• 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 governments restrict freedom or provide it?

Do Governments Restrict Freedom or Provide It?

  • I lean left and govt does NOT restrict freedom.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • I am not American and govt restricts freedom.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • I am not American and govt does NOT restrict freedom.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    28
Although the definition of freedom has different meanings to different people, I believe there is an ideological divide here between the American left and right.

Personally, I see govts as restrictive by nature (govt passes laws, laws are inherently limiting) and that the overall net effect is less freedom. I live in a big govt state and its highly restrictive in nearly every way.

The American left might argue that laws deliver freedom to those who "need" it, however I'd counter with the fact that freedom is a natural right-thats my view.

So answer the poll, and I will leave an option for non-Americans. If you consider yourself a centrist/moderate/libertarian/enigma etc pick the side to which you most closely lean, or use your freedom to not vote or start your own poll. :2wave:

Edit-I did not click the "make poll" option so I will leave the choices below-if a mod would be kind enough to add these options, or allow me to that would be appreciated.

I lean right and govt restricts freedom.
I lean left and govt restricts freedom.
I lean right and govt does NOT restrict freedom.
I lean left and govt does NOT restrict freedom.
I am not American and govt restricts freedom.
I am not American and govt does NOT restrict freedom.
Now that this thread has gone on for 25+/-ages, I will ask the following question: In your opinion, is absolute freedom even possible? If possible, is it desirable? Or, do there need to be some restrictions, albeit minor?
 
Now that this thread has gone on for 25+/-ages, I will ask the following question: In your opinion, is absolute freedom even possible? If possible, is it desirable? Or, do there need to be some restrictions, albeit minor?

Its possible, but the results probably wouldn't be too pretty-and it wouldn't be possible in a large society.
 
I think that safety and liberty are two different things, though often some liberty must to a reluctant extent be sacrificed for safety.

They're interrelated. You are more free than someone in Somalia, you have far more choices in what you wish to do because you have the safety the government provides to make those choices.
 
big-govt.jpg

Although the definition of freedom has different meanings to different people, I believe there is an ideological divide here between the American left and right.

Personally, I see govts as restrictive by nature (govt passes laws, laws are inherently limiting) and that the overall net effect is less freedom. I live in a big govt state and its highly restrictive in nearly every way.

The American left might argue that laws deliver freedom to those who "need" it, however I'd counter with the fact that freedom is a natural right-thats my view.

So answer the poll, and I will leave an option for non-Americans. If you consider yourself a centrist/moderate/libertarian/enigma etc pick the side to which you most closely lean, or use your freedom to not vote or start your own poll. :2wave:

Edit-I did not click the "make poll" option so I will leave the choices below-if a mod would be kind enough to add these options, or allow me to that would be appreciated.

I lean right and govt restricts freedom.
I lean left and govt restricts freedom.
I lean right and govt does NOT restrict freedom.
I lean left and govt does NOT restrict freedom.
I am not American and govt restricts freedom.
I am not American and govt does NOT restrict freedom.
None of the available options accurately describe the reality.

It depends on the government in question.

On the one hand you have the rule of law, protecting and enforcing freedoms and the like.
On the other you can take that whole thing too far and end up taking away freedoms from one area to protect freedoms in another area. Or to increase security and safety.

It's a balancing act, really.
 
Those are claims, where is proof?

There isn't. Natural rights are bunk for the most part. The only "natural right" which has a claim to existence is the right to defend whatever invented rights your legal system has denied you. However, even that can be done away with after a single bullet to the head. In other words, even that right only exists for as long as you can defend it. So does it exist at all? Not really.
 
There isn't. Natural rights are bunk for the most part. The only "natural right" which has a claim to existence is the right to defend whatever invented rights your legal system has denied you. However, even that can be done away with after a single bullet to the head. In other words, even that right only exists for as long as you can defend it. So does it exist at all? Not really.

You know that and I know that, someone needs to clue in the libertarians.
 
I dont disagree with you that there are traits in China and the USSR and of communism and capitalism, as in Sweden. But the marxist side is the side of fail, its what holds you back. You mention minimum wage and the marxists here wont let us abolish that because they would rather feel good than have willing adults work jobs they want. But that does is not the entire picture-its a triumph of the free market surrounded by marxist fail.

When you say prices are "decided", unless you mean through the free market its a fail. Propaganda about union and govt interests are not that. Its not that I dislike sweden at all, its that you are going to be eaten by the wolves.

Other things I like about sweden-the women and swedish mausers.

The thing is that Sweden have been told for over a period of over 50 years that we will fail because we are too socialist. But Sweden is still doing pretty good in many ranking. Both then it comes to "soft factors" like life expectancy and child mortality rate. But also then it comes to ecomical factors like bein a innovative society. So it seems small goverment is not the only way to go.

The World

Global Competitiveness | World Economic Forum - Global Competitiveness

https://www.google.se/search?q=gdp+...7.4303j0j7&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=122&ie=UTF-8

List of countries by life expectancy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

List of countries by infant mortality rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Also you can ask yourself what a free labormarket is. For some it's just no goverment regulation and therefor it's ok that workers are payed so little that their children have to also work. That people are dependent on work for survival that at the same time a single individual don't have the same bargain power as a multibillion company. Of course you can have social safety net that stop people from starving to deat, but it can lead to people both working and at the same time being dependent on the goverment. That as I understand it you are already their in USA. That people are working but still are dependent on goverment food aid. http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3894

What you need instead are functional labormarket like for example Sweden their both our companies can be internationally competive and make their owner rich and at the same time the workers can have good salaries and working condition.

Now that this thread has gone on for 25+/-ages, I will ask the following question: In your opinion, is absolute freedom even possible? If possible, is it desirable? Or, do there need to be some restrictions, albeit minor?

Freedom willl always be restricted by nature and man. US Conservative is probably right what it's only a very small society that everyone can be happy with the societies rule and feel that under those rules everyone is free. But a very small society can't have the luxury that a larger and more complex like the ones we have. That means that you in a small society will be very restritced by nature. If their are a bad crop season, people risk starving to death. People in that society will also face the risk of seeing their loveones die or themself die from what in our societes is easily treatable diseases. So in that sens people in who society can instead feel lot more restricted and also threathed by nature.
 
Last edited:
There isn't. Natural rights are bunk for the most part. The only "natural right" which has a claim to existence is the right to defend whatever invented rights your legal system has denied you. However, even that can be done away with after a single bullet to the head. In other words, even that right only exists for as long as you can defend it. So does it exist at all? Not really.

You don't see a distinction between a right and the ability to exercise that right?
 
The thing is that Sweden have been told for over a period of over 50 years that we will fail because we are too socialist. But Sweden is still doing pretty good in many ranking. Both then it comes to "soft factors" like life expectancy and child mortality rate. But also then it comes to ecomical factors like bein a innovative society. So it seems small goverment is not the only way to go.
"Big government" is easier to pull off in smaller populations and/or homogeneous societies. The larger percentage that think alike, the greater the potential for any system to succeed. The more fractured a societal mindset, then it doesn't matter what system you choose, it will be doomed to failure.
 
"Big government" is easier to pull off in smaller populations and/or homogeneous societies. The larger percentage that think alike, the greater the potential for any system to succeed. The more fractured a societal mindset, then it doesn't matter what system you choose, it will be doomed to failure.

Yes in part your right then it comes to get a mayority to accept and want a bigger goverment society. In a bigger countries like USA you instead have to have other soloutions for example a combination of a lot of welfare program and other goverment programs on state level that at the same time the states and the central goverment can agree on common rules. Because it can else be easy that people move across the stateline to a state with good childcare, good school when they have children and then move back over stateline to a state with lower taxes then then chilrden growned up. But as I understand you are very very far away from getting the state and goverment unity to archieve it.
 
The thing is that Sweden have been told for over a period of over 50 years that we will fail because we are too socialist. But Sweden is still doing pretty good in many ranking. Both then it comes to "soft factors" like life expectancy and child mortality rate. But also then it comes to ecomical factors like bein a innovative society. So it seems small goverment is not the only way to go.

The World

Global Competitiveness | World Economic Forum - Global Competitiveness

https://www.google.se/search?q=gdp+...7.4303j0j7&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=122&ie=UTF-8

List of countries by life expectancy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

List of countries by infant mortality rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Also you can ask yourself what a free labormarket is. For some it's just no goverment regulation and therefor it's ok that workers are payed so little that their children have to also work. That people are dependent on work for survival that at the same time a single individual don't have the same bargain power as a multibillion company. Of course you can have social safety net that stop people from starving to deat, but it can lead to people both working and at the same time being dependent on the goverment. That as I understand it you are already their in USA. That people are working but still are dependent on goverment food aid. The Relationship Between SNAP and Work Among Low-Income Households — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

What you need instead are functional labormarket like for example Sweden their both our companies can be internationally competive and make their owner rich and at the same time the workers can have good salaries and working condition.



Freedom willl always be restricted by nature and man. US Conservative is probably right what it's only a very small society that everyone can be happy with the societies rule and feel that under those rules everyone is free. But a very small society can't have the luxury that a larger and more complex like the ones we have. That means that you in a small society will be very restritced by nature. If their are a bad crop season, people risk starving to death. People in that society will also face the risk of seeing their loveones die or themself die from what in our societes is easily treatable diseases. So in that sens people in who society can instead feel lot more restricted and also threathed by nature.

The last 50 years Sweden has been protected. Its needed to divert nothing to defense and even so its population is STILL crumbling. Marxism takes the soul out of people, and makes that culture start to crumble. Its not unique to Sweden either. Ironically, in my experience northern Europe has an excellent work ethic and would thrive in a true capitalist society. The course its on wont end well, already you have the inversion of the family, with more grandparents and older family than children. Your population is only replenished by people fundamentally at odds with western values. Thats not a recipe for success.
 
"Big government" is easier to pull off in smaller populations and/or homogeneous societies. The larger percentage that think alike, the greater the potential for any system to succeed. The more fractured a societal mindset, then it doesn't matter what system you choose, it will be doomed to failure.

This is true, its one reason the left in the USA has long pursued things like identity politics-its a means to weaken the society, with the hope that it will be replaced by a marxist model.
 
Yes in part your right then it comes to get a mayority to accept and want a bigger goverment society. In a bigger countries like USA you instead have to have other soloutions for example a combination of a lot of welfare program and other goverment programs on state level that at the same time the states and the central goverment can agree on common rules. Because it can else be easy that people move across the stateline to a state with good childcare, good school when they have children and then move back over stateline to a state with lower taxes then then chilrden growned up. But as I understand you are very very far away from getting the state and goverment unity to archieve it.

Historically, govt "unity" means tyranny.
 
You don't see a distinction between a right and the ability to exercise that right?

No. Rights only exist as long as you have the ability to exercise them. If you can't, then they don't exist anymore than laws which aren't enforced.
 
No. Rights only exist as long as you have the ability to exercise them. If you can't, then they don't exist anymore than laws which aren't enforced.


Laws which aren't enforced do exist. They can be enforced at any time the enforcement agency decides to begin enforcing them. They do not have to be brought back into existence by a legislative body.

So rights are simply accidents of time and place and subject to whims of the person with the biggest gun? I assume then that you'd accept never to intervene in a country where the government is committing mass slaughter of the populace? Afterall the government has decided that they don't have a right to life so no such right exists for them.
 
Back
Top Bottom