• 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!

Define the Government's duty to the people?

What is the duty of our Government?

  • To define and protect our fundamental rights

    Votes: 6 66.7%
  • #1 and to define and provide additional privelages

    Votes: 3 33.3%

  • Total voters
    9
That sounds pretty damn socialist to me...

I won't speak for him, but Ikari seems to be pretty minarchist and has been pretty consistent with that ideology. Despite what tea party rhetoric says, not every government service is socialist in nature. Basically, Ikari agrees that taxes do need to be paid to the government for certain services, he just argues which services the government should collect taxes to provide.
 
I won't speak for him, but Ikari seems to be pretty minarchist and has been pretty consistent with that ideology. Despite what tea party rhetoric says, not every government service is socialist in nature. Basically, Ikari agrees that taxes do need to be paid to the government for certain services, he just argues which services the government should collect taxes to provide.

I have commented before on the need for a sarcasm font.
 
I have commented before on the need for a sarcasm font.

My ability to detect sarcasm online is zero. Often times I've responded to comments meant to be sarcastic as if they were serious. I'm sure I'll do it again in the not too distant future.
 
I have commented before on the need for a sarcasm font.

Yeah, because that's so much easier to do than just put an "/s" at the end of your post.

/s

:tongue4:
 
A governments duty is whatever it political platform they are elected on.

Aww crap. Then the duty of our government is to talk to the People like we're idiots, use only little sound bites and stump speeches, bitch and moan about the otherside while your side does nothing to remedy the problem, and continue bitching and moaning over the same problems for decades while misleading the people and performing duties and military interventions which the government was not empowered to make all while keeping up the facade of two parties, all the sound bites and stump speeches, while avoiding anything of any real consequence.
 
Aww crap. Then the duty of our government is to talk to the People like we're idiots, use only little sound bites and stump speeches, bitch and moan about the otherside while your side does nothing to remedy the problem, and continue bitching and moaning over the same problems for decades while misleading the people and performing duties and military interventions which the government was not empowered to make all while keeping up the facade of two parties, all the sound bites and stump speeches, while avoiding anything of any real consequence.

Pretty much. That's why I think global society is becoming more and more de facto anarchistic. A great example of this is online downloads vs. copyright protections.
 
Aww crap. Then the duty of our government is to talk to the People like we're idiots, use only little sound bites and stump speeches, bitch and moan about the otherside while your side does nothing to remedy the problem, and continue bitching and moaning over the same problems for decades while misleading the people and performing duties and military interventions which the government was not empowered to make all while keeping up the facade of two parties, all the sound bites and stump speeches, while avoiding anything of any real consequence.

Right.. I forgot your not interested in democratic empowerment of the state.. dam libertarians.
 
Right.. I forgot your not interested in democratic empowerment of the state.. dam libertarians.

We're not a pure democracy, so I do not believe in that. We are a democratic Republic built upon the rights and liberties of the individual. Any more smarmy comments easily shot down because of your bias and bigotry towards the libertarian political philosophy?
 
None of the above. Government does not define our rights. Rights are natural. The only job of government is to enforce those rights.

If you think the government doesn't define your right try going to Liberia or Somalia then tell us what natural 'rights' you have. No. Go government defines your rights. If it's a ****ty government, you have no rights. If it's an 'okay' government you'll have most rights. End of story.
 
Last edited:
If you think the government doesn't define your right try going to Liberia or Somalia then tell us what natural 'rights' you have. No. Go government defines your rights. If it's a ****ty government, you have no rights. If it's an 'okay' government you'll have most rights. End of story.

I never denied that rights can be violated. Just because they're trampled upon doesn't mean that they don't exist.
 
We the people decide what powers the government has. How big the government should be. And how the balance of powers is enforced. The founders of our nation debated this and came up with a system via the constitution. It feels to me, that we have veered from that system (for better or worse). If this is what we as a nation want to do, so be it, let's change the system/rules/constitution based on our 'new' philosophies. But neglecting the rulebook isn't the answer.

