. If and when people fail to successfully fend for themselves, and some inevitably will fail, we would be forced to watch people self-destruct and most people cannot stomach that.

2. Our current foreign policy MO often involves assistance to people in other countries. It creates a huge conflict in a lot of people's minds when we are able and willing to finance development and humanitarian efforts in other counties while not helping people at home.

3. In the late 1700s people had nearly unlimited access to land and other vital resources often for free, depending on where one was willing to live. In 2013 you can't just chop down some trees on a river bank, erect a log cabin, plant a garden, hunt, fish, barter with neighbors and call it home.

4. Very often one person's personal freedom affects to freedom of others. For example, you might think you're free to not wear a seatbelt when driving. However, if you're thrown from your car in an accident and don't survive, the taxpayers then have to provide for your family in some cases. If you have an adequate life insurance policy great, but even when people do many survivors don't managage the proceeds properly and in a few years the taxpayers coud be on the hook again. Plus, with every claim, paid premiums have to go up on other future policy holders so your freedom to not wear a seatbelt is costing some other insured's more money than they woud otherwise have to pay.

I think the operative word in balance. Anything taken to an extreme is probably not a good thing. I like freedom and personal responsibility but taken to an extreme that coud mean everybody is responsible for their own private firefighter service. If their house catches fire and didnt buy into a private firefighter service or they let their membership lapse, burn and maybe die and there's a good chance ther neighbor's house gets destroyed too or at a minimum loses value possibly just before a sale because there's now a heap of ash and chared debris next door.
 
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.
What is your opinion of the proper role of government?

To help me vote in this poll, could you please explain something for me?

Would an example of the government passing a law to protect oneself from themselves be a law against drunken driving?
 
Uh, ok... Is somebody here suggesting everybody pay for the uninsured through the government? I know I didn't. Here I am talking about personal freedom and responsibility, you know, the topic of the thread, and you're off on health care reform.

No, I'm saying nobody pay for the uninsured AT ALL! I'm for personal responsibility in all things, this is just where we've ended up in this particular discussion.
 
Then name one specific area...
or I will....
dental care
For 50 years I did not take good care of my teeth...I went years without visiting a dentist....
No, the piper must be paid.
And I am not the only one...Should dental care be included in the ACA ?
Should dental care be affordable for all ?
Yes, I agree with the responsibility premise, but many of us are not that responsible
And , I question the statement " .......government has no business..."
The vote was "I do not know - other".

Then let those people die. Problem solved.
 
No, I'm saying nobody pay for the uninsured AT ALL! I'm for personal responsibility in all things, this is just where we've ended up in this particular discussion.

We generally dont' pay for the uninsured. So I'm not really sure why you care so much. Perhaps you should take this beef up with the proponents of obamacare.
 
We generally dont' pay for the uninsured. So I'm not really sure why you care so much. Perhaps you should take this beef up with the proponents of obamacare.

The problem is, we generally do pay for the uninsured. People with no money show up to hospital emergency rooms and they are legally required to care for them. The taxpayer should not be on the hook for the irresponsible.
 
Murky question. I am a general advocate of personal responsibility, but allowing any result to occur as a result is unacceptable. One example being that individuals should not be left to die for lack of resources.
 
The proper role of government is such:

- Maintain a justice system to prevent/seek retribution for coercion/violence between citizens
- Organize national defense
- Maintain the few programs that would be near impossible in the free market, IE: public roads, radio spectrum division, etc.

The government has no role in legislating non-violent morality, or telling people what they should or shouldn't consume. It's our lives, our bodies, our decisions.

what he said

BTW anonymous polls suck. I want to know who voted yes
 
The problem is, we generally do pay for the uninsured. People with no money show up to hospital emergency rooms and they are legally required to care for them. The taxpayer should not be on the hook for the irresponsible.

I think you are draaaastically overestimating the costs of providing "free" emergency care, especially considering the workers are on staff. If you could provide a link that this is a substantial part of our healthcare costs, then I'll take you seriously.
 
To help me vote in this poll, could you please explain something for me?

Would an example of the government passing a law to protect oneself from themselves be a law against drunken driving?

Sort of but not really. A closer example would be civil commitment statutes.
 
To help me vote in this poll, could you please explain something for me?

Would an example of the government passing a law to protect oneself from themselves be a law against drunken driving?

I would say those are more oriented toward protecting others from your drunk driving. Protecting you is more a sometimes effect.
 
