• 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!

What is an acceptable reason for government regulation?

What is an acceptable reason for government regulation

  • To protect against any and all harm

    Votes: 5 31.3%
  • To ensure equal and fair outcomes

    Votes: 3 18.8%
  • To prevent unjust enrichment

    Votes: 6 37.5%
  • To set boundaries of individual conduct

    Votes: 6 37.5%
  • To prudently conserve public resources

    Votes: 7 43.8%
  • To provide orderly protections of individual rights

    Votes: 15 93.8%
  • To maintain social order

    Votes: 8 50.0%
  • To maintain social justice

    Votes: 8 50.0%

  • Total voters
    16
On any given social topic, how much government involvement should there be?

The absolute minimum. The purpose of government is to protect people's individual rights--to protect their liberty, lives, and property from the wrongdoings of OTHERS.

It is NOT to protect people from themselves or to regulate their lifestyles.
 
I think one could make a strong case that defecating in one's front yard poses no 'harm' to the public. I think there's a solid basis for public decency laws.

;)
Oh, I can make a very strong case for "harm" from that. Dysentery and cholera alone are potent points in that argument.
 
A poll cannot capture this adequately. There are different levels of gov't and different ways they can regulate Local gov't empowering traditional authority structures like the family is a long way from the arbitrary, centralised authoritarianism of a social democrat, central state.

In general gov't can interfere enough in my book to keep society together and flourishing, it must do it at the most appropriate level, according to the principle of subsidiarity thought.
 
A poll cannot capture this adequately.
Probably not....but if it provides a point of departure for discussion, then it has served its purpose.

In general gov't can interfere enough in my book to keep society together and flourishing, it must do it at the most appropriate level, according to the principle of subsidiarity thought.
And what is a "flourishing" society?
 
On any given social topic, how much government involvement should there be?

No more than necessary....But, man has a nasty tendency to be greedy causing government regulations.
Government has a tendency to over-do things , to be over-zealous, to forget that they are the public servent....
Much of regulation should have a review date , followed by an expiration date.
 
To set boundaries of individual conduct
To prudently conserve public resources
To provide orderly protections of individual rights
To maintain social order
To maintain social justice

Government has a legitimate and necessary role in all of these things.
 
Government has a legitimate and necessary role in all of these things.
Ok...and how do we determine if that legitimate and necessary role has been met and/or exceeded? How much government is too much government?
 
Oh, I can make a very strong case for "harm" from that. Dysentery and cholera alone are potent points in that argument.

Fine. Let me modify the scenario so that it's still plausible but takes care of the health code problem... I'm at a crowded public fair and decide to defecate in the sanitary port-o-potty... may I leave the door open at my option while I sit there and do my business? Or does that also pose a health threat to the public?

:confused:
 
Fine. Let me modify the scenario so that it's still plausible but takes care of the health code problem... I'm at a crowded public fair and decide to defecate in the sanitary port-o-potty... may I leave the door open at my option while I sit there and do my business? Or does that also pose a health threat to the public?
No, that doesn't pose a health threat (unless you have some highly toxic flatulence).

But...is said public fair in fact in "public" or is it on private property--in which case the rules of whomever is running the fair would predominate no matter what.
 
Ok...and how do we determine if that legitimate and necessary role has been met and/or exceeded? How much government is too much government?

To me, it is a matter of efficiency. As long as the law benefits society more than the cost-- or the mere imposition-- harms society, I consider it acceptable. It's not a matter of "too much government" or "too little government," it's good government and bad government.

That's why I left off the top three poll responses. It isn't that the government doesn't have the authority to try to accomplish those things, it's that those things are inherently undesirable and thus trying to accomplish them is bad government.
 
To me, it is a matter of efficiency. As long as the law benefits society more than the cost-- or the mere imposition-- harms society, I consider it acceptable. It's not a matter of "too much government" or "too little government," it's good government and bad government.
But doesn't that just punt the question back to "who decides"--as in "who decides what 'benefits' society?"
 
Yes, but that's our job as citizens. Of course, if we were better citizens, we would actually pay attention to the hard data concerning various policies... but we're idiots and we swallow whatever our favorite brand of politicians tell us and ignore what the other brand says.

You can just about literally run straight down a list of hot-button issues and using available data determine exactly which policies are beneficial and which aren't. The only ones you really can't do this with are ones where other moral concerns might outweigh statistics, such as gay marriage and abortion, and military/foreign policy issues where the data is nonexistent.
 
I'm surprised that only two people voted for "To prevent unjust enrichment" which is essentially laws to protect against fraud based activities.
 
I'm surprised that only two people voted for "To prevent unjust enrichment" which is essentially laws to protect against fraud based activities.
Essentially, the others disagreed.
 
Essentially, the others disagreed.

Or didn't see it that way. However, unjust enrichment is gaining wealth through unjust methods. Unjust methods are those which are dishonest, faithless and fraudulent.

It is the government's job to stop unjust enrichment like ponzi schemes or are the bare minimum require sufficient disclosure for reasonable people to know what they are getting into.
 
I felt that fraud was adequately covered by other categories, most especially "individual conduct", "social order", and "social justice".
 
I felt that fraud was adequately covered by other categories, most especially "individual conduct", "social order", and "social justice".

Perhaps, but individual conduct isn't quite applicable on a corporate level. And quite frankly, I have no idea what social order and justice actually mean. That could include and exclude quite a bit.
 
I'm surprised that only two people voted for "To prevent unjust enrichment" which is essentially laws to protect against fraud based activities.

Well, it's interesting how we all interpret what we read with our own particular biases. When I read 'unjust enrichment' I didn't understand it to mean fraud. I understood it to mean unfair or inequitable, which are equally valid meanings of unjust.

Unjust - Synonyms:
1. inequitable, partial, unfair, prejudiced, biased; undeserved, unmerited, unjustifiable.


I didn't respond to the poll in large part because of these ambiguities. If the question had been do you support laws against fraud I'd immediately have clicked yes.

..
 
Back
Top Bottom