What is your opinion of the proper role of government?
The proper role of government is to protect people and promote their freedom. Social darwinism is currently a favorite concept of many conservatives, and especially libertarians. Such a concept is contradictory to the idea of democracy. For instance, the civil rights act goes against social darwinism. Black people aren't allowed to use public drinking fountains? Not allowed to eat at the same restaurants as white people? Too bad, the government isn't there to force anybody to do anything, right?
Except black people weren't born equal for most of this nation's existence. The only way to solve this problem was through legislation and regulation.
And why would the US enter world war 2? Other countries are fighting over land and resources? Not our problem. Slave labor? Not our problem.
Part of responsibility is making sure that everybody else has the same freedom and opportunity you do. If you don't think the government should allow people these opportunities, than maybe it's you who isn't terribly responsible.
No, you're just looking for some way to shift the blame. I don't care if it costs taxpayers $1.95 a year, if it's something they're not supposed to be paying, they shouldn't be paying for it. It's not the only problem out there by any means, or even the largest, but that's where this thread has gone and pretending that just because there are bigger issues out there, we can ignore anything not at the top of the pile is asinine.
That is is right and proper to do so.
It really depends on what we're talking about. Do I believe in owning the responsibilities of the decisions you make? Yes. That's part and parcel with liberty.
But that doesn't automatically mean the government has absolutely no use.
The outrage comes when people feel like there isn't any justice and that is why they turn to the law. So if they can't petition the government for laws to protect them and provide justice then what other recourse do they have but to revolt and take the law into their own hands? Why would the government want the governed to do that?For example, ever have been filling up and it doesn't cut off right and a little bit of gas runs down your car and some on the ground. Did you then drive off?
OMG! That's ILLEGAL! YOU committed a hazardous materials spill. Even if not deliberate and you not liable, YOU DID NOT REPORT THE HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SPILL YOU CAUSED! FELONY! FELONY!
And then I get to rage that you grotesquely endangered the lives of others. A bus of children with an electrical short could pull up, and that HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SPILL YOU DID AND DIDN'T REPORT could burn every innocent little child on that bus to death - a horrible way to die! You evil bastard engaging in ILLEGAL dangerous actions without giving a damn about anyone but yourself!
And if I don't drive a car, then I get to rage at you and everyone else in cars as pure evil, willing to burn little children alive, destroy the land, water and air... at least you - because of your ILLEGAL activities!
All those posts for that? I mentioned civil commitments because it's an even more straightforward example of how people's liberties are suspended for their own protection. Of course, it requires that there be probable cause of mental illness with subsequent risk of harm to self.
The state can intervene if you're threatening suicide or driving drunk. So therefore... what? I.e., how does this tie back into personal freedom and responsibility?
Its pretty simple. There is nothing wrong with passing laws to protect people - even from themselves. Drunk driving is a perfect example of that.
I would argue that the main rationale for banning drunk driving is to protect other people from the drunks.
And that is one aspect of it to be sure. There is no denying that is a part. And another is to protect people from the negative consequences of their own behavior.
The law about buckling up when you drive would be another example of a law which protects people from the negative consequences of their own behavior.
The one about wearing a safety belt is indeed a better example of a reasonable government regulation designed to prevent someone from harming themselves.
That being said, it's best not to make too many laws and regulations restricting people's freedom.
Republican government (the belief system, not the political party) endows its citizens with greater freedoms in the anticipation they will be responsible enough to keep society from slowly grinding its way toward ruin. That includes people with money and power helping those without it in anyway and every way they can, not just through government. The Founding Fathers were very self conscious about this, with many of them losing money or going bankrupt in their efforts to form a republican government. George Washington would not accept a salary even when his plantation was trending down economically.
Whenever it comes to trying to make ends meet on any specific issue, the only demographic in the United States that consistently makes any compromises or takes on any burdens is the middle class. Everyone else thinks they should get every scrap they have and more.
My response is broadly the same as the response of tyrants in the Roman Republic: people who can't take the responsibility along with their freedom can't be trusted with either.
What is your opinion of the proper role of government?
What is your opinion of the proper role of government?
A part of this comes back to the eternal questions about the balance between the individual and society.
I guess it all depends on who you mean by "society".
The community we live in - both small and large.
Similarly, I guess it all depends on which people you mean by "the community".
A society, or a human society, is a group of people involved with each other through persistent relations, or a large social grouping sharing the same geographical or social territory, subject to the same political authority and dominant cultural expectations. Human societies are characterized by patterns of relationships (social relations) between individuals who share a distinctive culture and institutions; a given society may be described as the sum total of such relationships among its constituent members. In the social sciences, a larger society often evinces stratification and/or dominance patterns in subgroups.
Insofar as it is collaborative, a society can enable its members to benefit in ways that would not otherwise be possible on an individual basis; both individual and social (common) benefits can thus be distinguished, or in many cases found to overlap.
A society can also consist of like-minded people governed by their own norms and values within a dominant, larger society. This is sometimes referred to as a subculture, a term used extensively within criminology.
More broadly, a society may be illustrated as an economic, social, or industrial infrastructure, made up of a varied collection of individuals. Members of a society may be from different ethnic groups. A society can be a particular ethnic group, such as the Saxons; a nation state, such as Bhutan; or a broader cultural group, such as a Western society. The word society may also refer to an organized voluntary association of people for religious, benevolent, cultural, scientific, political, patriotic, or other purposes. A "society" may even, though more by means of metaphor, refer to a social organism such as an ant colony or any cooperative aggregate such as, for example, in some formulations of artificial intelligence.
Cycle detected. Abort.
A part of this comes back to the eternal questions about the balance between the individual and society.
Oh, so you mean the balance between the individual and the other individuals that make up society.
Yes, I agree. Every individual is only free to act as long as his actions don't damage the person or property of any other individual.
And when a person's actions DO damage the person or property of another individual(s) (either purposefully or accidentally), that's why we need a system of government to determine the appropriate legal penalty.
The concept of society is beyond the concept of an individual or a collection of individuals with only personal interests.
Of course, this has already been discussed many many times in many many threads.
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?