• 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
Federalist said:
I asked how society acts. The constitutions to which you refer were written by individuals.
Click to expand...

So what? They were then approved, ratified and sanctioned by the duly constituted representatives of society acting in the name of the people as a group.

Just look at the Preamble to the Constitution

WE THE PEOPLE.....

PEOPLE is a colective word. IT does NOT say, we acting as individuals....

Read the rest of the Preamble and you will see it sets up the Constitution as a very collectivist document for American society.

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.


Terms like COMMON DEFENSE & GENERAL WELFARE are more than just individual self concerns. They apply to society and are clearly beyond the individual or the individual concerns of many individuals.
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
So what?
Click to expand...

Well first you say that society expresses it preferences through a constitution, but that constitution was written by individuals not by society.

So if you want to claim that there is this "balance between the individual and society" then you ought to be able to tell us how society expresses her (his?) preferences.
 
Federalist said:
Well first you say that society expresses it preferences through a constitution, but that constitution was written by individuals not by society.

So if you want to claim that there is this "balance between the individual and society" then you ought to be able to tell us how society expresses her (his?) preferences.
Click to expand...

just did . Go back and read it.
 
haymarket said:
just did . Go back and read it.
Click to expand...

You described the actions of a group of individuals, not society. You are unable to explain how society expresses it preferences. You have only told us how a group of individuals expressed their preference.
 
haymarket said:
Its pretty simple. There is nothing wrong with passing laws to protect people - even from themselves. Drunk driving is a perfect example of that.
Click to expand...

It's not a perfect example, actually, rather a somewhat lazy/clumsy example, but regardless, if simply put there is nothing wrong with passing laws for people's protection, should we pass more laws than we currently have (to protect people from themselves)? If so, like what?

The thread is about a liberty/security balance. I believe we are out of balance and too heavy on the security in several respects.
 
Last edited:
Call me crazy but my time in the Corps taught to be man and take responsibility for all my actions regardless of how stupid.
 
joko104 said:
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?
Click to expand...
You mean Tocqueville. Torqueville sounds like a drag strip.
 
Neomalthusian said:
It's not a perfect example, actually, rather a somewhat lazy/clumsy example, but regardless, if simply put there is nothing wrong with passing laws for people's protection, should we pass more laws than we currently have (to protect people from themselves)? If so, like what?

The thread is about a liberty/security balance.
Click to expand...

No its a very good example. Seat belts are another.

That is one opinion. This thread is also the usual predictable bitch session about what the far right calls "nanny government" attendant evil that is perceived to come with that pejorative label.
 
haymarket said:
People authorized to represent society.
Click to expand...

And how exactly does society let us know that she has authorized these particular individuals to represent her preferences?

(Note: I anticipate the need for another "Cycled detected. Abort!" messages.)
 
Federalist said:
And how exactly does society let us know that she has authorized these particular individuals to represent her preferences?

(Note: I anticipate the need for another "Cycled detected. Abort!" messages.)
Click to expand...

You fell of your triclycle again?

If you want to know the origins of the Constitutional Convention, how it was called, who called it and how it was written and then ratified by the States, there are many excellent sources available to you.
 
cpgrad08 said:
Call me crazy but my time in the Corps taught to be man and take responsibility for all my actions regardless of how stupid.
Click to expand...

Good for you. Most of us have ample opportunity to take responsibility for stupid actions.
 
haymarket said:
You fell of your triclycle again?

If you want to know the origins of the Constitutional Convention, how it was called, who called it and how it was written and then ratified by the States, there are many excellent sources available to you.
Click to expand...

Nice dodge.

Yes, we all know that certain individuals chose certain other individuals to write a constitution, and then yet other individuals ratified that constitution.

But, not surprisingly, you are avoiding the question. How do we know that society wants those particular individuals to represent her preferences?

You said there is a balance between the individual and society. How does society tell us whether a person is acting as an individual or acting on behalf of society?
 
Last edited:
Federalist said:
Nice dodge.

Yes, we all know that certain individuals chose certain other individuals to write a constitution, and then yet other individuals ratified that constitution.

But, not surprisingly, you are avoiding the question. How do we know that society wants those particular individuals to represent her preferences?