It's true that Congress and the President works for us, but other than our votes we have no power to make them do anything. We can write letters, Email, phone, and usually get a response, but it's always a form letter with a printed signature. So all we can really do is hope and pray they get it right.

ricksfolly
 
We the people decide what powers the government has. How big the government should be. And how the balance of powers is enforced. The founders of our nation debated this and came up with a system via the constitution. It feels to me, that we have veered from that system (for better or worse). If this is what we as a nation want to do, so be it, let's change the system/rules/constitution based on our 'new' philosophies. But neglecting the rulebook isn't the answer.

So I feel we need to go back to the basics. Let's first ask the most important question: What is the job of our government?

1) To define and protect our fundamental rights
2) #1 and to define and provide additional privelages


so let me define the options:

1) our constitution, exactly as it is written - no extras.

2) our constitution plus the ability to provide laws granting privelages (such as health care, social security, medicare, unemployment benefits, public roads, etc.). Assuming that most people want it, therefore it passes legislation, and all people live by it for the benefit of the majority.

I am asking in a broad sense, should it be the government's job to step beyond simply protecting our fundamental rights as defined by the constitution and also grant us privelages?

My arguments against any 'privelage' is always the same. But it seems those against the 'privelages'.... the GOP... are against it based on some other ideas that just don't make sense to me. The debates seem pointless to me. It's not a question of 'is this a good or bad idea' but rather, 'is it the job of the government?'

You won't find any conservatives that will agree that the Government defines rights?
 
I never denied that rights can be violated. Just because they're trampled upon doesn't mean that they don't exist.

No. If they're not there, they don't exist. And even when they are, they really don't. There is no such thing as rights, just priviledges humans give themselves in the silly belief we're somehow above animals. History has proven there is no such thing as rights.
 
No. If they're not there, they don't exist. And even when they are, they really don't. There is no such thing as rights, just priviledges humans give themselves in the silly belief we're somehow above animals. History has proven there is no such thing as rights.

Completely agree. What some people think are "rights" are actually instincts and desires. Government defines what rights a society has based on that society's morals, desires, and mores. Rights do not exist without government defining them, though desires and instincts do.
 
The US federal government exists "in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity"
 
No. If they're not there, they don't exist. And even when they are, they really don't. There is no such thing as rights, just priviledges humans give themselves in the silly belief we're somehow above animals. History has proven there is no such thing as rights.

I agree... There is only ownership, jobs, reactions, beliefs, luck, and uncontrollable situations, all associated with each other.

ricksfolly
 
1. Defend our country against foreign aggressors (That does NOT include meddling into others' affairs unless they are a direct threat).

2. Keep our roads in good shape (It does NOT include willy-nilly road building to line politicians' pockets and create eminent domain abuse).

3. Protect our individual rights (It DOES include repealing every law that violates them).

4. Leave people alone and stop meddling.
 
1. Defend our country against foreign aggressors (That does NOT include meddling into others' affairs unless they are a direct threat).

2. Keep our roads in good shape (It does NOT include willy-nilly road building to line politicians' pockets and create eminent domain abuse).

3. Protect our individual rights (It DOES include repealing every law that violates them).

4. Leave people alone and stop meddling.


Why should government have control over the roads? Why not let them be privately owned? Just pay tolls. everyone could get an 'easy pass' if they wanted that convenience and then we only pay for what we actually use. Why would you have the government force me to help pay for something that I may not use? And I thought you were a libertarian!
 
I'll use the Missouri Constitution's Section II as my answer since it says it better than I can.

That all constitutional government is intended to promote the general welfare of the people; that all persons have a natural right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness and the enjoyment of the gains of their own industry; that all persons are created equal and are entitled to equal rights and opportunity under the law; that to give security to these things is the principal office of government, and that when government does not confer this security, it fails in its chief design.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom