• 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
US Conservative said:
Natural rights can be seen universally, even in animals-and my example was self defense. Ethics is a group phenomenon, morals are individual.
Click to expand...

Ethics is an attempt to legally enforce morals.

You keep saying natural rights can be seen universally, even in animals, and you provided ONE example. Anything else?
 
US Conservative said:
Ethics are not just a legal construct. I also believed I mentioned reproduction.
Click to expand...

No, animals, and ALL creatures, only have the ability...to TRY...to reproduce. Just face it, either you're wrong, along with the handful of people who think as you do, or I'm too stupid to understand, or you're not effectively explaining the concept.

Ethics are rules set forth by society. Many of them are based on individual morals, but many are also based on collective needs for the group as a whole. Meaning, sometimes societal ethics go contrary to an individuals moral code.

Animals have no morals. They DO have rules, but they are hardly ethical.
 
Restricts freedom for the people who are relatively self sufficient and strong
 
KevinKohler said:
No, animals, and ALL creatures, only have the ability...to TRY...to reproduce. Just face it, either you're wrong, along with the handful of people who think as you do, or I'm too stupid to understand, or you're not effectively explaining the concept.

Ethics are rules set forth by society. Many of them are based on individual morals, but many are also based on collective needs for the group as a whole. Meaning, sometimes societal ethics go contrary to an individuals moral code.

Animals have no morals. They DO have rules, but they are hardly ethical.
Click to expand...

The point isnt that its a guarantee, its that they can't be faulted for the universal attempt to reproduce. In tour Animals/morals comment, what is effectively the difference? Aren't ethics general rules that the group abides by?
 
US Conservative said:
The point isnt that its a guarantee, its that they can't be faulted for the universal attempt to reproduce. In tour Animals/morals comment, what is effectively the difference? Aren't ethics general rules that the group abides by?
Click to expand...

Tell that to homosexuals.
 
KevinKohler said:
body communication =/= morality.


Chimps eat each other. Do they think that's wrong?
Click to expand...

They don't eat members of their own tribe, only outsiders that are competing for their territory. That is a form of morality. There are many examples of animal morality. Google it.
 
US Conservative said:
Socialist sweden can't even sustain itself and must open its borders to immigrants who will fundamentally change it. Your country is what it is today because its protected by more powerful western nations. If you needed to defend yourself your nation would look much different.
Click to expand...

So you agree that the Swedish goverment provide alot of freedom? But you question if we can sustaine ourself. I don't understand what you mean exactly. If you mean birth rate Sweden have roughly the same birth rate as other western democracies. Then it comes to imigration Sweden allow more refugee then many other western countries. But it because we want to follow international agreement for refugees, can afford it and also that refugees can be productive part of society. While other countries have more work imigrants. Well it comes to military Sweden have ecpecially during the cold war spent alot of money on defense and are probably the smalest country that have developed their own fighter jets. With the strategy making the cost of atacking Sweden be bigger then reward for conquering Sweden.

Also I wonder that you mean buy socialist? Both Sweden and USA are a mix society with some part being capitalist and some part being socialist or if like collective. It just a diffrence in what mix the population want to have, trough democratic elections.
 
jet57 said:
The laws of the country are designed for public safety and security. They are in no way restrictive.
Click to expand...

Im not making a value judgement on WHY and in fact agree with many of them, but how are they not restrictive? They tell people what they can and can't do.
 
Bergslagstroll said:
So you agree that the Swedish goverment provide alot of freedom? But you question if we can sustaine ourself. I don't understand what you mean exactly. If you mean birth rate Sweden have roughly the same birth rate as other western democracies. Then it comes to imigration Sweden allow more refugee then many other western countries. But it because we want to follow international agreement for refugees, can afford it and also that refugees can be productive part of society. While other countries have more work imigrants. Well it comes to military Sweden have ecpecially during the cold war spent alot of money on defense and are probably the smalest country that have developed their own fighter jets. With the strategy making the cost of atacking Sweden be bigger then reward for conquering Sweden.

Also I wonder that you mean buy socialist? Both Sweden and USA are a mix society with some part being capitalist and some part being socialist or if like collective. It just a diffrence in what mix the population want to have, trough democratic elections.
Click to expand...

Not really much freedom, about on par with other west european socialist nations. Yes, your birth rates are plummeting and only maintained by immigrants. It will change sweeden more than the other way around-you can get to see how a non ethnically-homogenous country does, the US has known for some time. Your tiny nation may have spent all it could on military defense, but its peanuts-nothing in the scheme of things, and youve benefitted from being protected by the big boys like the US. Remove that protection and you are Russia's prison wife one day. You (Sweden) are socialist, though I understand you see things from the european view. Things have been so good there that you for a time could probably get by on any system, but not for long.

I do love your women, and your knives (Mora types) though. The Bofors cannon as well. :cool:
 
US Conservative said:
Im not making a value judgement on WHY and in fact agree with many of them, but how are they not restrictive? They tell people what they can and can't do.
Click to expand...
Simple peer pressure restricts what people can do. One can flout laws as easily as peer pressure as long as they're willing to pay whatever consequences there may be.
 
US Conservative said:
Not really much freedom, about on par with other west european socialist nations. Yes, your birth rates are plummeting and only maintained by immigrants. It will change sweeden more than the other way around-you can get to see how a non ethnically-homogenous country does, the US has known for some time. Your tiny nation may have spent all it could on military defense, but its peanuts-nothing in the scheme of things, and youve benefitted from being protected by the big boys like the US. Remove that protection and you are Russia's prison wife one day. You (Sweden) are socialist, though I understand you see things from the european view. Things have been so good there that you for a time could probably get by on any system, but not for long.

I do love your women, and your knives (Mora types) though. The Bofors cannon as well. :cool:
Click to expand...

But if Sweden as you say is socialist. Is it not than intersting that in Sweden you can still become rich and we have globaly succesful private companies like H & M and Volvo trucks (that part of Volvo still swedish owned)? But your are partly right that immigration is part of the help for sweden have a working birth rate but also for example maternity leave and daycare center that makes it possible to woman to combine children and a career.

Also powerful countries have come and gone and Sweden have kept it's indepedence for two hundred years. That in the balance of power everyone play their roll. Big countries will not have a shift of balance of power therefor they will intervene if smaller countries is atacked. And smaller country have a strong defence that make it costly to atack and also hold of long enough that an intervention from other countries can be possible.

Also good that you like some thing about Sweden:)
 
Bergslagstroll said:
But if Sweden as you say is socialist. Is it not than intersting that in Sweden you can still become rich and we have globaly succesful private companies like H & M and Volvo trucks (that part of Volvo still swedish owned)? But your are partly right that immigration is part of the help for sweden have a working birth rate but also for example maternity leave and daycare center that makes it possible to woman to combine children and a career.

Also powerful countries have come and gone and Sweden have kept it's indepedence for two hundred years. That in the balance of power everyone play their roll. Big countries will not have a shift of balance of power therefor they will intervene if smaller countries is atacked. And smaller country have a strong defence that make it costly to atack and also hold of long enough that an intervention from other countries can be possible.

Also good that you like some thing about Sweden:)
Click to expand...

There are very wealthy people in china, so thats not evidence of not being socialist-there are elites everywhere.
 
US Conservative said:
There are very wealthy people in china, so thats not evidence of not being socialist-there are elites everywhere.
Click to expand...

Good point but their are a big diffrence between the Soviet Union and yestersdays communist china and Sweden and todays "what you call it" China. That in Sweden and China today you can become rich by working hard in private capitalist companies or staring your own indpedent company instead of yesterdays China and Soviet union their you became part of the elite by a carrier in goverment. I don't know but China but in Sweden you also become much more wealthy belonging to capitalist elite when the politicla elite. That the CEO:s of Swedish biggest companies earn lot of more money then the primeminister and other high ranking politician.