You said there is a balance between the individual and society. How does society tell us whether a person is acting as an individual or acting on behalf of society?
Click to expand...

It was more of a Lincoln.

I already answered your question. If you want to know the origins of the Constitutional Convention, how it was called, who called it and how it was written and then ratified by the States, there are many excellent sources available to you.

I would be happy to recommend some of the better one if you wish.

Was the person empowered to act on behalf of society?
 
haymarket said:
I already answered your question.
Click to expand...

Nope.

You have yet to explain how we are supposed to know the preference of society. You have only given us examples of the individual or groups of individuals acting.

We have no way of knowing whether society approves of their behavior.
 
joko104 said:
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?
Click to expand...

The main purpose of government is to secure the free exercise of the People's rights and liberties, provide common defense and general welfare. On the whole, we are a nation of busybodies and it's leading to more and more law, more data basing, more police control over our lives. People would rather pretend that it's not them, it's other people; but they would be wrong. We need to learn to mind our own business and if a person ain't hurting anyone, then it's not your business.
 
Federalist said:
Nope.

You have yet to explain how we are supposed to know the preference of society. You have only given us examples of the individual or groups of individuals acting.

We have no way of knowing whether society approves of their behavior.
Click to expand...

Lets cut the crap here and cut to the chase.

Do you accept the United States government and the government of your State as legitimate?
 
haymarket said:
Lets cut the crap here and cut to the chase.

Do you accept the United States government and the government of your State as legitimate?
Click to expand...

That's really the question, it tends to be the libertarian crazies who act like the government is some alien entity imposed on them from above and not answerable to anyone, which is absurd. We, the people, voted them in. They are our responsibility and when they do things we don't like, it's our job to vote them out.
 
haymarket said:
Lets cut the crap here and cut to the chase.

Do you accept the United States government and the government of your State as legitimate?
Click to expand...

Of course I do. I'm simply examining your earlier comment where you describe the need for balance between the individual and society.

The problem you have is that you have no way of achieving that balance because, any given individual can demonstrate his wants and preferences, society cannot do so.

Only an individual can tell you his wants and preferences. Society can't, so there's no way to accommodate those wants and preferences. We simply have no possible way of knowing what they are.
 
Cephus said:
That's really the question, it tends to be the libertarian crazies who act like the government is some alien entity imposed on them from above and not answerable to anyone, which is absurd. We, the people, voted them in. They are our responsibility and when they do things we don't like, it's our job to vote them out.
Click to expand...

I agree. All this posing and posturing about how does the government speak for individuals is a bunch of crap. This nonsense about "i didn't sign no social contract" is also crap. Either you accept that our government is legitimate or you don't. And if you don't that open up a whole 50 gallon drum barrel of questions.
 
Federalist said:
Of course I do. I'm simply examining your earlier comment where you describe the need for balance between the individual and society.

The problem you have is that you have no way of achieving that balance because, any given individual can demonstrate his wants and preferences, society cannot do so.

Only an individual can tell you his wants and preferences. Society can't, so there's no way to accommodate those wants and preferences. We simply have no possible way of knowing what they are.
Click to expand...

Then that issue has left the station. Our government by your own admission is legitimate. So deal with it.

Society acts through its legitimate government which it can change periodically at will. And it is government acting for the people that try to balance these factors discussed previously. If you do not accept that - there is no point in continuing any sort of discussion as its based from your end on somethign other than reality.
 
haymarket said:
Then that issue has left the station. Our government by your own admission is legitimate. So deal with it.

Society acts through its legitimate government which it can change periodically at will. And it is government acting for the people that try to balance these factors discussed previously. If you do not accept that - there is no point in continuing any sort of discussion as its based from your end on somethign other than reality.
Click to expand...

For those who are following this thread, it is important to realize that when someone spouts crap about "balancing the needs of the individual against the needs of society", they are literally asking the impossible. It is impossible to EVER know what "society" wants. It is only possible to know what any particular individual wants. Thus, it is literally impossible to balance the wants of the individual against the wants of society.

We can only balance the needs of individuals against each other. Violent collectivist interventionists don't like this, because this puts all individuals on an equal footing. They want some individuals to be rulers over others, and this "balance the individual and society" is an invention to create something with higher authority than any individual.
 
Last edited:
American said:
This was never supported by the founders.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom