• 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
Jetboogieman said:
Is interstate travel an exclusively fascist idea... or have I just stepped into the twilight zone?
Click to expand...

Do you somehow not grasp where the idea of a interstate highway system came from?
 
TeleKat said:
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.
Click to expand...

All they must do is provide their labor towards it or acquire it through trade or gift. There is no reason they must create the land itself in order to own it.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
" If one person owned 99% of the land in the country, does that make it "free"?"
Click to expand...

What does that even mean?

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??---
Click to expand...

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


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??---
Click to expand...

You brushed over the topic of discussion to interject an unrelated (discredited, marxist) question.

Lets go back. How is the govt forcibly taking from some freedom?
 
US Conservative said:
Cool, send me your deed and be out by the end of the month. Lets put your flawed notions to test.
Click to expand...

If we can't own land then exactly why is it that countries all assume territory of patches of the earth? Why is that people and animals have been claiming land since the dawn of time? They must not understand they can't do that. I wonder how many species are doing it wrong according to Telekat's logic?

I wonder why all communist regimes ever have assumed control of land? They must not understand Telekat's logic. :lol:
 
Last edited:
Henrin said:
If we can't own land then exactly why is it that countries all assume territory of patches of the earth? Why is that people and animals have been claiming land since the dawn of time? They must not understand they can't do that. I wonder how many species are doing it wrong according to Telekat's logic?

I wonder why all communist regimes ever have assumed control of land? They must not understand Telekat's logic. :lol:
Click to expand...

Its amazingly flawed logic-they approach life with the assumption that all things can and MUST be equal, despite the fact that that has never happened anywhere, at anytime-and then look at inequality as EVIDENCE of the problem. I try to approach it from the flip side-why would we expect equality from such a diverse world, in nature, politics, family, or anything else?

Telecat and the kansas commie are probably several generations removed from real hardship or achievement. After decades of prosperity and insulation from reality, people start to get very warped thinking. Marx, and other founders of what became marxism are prime examples of this-and they NEVER practiced what they preached.
 
So... it's both. Laws both restrict our choices and protect our ability to make others. Without law and government, in an anarchic state, you only have complete freedom in theory. You won't actually get to make most of those choices, largely because people with more power will stop you, usually with brutal violence. Ultimately, most human governments have been little more than a slightly more civilized version of this. Monarchies and aristocracies were just the powerful people using brutal violence against everyone else to protect their own power. North Korea is like that right now. Democratic governments, meanwhile, restrict some of our choices in order to ensure that we have many others. We can't take whatever we want, kill whoever we want, or rape whoever we want, and in exchange, we are protected from other people doing that to us. This goes much deeper than violence, into enforcing our contracts, keeping the water clean, ensuring that the company that puts chicken into the grocery store is telling the truth and not giving us something else, ensuring that banks can't charge outrageous interest in order to keep banking useful as an industry, and millions of other things that keep our lives working the way we want them to every single day.

The mantra that government is the cause of our problems is stupid. The idea that anyone things of lawmaking in terms of adding "more" government is equally stupid. Democratic government is not separate from the people. At least it's not supposed to be. It gets that way when you sell it to the highest bidder like we have. But the principle behind it is still the same. We use government to trade our rights to do things that we don't want done to us in order to ensure that those things won't be done to us. It's a trade, and it's a good one. But you have to use it right, and we drop the ball from time to time. Mainly because of the aforementioned selling to the highest bidder. That's why nobody who wrecked the economy is in prison right now. That's why we're failing to adequately protect the environment. Government is a tool, and nothing more. It must be used properly.
 
US Conservative said:
Or that monopolies dont always imply corruption or lack of choice, I recently watched a convincing Tom Woods speech...
Click to expand...


Holy crap, that video is an hour long. I'll have to watch that later. Anyway, even in the case where a monopoly was created through fair trade it would still need the government to control incoming competition into the market place or else the business would never be able to grow anywhere near that large.
 
Henrin said:
Holy crap, that video is an hour long. I'll have to watch that later. Anyway, even in the case where a monopoly was created through fair trade it would still need the government to control incoming competition into the market place or else the business would never be able to grow anywhere near that large.
Click to expand...

Ha yeah its lengthy but Woods is quite entertaining, I usually just put his stuff in audio format or listen to it while im driving or playing videogames. I totally agree about monopolies, its crony capitalism, but thats only one argument I hear against them.
 
US Conservative said:
How can a govt protect freedom except by restriction and ultimately force? Can you give me some examples?
Click to expand...

