• 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

US Conservative

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 11, 2013
Messages
33,522
Reaction score
10,826
Location
Between Athens and Jerusalem
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
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.
 
Last edited:
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.

And so what are you being restricted from?
 
I'm not sure your view of the difference in political philosophy between the left and the right is accurate. The difference lies primarily in what the two sides view as the legitimate role of government. I think every intelligent person from either side is going to understand that the government restricts freedom. The question is to what extent and for what purposes is it proper to restrict freedom? Both sides agree that it is proper for the government to take away an individual's freedom to use their physical strength to enslave others. Both sides do not always agree on to what extent the government should take away a business' freedom to use its financial strength to enslave others.
 
Of course government restricts freedom. Absence of government would be anarchy, which is no rules and restrictions. The nature of government is to regulate and provide rules, in addition to taking whatever they deem necessary to carry out those functions.
 
I'm not sure your view of the difference in political philosophy between the left and the right is accurate. The difference lies primarily in what the two sides view as the legitimate role of government. I think every intelligent person from either side is going to understand that the government restricts freedom. The question is to what extent and for what purposes is it proper to restrict freedom? Both sides agree that it is proper for the government to take away an individual's freedom to use their physical strength to enslave others. Both sides do not always agree on to what extent the government should take away a business' freedom to use its financial strength to enslave others.

My example in the op was merely an argument Ive heard here on the forum, Im not making the lefts arguments for them.
You are getting deeper into the matter-what degree of restriction is acceptable but I intended to start with a recognition of what govts do.
 
No poll, but I'll answer anyway. I lean center, which means I stand strait. Which is how I like it.

I believe that government restricts freedom in order to preserve the society. Yeah, it sucks not being able to drive any speed I want on public roads. But then again, it would suck more for society at large to adopt such a practice, and driving, as a result, becomes a MUCH riskier proposition. Civilization has expanded what we as humans can accomplish with our lives. Pre history, and with much more basic civilizations, no one accomplished ANYTHING, other than the rulers. Why? Because THEY were the ones with the most free time. The power to DO stuff. Thanks to governments, we ALL have the power to DO stuff, and the free time to do it, not just the wealthy. Government, at least ours, anyway, is a tool to more evenly distribute power.
 
My freedom to do something restricts your freedom to prevent me from doing that something. And vice versa.

Obviously, rules create boundaries, or "restrictions" if you prefer. That fact isn't rationally debatable.
 
My example in the op was merely an argument Ive heard here on the forum

Have you really heard this argument or are you misinterpreting people's points of view?

Maybe you did hear the argument, I don't know. But if you did, it's a fringe opinion and not part of the mainstream of liberal thought. You're barking up the wrong tree if you think this is what the divide is about (which is what you claimed in the OP).
 
Anything prohibited by law. Thats not to say I want to DO those things, but that need not be the point.

Without law you have no civil society. I'm afraid your point is failing here...
 
Of course government restricts freedom. Absence of government would be anarchy, which is no rules and restrictions. The nature of government is to regulate and provide rules, in addition to taking whatever they deem necessary to carry out those functions.

i would have to disagree a little here.

government is instituted to secure rights of the people, by creating laws/regulations.

government is not a moral entity to make us behavior in a fashion they desire, but to punish when you violate rights of others or endangered the health and safety of the public.

government today restricts liberty because the people who have been elected think its their duty to create laws to make us act, speak, and interact with each other in the way......... they desire.

when there is no rights violation or threat the health and safety of the public, then their is no victim for government to make a law/regulation to restrain us.
 
i would have to disagree a little here.

government is instituted to secure rights of the people, by creating laws/regulations.

government is not a moral entity to make us behavior in a fashion they desire, but to punish when you violate rights of others or endangered the health and safety of the public.

government today restricts liberty because the people who have been elected think its their duty to create laws to make us act, speak, and interact with each other in the way......... they desire.

when their is no rights violation or threat the health and safety of the public, then their is no victim for government to make a law/regulation to restrain us.

There is no issue with your disagreeing, however, the role of government is (by its very nature) to restrict, impose rules, legislate, and rule.
 
Have you really heard this argument or are you misinterpreting people's points of view?

Maybe you did hear the argument, I don't know. But if you did, it's a fringe opinion and not part of the mainstream of liberal thought. You're barking up the wrong tree if you think this is what the divide is about (which is what you claimed in the OP).

Ive really heard the argument, its used in discussions about why some people see the govt as a benefactor.
 
Freedoms/rights aren't absolute for the good of the many and general public order. Government restriction is necessary to ensure this and protect the rights of all citizens.

Your rights end where another's begin.
 
There is no issue with your disagreeing, however, the role of government is (by its very nature) to restrict, impose rules, legislate, and rule.

when it comes to rights.....only if their is a victim or the possibility of one

when its a privilege, then government can make rules /policies you must follow to get the privilege.
 
i would have to disagree a little here.

government is instituted to secure rights of the people, by creating laws/regulations.

government is not a moral entity to make us behavior in a fashion they desire, but to punish when you violate rights of others or endangered the health and safety of the public.

government today restricts liberty because the people who have been elected think its their duty to create laws to make us act, speak, and interact with each other in the way......... they desire.

when there is no rights violation or threat the health and safety of the public, then their is no victim for government to make a law/regulation to restrain us.

Do you believe that a govt has in its best interests a state without said "victims"? And what about those who are restrained to "help" those "victims"?
 
There is no issue with your disagreeing, however, the role of government is (by its very nature) to restrict, impose rules, legislate, and rule.

Actually the role of government is to secure the rights of its people under which it was created. Key word being "under"...
 
Freedoms/rights aren't absolute for the good of the many and general public order. Government restriction is necessary to ensure this and protect the rights of all citizens.

Your rights end where another's begin.

Very well but the question was "Do govts restrict or provide freedom".
 
I can't answer the poll as worded.


The real true answer is yes and no. Gov't restricts freedom obviously, but here's the thing: Just the RIGHT amount of government, no more and no less, actually makes for more real useable freedom than does anarchy.
 
Do you believe that a govt has in its best interests a state without said "victims"? And what about those who are restrained to "help" those "victims"?

government is run by people, and people always work in their own interest...its human nature.

our government was constructed to contain the self centered nature of people, from violating the rights of the people.

that structure of government [republican form] created by the founders no longer exist.... in state government as well as federal, democracy has taken hold in america and destroying it.

the reason the founders hated democracy is because it is ALWAYS at war with individual liberty.
 
Try to be more nuanced. Im not saying there is not a legitimate and necessary role of govt.-Im saying that all it can do is restrict.
Again, to restrict is to grant the freedom of restriction, and to not restrict is to restrict the freedom to restrict. You could go in circles all day.

Rules restrict by definition, and rules are necessary for any form of organization by definition, because organization needs structure to exist, and structure needs rules to exist. It really isn't any more nuanced than that, and it isn't where the conservative/liberal differences are, unless by conservative you really mean anarchist, which is doubtful.
 
Back
Top Bottom