- Joined
- Apr 13, 2011
- Messages
- 34,951
- Reaction score
- 16,311
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Socialist
See the thing is. This is not a "marxist question".
See the thing is. This is not a "marxist question".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?
Try to be more nuanced. Im not saying there is not a legitimate and necessary role of govt.-Im saying that all it can do is restrict.
So I tell you what government really is about and how they come into being and you provide me some completely uneducated definition. Nice. History and frankly pretty recent history shows us how government is formed and it is not formed by voluntary consent or peoples nature of coming together, but with violence and a desire to command other peoples lives. You're absolutely right that people form into groups, but it's more complex that. What happens after people join into groups is fighting and violence, not a coming together of people to form a government.
So we agree that the govt can only restrict. We may vary on what allowances to restrict are appropriate.
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.
I am not American and I do not see an option I am able to choose any option.
Yes, government does restrict some freedoms to promote the greater good of provided freedom for all. There are limits in freedom of movement and other limitations of freedom but that is to provide general freedom and safety for everybody in the United States. Sometimes the government needs to limit some freedoms to make sure other freedoms are not infringed upon.
It cannot do that without imposing restrictions via legislation.
Granted but Im referring to govt (a system) and not individuals.
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.
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..
There is so much else that government does; I think that your thesis is flawed.
You're choosing the word "restrict" for negative connotations. And you're ignoring that the only way any person or organization can protect anyone's liberties is to curtail the ability of people to simply take what they want from others. These "restrictions" lead to our lives being less restricted, and this is a feature that is hardly unique to a government, not a democratic government, nor what passed for government in previous societies.
If you have some alternative to a democratic government that would do a better job protecting people's rights, ensuring an orderly society, and promoting prosperity, please share it. Otherwise, all of this tedious whining about government as a concept (rather than reasoned criticism of specific ideas and aspects of our government) is just annoying.
I'm not an american and I think it is important to consider that goverment also gives freedom. For example it only through tax funded free of charge school every child can get a good education. Their that education gives a lot of freedom to the indivual at the same time it benefit the entire society.
Think also how much restricted we as individual and consumers would be if it was not the goverments job through regulation and laws to see that the product we buy is safe. Because think of the hundreds of diffrent products we buy anything from sausages, cars, microvawe, guns and milk. How would we have the time to self find out if all the product we bought would not hurt us directly like for exampel stomach ill or exploding gun to long term effects like cancer? Escpecially since coperations will always spend alot of money on both open and covert marketing to make us believe their products is safe.
Not really. If the government says murder is illegal, it cannot impose restrictions without doing so via legislation, that's the only way government operates. It passes laws.
But a government is made up of individuals, given power by the electorate which is, of course, made up of individuals. What else do you think the government is?
I dont see "natural" rights as meaning they will go unopposed or that you or another will need to defend them-I see natural rights as simply the state of nature-not given by man or govt.
Im not ignoring anything here, I am merely establishing HOW a govt works. Now I agree in some cases this restriction is beneficial, but thats another topic.
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.
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.Restricting me from owning a person or killing a person is only a "restriction" if you believe there would have been a "freedom" to do those things without government's existence.
I think the concept of "natural rights" is a bit oxymoronic. "Rights" are a human construct. No bear has ever been concerned with the rights of a fish. Nature doesn't even give you a right to be alive. Whether or not you stay alive isn't usually even up to you. It wasn't until humans started manipulating their environment in an unprecedented manner that anyone started thinking about how things ought to be instead of how they are.
I am an American and do not really have a leaning in the sense of right vs left. Also I do not really think that it is a question of restricting freedom or not so that "other" would have been my favorite choice.
"Other" would be that government does both restrict and enable freedom by producing public goods such as the general safety required to do business like making a law against theft or maintaining the boarders against Gingis Kahn.
My point was that the govt enables freedom by restricting others, and therefore a govt restricts.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?