No, that's how. But the result of that force is each of us enjoying more freedom than we would have otherwise. There is no magical perfect freedom. People come together and form governments to protect themselves and others. You make agreements, but when someone breaks those agreements, you need force. The idea of a forceless world is nonsense.

Let me ask you this, what besides force can protect your right to a fair trial when accused of a crime? Obviously, even without a government there to conduct the courts, someone will accuse someone else of stealing something. What, besides a civilized government, and the force it wields, makes this story end with an honest and fair trial and not a lynch mob?
 
To be governed is to be watched over, inspected, spied on, directed, legislated at, regulated, docketed, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, assessed, weighed, censored, ordered about, by men who have neither the right, nor the knowledge, nor the virtue. ... To be governed is to be at every operation, at every transaction, noted, registered, enrolled, taxed, stamped, measured, numbered, assessed, licensed, authorized, admonished, forbidden, reformed, corrected, punished. It is, under the pretext of public utility, and in the name of the general interest, to be placed under contribution, trained, ransomed, exploited, monopolized, extorted, squeezed, mystified, robbed; then, at the slightest resistance, the first word of complaint, to be repressed, fined, despised, harassed, tracked, abused, clubbed, disarmed, choked, imprisoned, judged, condemned, shot, deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed; and, to crown all, mocked, ridiculed, outraged, dishonoured. That is government; that is its justice; that is its morality. -- Proudhon
 
Paschendale said:
No, that's how. But the result of that force is each of us enjoying more freedom than we would have otherwise. There is no magical perfect freedom. People come together and form governments to protect themselves and others. You make agreements, but when someone breaks those agreements, you need force. The idea of a forceless world is nonsense.
Click to expand...

So we agree that the govt can only restrict. We may vary on what allowances to restrict are appropriate.
Paschendale said:
Let me ask you this, what besides force can protect your right to a fair trial when accused of a crime? Obviously, even without a government there to conduct the courts, someone will accuse someone else of stealing something. What, besides a civilized government, and the force it wields, makes this story end with an honest and fair trial and not a lynch mob?
Click to expand...

I dont see how this relates, im not arguing that there are legitimate rights that should be protected, but rather that the only way the govt can DO that is by restriction.
 
ChezC3 said:
To be governed is to be watched over, inspected, spied on, directed, legislated at, regulated, docketed, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, assessed, weighed, censored, ordered about, by men who have neither the right, nor the knowledge, nor the virtue. ... To be governed is to be at every operation, at every transaction, noted, registered, enrolled, taxed, stamped, measured, numbered, assessed, licensed, authorized, admonished, forbidden, reformed, corrected, punished. It is, under the pretext of public utility, and in the name of the general interest, to be placed under contribution, trained, ransomed, exploited, monopolized, extorted, squeezed, mystified, robbed; then, at the slightest resistance, the first word of complaint, to be repressed, fined, despised, harassed, tracked, abused, clubbed, disarmed, choked, imprisoned, judged, condemned, shot, deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed; and, to crown all, mocked, ridiculed, outraged, dishonoured. That is government; that is its justice; that is its morality. -- Proudhon
Click to expand...

I like the quote except for the use of the word morality. Morality is determined by the individual, not a system, and govts are by definition not people.
 
US Conservative said:
Cool, send me your deed and be out by the end of the month. Lets put your flawed notions to test.
Click to expand...

I have no deed. I have no land. ;)

Anyway, I'm ok with homesteading and personal property. Just not private property. There is a difference you know.
 
US Conservative said:
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.
Click to expand...
No offense, but the poll still tries to pigeon-hole people into predetermined groups that they may or may not be a party, hence the results will still be inaccurate. Nobody is going to remember that some of the respondents tried to "pick the closest lean". No, they're just going to read the results. But the question is good and worthy of discussion.

Anyway, addressing the question: A little of both. For the most part, government is restrictive, be definition, I think. Most people wouldn't advocate "anything goes", so by admitting that government is restrictive isn't wholly a bad thing. But, it can be a defender of rights, too.

I've never bought into the concept of "natural rights", at least as a practical real-world concept. Yes, there are things that people should enjoy as rights no matter what, but that's only in theory, not reality. Reality is that somebody and/or something has to defend those rights, or else they simply don't exist in the real world. That somebody may be one self and/or the government, but they still have to be defended... or taken, if you will, from people who want to deny them to you..
 
US Conservative said:
I wasn't asking you for examples of mediation. Please see my question again.
Click to expand...
Your question was kinda unclear, I was trying to answer what I figured you were asking. Feel free to restate it for me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom