• 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
And laws are restrictions, no? Im not saying govt has no role, or that its unbeneficial, or even undesirable-im saying that when we get to the heart of the matter-govts can only function by restriction. Im merely attempting to establish a baseline in this thread, thats all.

By that reasoning, every society is restrictive. Being alive is restrictive. What difference does it make?
 
A govt is a system. It is not made of individuals, it is RUN by individuals.

Sure it is made of individuals. You vote for an individual, don't you? It's not some Borg collective.
 
No its not, in fact you dont even need to go there (trying to read peoples minds is a bit silly, right?). Look to the action, here. How does a govt protect a citizen from murder? By restriction of others. I happen to see that as a beneficial and good thing-but the ACTION is by restricting others.



Rights may be a human construct, but we see them in nature. Even if they are a human construct (or god given, natural, etc) they aren't granted or given by man-the reason natural rights are so popular is because if they aren't given by man-they can't be taken by man-or govt if you prefer.

Isn't it a good thing to think about BOTH how things are and how they should be?

What rights do you see in nature?
 
The overwhelming majority of us get that governments tend to restrict freedoms rather than provide them, and it makes the most sense given the nature of government's response to "why doesn't the government do something?"

I believe it was Penn Jillette that said it best...

“Every time something really bad happens, people cry out for safety, and the government answers by taking rights away from good people."
 
My point was merely to illustrate what it is that govts do. And whats with the Hillary impression?

It's what humans do. If you wanted to make a ridiculously obvious point, why not just make it?
 
How about self defense? Do you blame this zebra for doing EVERYTHING it can to defend its life?

Something to consider when you hear people tell you you can't keep a weapon.


Anything else? So, the right to fight for your life is a natural right. What else?
 
Any thoughts on self defense? Do you agree? (Frankly, it exists even if you dont agree)

If by right, you mean ability, then yeah. We all have the ABILITY to fight for our lives, to varying degrees of success and failure.


So is that what you mean by natural rights? The ability to do those things?

Because that's not going to get you far in this debate. Sure, I have the ABILITY to fight back against an oppressive regime. And the ability to die shortly there after, unless I was also able to procure some means of more effectively fighting them. Does my ability to obtain fire arms = a right to have fire arms? In my opinion, rights are something that can't be taken away, and as such, they don't exist, because EVERYTHING can be taken away.
 
If by right, you mean ability, then yeah. We all have the ABILITY to fight for our lives, to varying degrees of success and failure.


So is that what you mean by natural rights? The ability to do those things?

Because that's not going to get you far in this debate. Sure, I have the ABILITY to fight back against an oppressive regime. And the ability to die shortly there after, unless I was also able to procure some means of more effectively fighting them. Does my ability to obtain fire arms = a right to have fire arms? In my opinion, rights are something that can't be taken away, and as such, they don't exist, because EVERYTHING can be taken away.

No, I meant rights, which stem out of natural law. Not ability. People, and animals aren't granted permission to defend themselves, reproduce etc, though all rights can be restricted, often by govt.

Do NOT confuse a right with an ability, they are two different things.
 
No, I meant rights, which stem out of natural law. Not ability. People, and animals aren't granted permission to defend themselves, reproduce etc, though all rights can be restricted, often by govt.

Do NOT confuse a right with an ability, they are two different things.

Then list other natural rights. Who knows, maybe you'll make a believer out of me.
 
Laws and taxes are we support ourselves: it's how we take care of ourselves.

This stuff is so basic, I will never understand how so many people can be totally clueless about it.
 
See the Bill of Rights. Slavery is another.

So, animals have a natural right to free expression, and religion?

I'm simply not understanding the notion of natural rights, I'm afraid. Let's back up to the beginning. What's a right?
 
Back
Top Bottom