Murky question. I am a general advocate of personal responsibility, but allowing any result to occur as a result is unacceptable. One example being that individuals should not be left to die for lack of resources.

What would be a specific example of that? How would that scenario actually play out (someone being "left to die")?

Left where, exactly? Is there like a human migration going on in this example? Oregon Trail sort of thing?
 
Oh no the government wants to provide abortions to unemployed single 17 year olds.

Oh no the government wants to tax citizens that engage in consumption of poison and in toe poison others.



How terribly oppressive and horrible that sounds.. When will this mass oppression end!?!?
 
Sort of but not really. A closer example would be civil commitment statutes.

So a law against drunken driving is not there to protect a person from their own actions?
 
I would say those are more oriented toward protecting others from your drunk driving. Protecting you is more a sometimes effect.

Oh I agree with you that it does indeed hope to protect others. But it also is there to protect the driver himself from his own irresponsible actions.
 
So a law against drunken driving is not there to protect a person from their own actions?

Posts #63 and #64 answered this.

To keep the discussion going, let's assume we were to agree that drunk driving laws exist primarily to protect people from themselves (i.e., point conceded). What point would you be trying to make with this?
 
Last edited:
Oh I agree with you that it does indeed hope to protect others. But it also is there to protect the driver himself from his own irresponsible actions.

I'd still say the protecting others is the primary driver which is why the limits were lowered and mandatory sentencing became more common after high-profile drunk driver takes out a van full of kittens and nuns stories.

Probably the more direct protect people from themselves laws would be drug prohibition, proofing regulations on alcohol, no gut-busting sodas in NYC type laws.
 
Posts #63 and #64 answered this.

To keep the discussion going, let's assume we were to agree that drunk driving laws exist primarily to protect people from themselves (i.e., point conceded). What point would you be trying to make with this?

That is is right and proper to do so.
 
I think you are draaaastically overestimating the costs of providing "free" emergency care, especially considering the workers are on staff. If you could provide a link that this is a substantial part of our healthcare costs, then I'll take you seriously.

I didn't say a thing about it being substantial, I said taxpayers should not fund one penny of an irresponsible person's care. Stop trying to twist my words.
 
I didn't say a thing about it being substantial, I said taxpayers should not fund one penny of an irresponsible person's care. Stop trying to twist my words.

If it's not substantial in any sense of the word, then why are you worrying about it? If 99.9% of the health care system is being used by people who pay for it, sounds like it's working pretty well.

I think you're just looking for something to whine about.
 
If it's not substantial in any sense of the word, then why are you worrying about it? If 99.9% of the health care system is being used by people who pay for it, sounds like it's working pretty well.

I think you're just looking for something to whine about.

No, you're just looking for some way to shift the blame. I don't care if it costs taxpayers $1.95 a year, if it's something they're not supposed to be paying, they shouldn't be paying for it. It's not the only problem out there by any means, or even the largest, but that's where this thread has gone and pretending that just because there are bigger issues out there, we can ignore anything not at the top of the pile is asinine.
 
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 really depends on what we're talking about. Do I believe in owning the responsibilities of the decisions you make? Yes. That's part and parcel with liberty.

But that doesn't automatically mean the government has absolutely no use. There are far-flung possibilities of every decision, and sometimes people just have **** luck.

I'll use two examples as kind of the difference in what I mean.

I get into disagreements all the time with other pro-choicers about what I believe is a man's right to choose his level of involvement when a woman makes a reproductive choice unilaterally. The thing is, if she makes a decision alone, the obvious consequences of that decision are hers alone unless someone else volunteers. Men do have a right to not be directly responsible for someone else's decision.

On the other side, you have the welfare state. I have heard some really good arguments about the ways in which this can actually disempower the poor by empowering bad businesses to sell them for less. But then you've got plain ole' bad luck. People do deserve help for that in a civilized society. NOT helping them takes them out of a society for longer than they would otherwise be -- possibly forever. Helping them gets them back on their feet faster, assuming welfare is structured in such a way as to encourage that. While the welfare state is undoubtedly flawed, the answer is not to take it away completely, and it is different from one person being directly responsible for another's decisions; it's an entire society deciding that bad luck, or even just one dumb move, shouldn't completely remove you from society.

Things are different on a macro vs. a micro scale, and there's good evidence that on a macro scale, it's better for all of us for society to not resemble the jungle in its ruthlessness.

All of that said, I do believe in people agreeing with what they pay for, which is one of the reasons I think citizenship and residency should be easier to change.
 
Back
Top Bottom