The point of government

[sawyerloggingon]

I'm not going to name names but someone in another thread said this. "The whole point of government is to limit freedom". That statement made my head spin like Linda Blair's in The Exorcist. Our constitution and bill of rights is about limiting the power of government not the freedom of its citizens. Are their any other libs out there that think the point of government is to limit freedom or is this guy on crack? Lib or con or whatever, what in your opinion is the point of government?

 

[rocket88]

It is kind of the point. If you were free to do anything that's anarchy, not a government. The Constitution is there as a brake on the government, but it did not create absolute freedom to do whatever.

 

[Tucker Case]

Governments exist to create laws.
Laws, by their very nature, limit freedom.
Therefore governments exist to limit freedom.

Instead of saying "You're wrong! That's preposterous commie bull****!", point to what is not 100% accurate in that logical syllogism. Which premise is false?

 

[sawyerloggingon]

Governments exist to create laws.
Laws, by their very nature, limit freedom.
Therefore governments exist to limit freedom.

Instead of saying "You're wrong! That's preposterous commie bull****!", point to what is not 100% accurate in that logical syllogism. Which premise is false?

The point of American government is to guarantee freedoms. The point of Red China's government is to limit freedoms. See the difference?

 

[Dittohead not!]

Government exists to protect our freedoms, but in so doing, it must protect them from others. Protecting your liberty from those who would take it away in one way or another is limiting their freedom to act. If government doesn't limit their freedom, then you lose some of yours.

Your freedom ends where my nose begins, so we need a government in charge of limiting how far we may swing our arms around.

 

[sawdust]

The purpose of government is to protect individual liberty. To do that, government creates laws which protect citizens from one another. Our system of government has the bill of rights which is supposed to protect the individual from an intrusive government. In no way should government limit freedom of the individual, except where the rights of the individual inhibit the rights of another.

This system is not anarchy. It's civil society.

 

[MaggieD]

I'm not going to name names but someone in another thread said this. "The whole point of government is to limit freedom". That statement made my head spin like Linda Blair's in The Exorcist. Our constitution and bill of rights is about limiting the power of government not the freedom of its citizens. Are their any other libs out there that think the point of government is to limit freedom or is this guy on crack? Lib or con or whatever, what in your opinion is the point of government?

I agree with that statement for the most part. Rather than say it exists to limit freedom, although I know what the poster means, I might express it as existing to protect freedoms. To let others know where everyone else's nose begins before they start swinging their arms.

 

[Tucker Case]

The point of American government is to guarantee freedoms.

No, that's a lie you've been told by idiot politicians. If the point was to guarantee freedoms, there's never have been slavery in this country, because freedom would have been guaranteed at the coutnry's inception. That's undeniable proof that your claim is false.

The only reason government exists is to pass laws. Laws serve no other purpose than limiting individual freedom. Therefore, government exists to limit personal freedom. Don't just repeat the lies you've been told in lieu of an argument. Disprove that logical syllogism. If you can, then you can claim that I am wrong. Until then, you are merely making false statements and pretending they are true.

 

[Tucker Case]

I agree with that statement for the most part. Rather than say it exists to limit freedom, although I know what the poster means, I might express it as existing to protect freedoms. To let others know where everyone else's nose begins before they start swinging their arms.

No, it is not in existence to protect freedoms. If anything, it protects people from freedom. Freedom is the total lack of hindrance upon action or choice. If we were free, I'd be free to put a bullet in another person's head. They'd be free to put a bullet into mine. We create laws to limit these freedoms. We as a society collectively decide which freedoms we wish to place limitations on. the freedom to murder, the freedom to rape, the freedom to take whatever we want. These are freedoms which government exists to place limitations on.

People seem to want to use "freedom" as though it is a synonym of "right". It is not.

 

[Tigger]

The point of Government is to provide a framework within which the citizens are free to make their own decisions and to accept the consequences for the results of those decisions. The greatest issue is always determining how capable and likely the citizenry is to actually agree to live within those prescribed limits; and what level of punishment is acceptable if/when they do not.

 

[PirateMk1]

I'm not going to name names but someone in another thread said this. "The whole point of government is to limit freedom". That statement made my head spin like Linda Blair's in The Exorcist. Our constitution and bill of rights is about limiting the power of government not the freedom of its citizens. Are their any other libs out there that think the point of government is to limit freedom or is this guy on crack? Lib or con or whatever, what in your opinion is the point of government?

I am quite surprised to find that every single answer I have seen is wrong.

Our government was created 3 primary duties in mind. I am not talking about other governments just ours.

1. To represent the sovereign people of the US to outside world.

2. Provide a mechanism for resolving disputes peaceably amongst the sovereign people of the US.

3. To regulate trade from within and without.

These are the things our constitution provides for. It in no way limits our freedoms, on the contrary it specifically forbids the government from encroaching them.

This concludes todays lesson.

 

[Tucker Case]

These are the things our constitution provides for. It in no way limits our freedoms, on the contrary it specifically forbids the government from encroaching them.

Here's a lesson for you: The constitution isn't the government.

The government is the collection of institutions defined by the constitution, and those institutions exist to pass laws. Laws, by their very nature, limit freedom. Therefore the government exists to limit freedom.

 

[tacomancer]

The point of American government is to guarantee freedoms. The point of Red China's government is to limit freedoms. See the difference?

Have to disagree. With no government, I have the freedom to kill you and you have the freedom to kill me. In order for society to function, limits must be imposed or else the destructive side of human nature will prevent society from functioning in any sort of advanced way, limiting our wealth and happiness.

 

[Tucker Case]

Have to disagree. With no government, I have the freedom to kill you and you have the freedom to kill me. In order for society to function, limits must be imposed or else the destructive side of human nature will prevent society from functioning in any sort of advanced way, limiting our wealth and happiness.

Exactly. The discussion is not "Should freedom be limited" it is "What is the best approach to limiting freedom".

I support the idea of trying to minimize the limitations are placed on freedom. The Bill of Rights exists to minimize such limitations, too. that's a sound approach. and when discussing whether or not a particular limitation on freedom should exist, the discussion should be based on social benefit versus individual loss. If the social benefit far outweighs the individual loss of freedom, then a law is just.

Example: The societal benefit from placing limitations on people's freedom to kill other people far surpasses the individual loss incurred from losing one's freedom to kill other people. Therefore, laws which place limitations on killing other people are just.

 

[Tigger]

I support the idea of trying to minimize the limitations are placed on freedom. The Bill of Rights exists to minimize such limitations, too. that's a sound approach. and when discussing whether or not a particular limitation on freedom should exist, the discussion should be based on social benefit versus individual loss. If the social benefit far outweighs the individual loss of freedom, then a law is just.

While that's a wonderful idea TC, the problem with it is the asset which you have to work with, namely Human Beings. Humanity has done everything it possibly can in the last two centuries to distance itself from any form of morality, values, or even simple societal standards and those are the very concepts necessary to maintain the style of governmental oversight that you suggest. Until/Unless human beings, and especially those in Western Societies find themselves willing to return to social structures with these ideals, the idea of a limited government is unattainable.

 

[Lutherf]

Governments exist to create laws.
Laws, by their very nature, limit freedom.
Therefore governments exist to limit freedom.

Instead of saying "You're wrong! That's preposterous commie bull****!", point to what is not 100% accurate in that logical syllogism. Which premise is false?

Wrong.

The purpose of a Representative Republic form of government is to provide a mechanism by which individual liberty can be preserved without falling into utter anarchy. The idea is to provide a framework by which the individual citizens can make their own decisions and reap the benefits (or suffer the losses) resulting from those decisions in an organized fashion.

 

[Harshaw]

No, that's a lie you've been told by idiot politicians.

It's in the foundational document of our country:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

If the point was to guarantee freedoms, there's never have been slavery in this country, because freedom would have been guaranteed at the coutnry's inception. That's undeniable proof that your claim is false.

That's silly. Slavery was wrong, but it is absolutely not "proof" of what you say.

The only reason government exists is to pass laws. Laws serve no other purpose than limiting individual freedom. Therefore, government exists to limit personal freedom.

The only legitimate reasons to govern behavior is so that people don't have to worry about crime, being invaded, or people breaking contracts. All of those things facilitate freedom, and that was the concept on which the country was founded.

Crime was never, ever considered a "freedom" OR a "right." Suppressing crime is not limiting "freedom." It's suppressing crime.

Don't just repeat the lies you've been told in lieu of an argument.

They are not lies. You may not actually understand what they mean, but they are not lies.

 

[Tucker Case]

Wrong.

The purpose of a Representative Republic form of government is to provide a mechanism by which individual liberty can be preserved without falling into utter anarchy. The idea is to provide a framework by which the individual citizens can make their own decisions and reap the benefits (or suffer the losses) resulting from those decisions in an organized fashion.

Reality doesn't care if you arbitrarily decide to declare that ti doesn't exist. I know that people like to believe the myth that our politicians have told them, but they simply aren't true. Laws limit freedom. that's a good thing.

A representative government simply allows the people to have a say which of their freedom's get limited. A representative government can, and does, remove liberty (which is the opposite of preserving liberty), therefore your claim that it preserves liberty is demonstrably false.

To explain: A representative form of government has existed that allowed slavery to occur within it's borders.

It is simply impossible for a government to exist which has the primary purpose of preserving liberty while simultaneously allowing slavery (the opposite of liberty) to be legal. It's a mutually exclusive situation. If you allow slavery, you cannot be preserving liberty. If you are preserving liberty, you cannot allow slavery.

 

[ocean515]

I would argue that among a number of roles, one role of Government is to enforce the laws established by the people.

It is the people who chose the laws they wish to have on the books via their elected representatives. The Goverment is then empowered to uphold those laws. It is not empowered to restrict freedom. That is for the people to decide.

One of the justified complaints about the growth of massive all powerful government regulatory agencies centers on the ability they have to thwart the peoples will via regulatory action, thus sidestepping the representative process.

 

[Tucker Case]

It's in the foundational document of our country:.

Right =/= freedom

That's silly. Slavery was wrong, but it is absolutely not "proof" of what you say.

Calling reality silly doens't change it.

If something exists to preserve liberty, it cannot perform the opposite action. It's not about right or wrong, it's about possible vs. impossible.

Slavery could not have happened if your contention was correct. Slavery happened. Therefore your contention is false.

The only legitimate reasons to govern behavior is so that people don't have to worry about crime, being invaded, or people breaking contracts.

Crime does not exist without law. People are free to engage in the behaviors that are currently called "crimes" when there are no limitations placed upon freedom. When the governemnt decides to define a behavior as a crime, they place a limitation upon freedom for the good of society.

All of those things facilitate freedom

How can placing a limitation or hindrance upon an action be considered "facilitating a lack of hindrance or limitation upon ones actions"?

They are not lies. You may not actually understand what they mean, but they are not lies.

speaking of not understanding what stuff means, do you know what freedom ACTUALLY means? (Hint: it means not having limitations or hindrances placed upon one's actions or choices)

 

[Tucker Case]

I would argue that among a number of roles, one role of Government is to enforce the laws established by the people.

It is the people who chose the laws they wish to have on the books via their elected representatives. The Goverment is then empowered to uphold those laws. It is not empowered to restrict freedom. That is for the people to decide.

One of the justified complaints about the growth of massive all powerful government regulatory agencies centers on the ability they have to thwart the peoples will via regulatory action, thus sidestepping the representative process.

the peopel don't pass the laws, though. they put the people who pass the laws in place to pass those laws. They decide which people get to place limitations on freedom.

 

[tacomancer]

It's in the foundational document of our country:





That's silly. Slavery was wrong, but it is absolutely not "proof" of what you say.




The only legitimate reasons to govern behavior is so that people don't have to worry about crime, being invaded, or people breaking contracts. All of those things facilitate freedom, and that was the concept on which the country was founded.

Crime was never, ever considered a "freedom" OR a "right." Suppressing crime is not limiting "freedom." It's suppressing crime.




They are not lies. You may not actually understand what they mean, but they are not lies.

That's the founding idea behind one specific government, not a property inherent to governments in general.

 

[ocean515]

the peopel don't pass the laws, though. they put the people who pass the laws in place to pass those laws. They decide which people get to place limitations on freedom.

Exactly. That's the point. The people elect representatives who they believe "represent" them. It is those elected officials who pass laws, etc. If they don't like the result, they elect a new representative.

It is therefore the people who are setting limits on themselves. The government only serves to see that the peoples will is carried out.

That's how I see it.

 

[PirateMk1]

Here's a lesson for you: The constitution isn't the government.

The government is the collection of institutions defined by the constitution, and those institutions exist to pass laws. Laws, by their very nature, limit freedom. Therefore the government exists to limit freedom.

You are correct the constitution is NOT the government. However it is the FOUNDATION which government is built, by defining what it may and may not do and how. Ours in particular has a narrowly defined scope. Ours is designed to resolve internal disputes mainly though litigation. If our government had actually operated as intended it would have very little impact and almost no impingement on our sovereign freedoms. As I said before ours has three basic functions as defined by the constitution, representation of the whole to outsiders, resolution of internal disputes amongst ourselves, and regulation of trade within and without. It as initially was designed, was to maximize our natural freedoms and limit their encroachment from others be they outsiders insiders or the government itself.

 

[Tucker Case]

You are correct the constitution is NOT the government. However it is the FOUNDATION which government is built, by defining what it may and may not do and how. Ours in particular has a narrowly defined scope. Ours is designed to resolve internal disputes mainly though litigation. If our government had actually operated as intended it would have very little impact and almost no impingement on our sovereign freedoms. As I said before ours has three basic functions as defined by the constitution, representation of the whole to outsiders, resolution of internal disputes amongst ourselves, and regulation of trade within and without. It as initially was designed, was to maximize our natural freedoms and limit their encroachment from others be they outsiders insiders or the government itself.

It defines the structuure of the governemnt and the extent to which it can limit freedom. the government still exists to limit freedom, though.