Also it's is also a huge diffrence between yesterday and todays China and Soviet union compared to Sweden, that Sweden is a democracy. This for example mean the right for free speech and the right to associate. This of course includes private companies that organize in strong interest organization and just like in USA spend a lot of money on propagande to make Sweden become more capitalistic.

Also in Sweden companies probably have a lot less goverment regulation and laws then USA then it comes to the labormarket, that Sweden for example don't have minium wage laws. Instead the labormarket is regulated through collective agreement between strong interest organization and strong labor union to find common grounds, without the goverment. For example minumum wage increaes is decided by how well the Swedish export industry is doing not political squabble. Also then economical crisis hit Sweden the strong industry and labor organization could agree on crisis agreement. Meaning that swedish worker have to accept to work less hour and get less monthly wages but higher hourly wages. For the company this was good because they could decrease the total cost of labor at the same time they didn't have strikes and other labor conflict, that happened in other countries during that time. They could also keep competent workers in their organization so they didn't have big recruiting costs or be unable to find the right skilled workes when the the economy recovered. For the workers it meant that they and their coworkes could keep theier job and also that the lower mounthly wages was compensated by more free time and higher hourly wages.
 
Last edited:
Bergslagstroll said:
Good point but their are a big diffrence between the Soviet Union and yestersdays communist china and Sweden and todays "what you call it" China. That in Sweden and China today you can become rich by working hard in private capitalist companies or staring your own indpedent company instead of yesterdays China and Soviet union their you became part of the elite by a carrier in goverment. I don't know but China but in Sweden you also become much more wealthy belonging to capitalist elite when the politicla elite. That the CEO:s of Swedish biggest companies earn lot of more money then the primeminister and other high ranking politician.

Also it's is also a huge diffrence between yesterday and todays China and Soviet union compared to Sweden, that Sweden is a democracy. This for example mean the right for free speech and the right to associate. This of course includes private companies that organize in strong interest organization and just like in USA spend a lot of money on propagande to make Sweden become more capitalistic.

Also in Sweden companies probably have a lot less goverment regulation and laws then USA then it comes to the labormarket, that Sweden for example don't have minium wage laws. Instead the labormarket is regulated through collective agreement between strong interest organization and strong labor union to find common grounds, without the goverment. For example minumum wage increaes is decided by how well the Swedish export industry is doing not political squabble. Also then economical crisis hit Sweden the strong industry and labor organization could agree on crisis agreement. Meaning that swedish worker have to accept to work less hour and get less monthly wages but higher hourly wages. For the company this was good because they could decrease the total cost of labor at the same time they didn't have strikes and other labor conflict, that happened in other countries during that time. They could also keep competent workers in their organization so they didn't have big recruiting costs or be unable to find the right skilled workes when the the economy recovered. For the workers it meant that they and their coworkes could keep theier job and also that the lower mounthly wages was compensated by more free time and higher hourly wages.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Both. You cannot be free in an environment where you are not safe, the adage about liberty and safety is a false dichotomy. If you are not safe you are not free, and if you are not free you are not safe.
 
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.
Click to expand...

The government restricts freedom. But that's not always a bad thing.
 
US Conservative said:
Communist, do you believe that safety=lack of liberty?
Click to expand...

No, safety=liberty, to an extent. If your existence is nothing but an anarchic scramble for survival, then you have as little choice as what to do with yourself than you would under a tyrannical government.
 
spud_meister said:
No, safety=liberty, to an extent. If your existence is nothing but an anarchic scramble for survival, then you have as little choice as what to do with yourself than you would under a tyrannical government.
Click to expand...

I think that safety and liberty are two different things, though often some liberty must to a reluctant extent be sacrificed for safety.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom