• 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 right and govt restricts freedom.

    Votes: 18 64.3%

  • I lean left and govt restricts freedom.

    Votes: 8 28.6%

  • I lean right and govt does NOT restrict freedom.

    Votes: 2 7.1%

  • 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
SouthernDemocrat said:
A variety of ways. Sometimes it was land that was left over after settlement. Sometimes it was land that was given to the public sector on the condition it be maintained as a park. Sometimes it was purchased.

The point in my previous post is that its a gray area. You can't just make a blanket statement that the government restricts freedom or the government provides freedom. Its like asking a parent do you provide your children with discipline or do you provide them with love. The government does both. The world is not all black and white, cut and dry, get used to it.
Click to expand...

Many things are actually pretty cut and dry. Discipline is can not be mistaken for love, and force can not be mistaken for freedom.
 
Henrin said:
So does the government allow people to refuse to give up their land or do they just force them to give it up and then throw money at them? Taking my land to give yourself a road is pretty ****ed up.
Click to expand...

If the refuse to give up the land, they can always go to court and challenge... Did you not know this?
 
TheDemSocialist said:
If the refuse to give up the land, they can always go to court and challenge... Did you not know this?
Click to expand...

So what is their chances of winning in court? If the court establishes that it is in the state interest to take their land, exactly how can they stop it? Can they?
 
Henrin said:
Is that something that is supposed to matter to my argument?
Click to expand...
Absolutely, yes. Because part of our system of government is based of this.

Did they use eminent domain to take land or not? Did people lose their property to build the interstate road system? Yes or No?
Click to expand...

Yes. And nothing with that means anyting to "restrict freedom"
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Absolutely, yes. Because part of our system of government is based of this.
Click to expand...

So? Why does that matter?


Yes. And nothing with that means anyting to "restrict freedom"
Click to expand...

So if a common thief stole your property and threw money at you everything about that situation would be fine with you? Interesting.
 
Henrin said:
So what is their chances of winning in court? If the court establishes that it is in the state interest to take their land, exactly how can they stop it? Can they?
Click to expand...

By winning the case. There are many cases where the state lost...
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Cool. That means nothing in this argument. If one person owned 99% of the land in the country, does that make it "free"?
Click to expand...

Actually it means everything. You said the government can expand people freedom, but stealing peoples land doesn't increase freedom. If the government were to build something on that land all they did was rob someone of their freedom to benefit other people. At best they moved freedom from place A to place B by the use of theft.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
By winning the case. There are many cases where the state lost...
Click to expand...

Is that perhaps because they didn't prove a state interest? What happens when the state does in fact win their state interest argument? Does the person trying to stop their land from being stolen lose their property? The answer is yes.
 
Henrin said:
So? Why does that matter?
Click to expand...

Yes... Because this is a legal argument....




So if a common thief stole your property and threw money at you everything about that situation would be fine with you? Interesting.
Click to expand...

If a thief stole, lets say here, a pair of chair of mine, they in now way "restricted my freedom". They took a chair, not my "freedom". Or lets put it into a better perspective. Since this argument seems to be put in the lense of private property. Is it against someones freedom to be not allowed to own 100% of land in a state?
 
The way I look at it, you live by God's "Ten Commandments." That covers most crimes that shouldn't be committed. And the first ten Amendments to the Constitution better known as the Bill of Rights. That's all you need.

Freedom has to do with freedom of choice along it doesn't infringe on Gods Ten Commandments.

Here on the "left coast" aka Mexifornia, Peoples Republic of California, or formerly known as just California the land of fruits and nuts, over the past few decades the progressive liberal state legislature, you know them, liberal elitist who say "Do as I say not as I do." have stripped Americans of personal freedoms, the freedom of choice.

I think California is rated # 4. as the least free state in the Union. N.Y. being #1 and N.J. as #2.

Political correctness is a direct attack on personal freedoms.
 
Henrin said:
Actually it means everything. You said the government can expand people freedom, but stealing peoples land doesn't increase freedom. If the government were to build something on that land all they did was rob someone of their freedom to benefit other people. At best they moved freedom from place A to place B by the use of theft.
Click to expand...

You see here, they didnt "rob" anyone. They were given money, and if they believe the land was unfarily compensated, or i they believe the ammont is not reasonable they have every right to sue the government.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
You see here, they didnt "rob" anyone. They were given money, and if they believe the land was unfarily compensated, or i they believe the ammont is not reasonable they have every right to sue the government.
Click to expand...

So to you if I give you money for something that you own your consent to give it to me doesn't matter? Why do you think the amount of money actually matters here? Does that change the consent picture for some reason? If I have no willingness to give you the property in question why do you think the amount of money you give me would matter?
 
Last edited:
In the broadest sense, government is the saving grace of mankind's insatiable desire to be ruinous. It brings order to chaos. It restricts mankind's original sin by providing freedom to the many (and the few) who would thus otherwise live in chaos and despair.
 
Last edited:
TheDemSocialist said:
Ever hear of Berman v. Parker? How about Kelo v. New Orleans? Berman v. Parker?
...
But hey, if you disagree with the establishment of the interstate highway system, feel free not to drive on em...
Click to expand...

I was around when Esienhower proposed building the Interstate Highway system and know why it was built. The same reason Hitler built the autobahn highways in Germany. That how Esienhower came up with the idea.
 
The government does not provide freedom ... it defines it. It establishes the parameters within which you can exercise your freedom.

And, as the nature of government everywhere, it continually chips away at the freedom, trying to increase its power.

Thus, the constant collision between the government and the citizenry.
 
APACHERAT said:
I was around when Esienhower proposed building the Interstate Highway system and know why it was built. The same reason Hitler built the autobahn highways in Germany. That how Esienhower came up with the idea.
Click to expand...

lolololol

Interstate travel is not a fascist idea my boy.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Cool. That means nothing in this argument. If one person owned 99% of the land in the country, does that make it "free"?
Click to expand...

Not cool, though I know you commies dont really like private property. Land was forcibly TAKEN by govt, that is NOT freedom, it was restriction.
 
US Conservative said:
Not cool, though I know you commies dont really like private property.
Click to expand...

:yawn::yawn: "Commies" have nothing to do with this... Lets try not to go full red scare...

Land was forcibly TAKEN by govt, that is NOT freedom, it was restriction.
Click to expand...
Didnt answer my question. Lets try again.
" If one person owned 99% of the land in the country, does that make it "free"?"
How about this: If one company owns 100% of a product and the government stops that practice is that "restricting freedom"?
---Are you capable of answering both??---
 
US Conservative said:
Not cool, though I know you commies dont really like private property. Land was forcibly TAKEN by govt, that is NOT freedom, it was restriction.
Click to expand...

Land cannot be owned in the legitimate sense. The earth is owned in common as no mortal man contributed to it's creation in any way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom