- Joined
- May 6, 2011
- Messages
- 14,697
- Reaction score
- 5,704
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
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?
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?
The point of American government is to guarantee freedoms.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
No, that's a lie you've been told by idiot politicians.
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.
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.
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.
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
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)They are not lies. You may not actually understand what they mean, but they are not lies.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?