• 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!

The point of government

Well Tucker, I've read some of your other comments here and don't necessarily disagree with them, but I think the discussion could be talking around one another - and likely on this syllogism here.

First: "Governments exist to create laws." Well, I don't think that's accurate. I think the more accurate statement would be that laws are the mechanism by which governments carry out their purpose(s).
Second: "Laws, by their very nature, limit freedom." This is I think accurate.
Third: "Therefore governments exist to limit freedom." Given the first premise is inaccurate, this conclusion is necessarily inaccurate as well. The logic doesn't follow.

Put differently, for the syllogism to be accurate, it would have to work in the opposite direction:

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

Again, if you look at the first premise, that is easily refuted. Consider: The purpose of the United States government is outlined clearly here:

1) to form a more perfect union
2) to establish justice
3) to insure domestic tranquility
4) to provide for the common defense
5) to promote the general welfare and,
6) to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity

The government then enacts laws to secure the above. Laws are the mechanism, not the purpose of [our] government. Ergo, governments (specifically, ours here) DO NOT exist to create laws.

I think the more accurate statement here is that in the process of carrying out their purpose(s), governments need to create laws, which by definition limit freedom, ergo for a government to carry out its purpose it will necessarily limit freedoms.
 
Tucker Case said:
Right =/= freedom
Click to expand...

If you have to mince words and use strange definitions of things, then what kind of point do you have?

But hey -- demarcate the difference specifically as germane to all of this.


Calling reality silly doens't change it.
Click to expand...

Calling it "reality" doesn't make it actually so.


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.
Click to expand...

It preserved liberty among those considered members of society. The problem was with who was considered to be such a member.

Jefferson, of course, intended that passage to apply to everyone, including slaves, but society hadn't yet evolved to that point. You are using modern glasses to make a false argument.

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

No, you simply omit context -- i.e., the social "reality" of the day. If someone is not considered a "person," there's no "freedom" to preserve.

Of course it was wrong to consider them property rather than people. But that's an entirely different sphere of argument.


Crime does not exist without law.
Click to expand...

It certainly does. There has never been much disagreement on that. The only difference a government makes is that the government will suppress and punish it on your behalf rather than you having to defend against it yourself.


No, you're confusing what's physically possible for someone to do with it being among the concepts of "freedom" as contemplated by the notion that government exists to preserve freedom.


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

Mostly because it would be impossible, or at least extremely difficult, to live your life as you choose if others could willy-nilly disrupt it through crime, invasion, or failure to live up to promises made for exchange.


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)
Click to expand...

No, that is NOT what it means in the sense it's used to say that government exists to protect it. Sorry, but it's YOU who do not understand the concepts. This is really no different than claiming that being "free" in society means the same as your teeth being "free of plaque" or a dog being "free of fleas." Political freedom is not the same as being "sugar-free." You're using the term erroneously for the concept.
 
tacomancer said:
That's the founding idea behind one specific government, not a property inherent to governments in general.
Click to expand...

It's the concept upon which our government was founded, and it's in the concept of our government that I say what I say.
 

The people themselves cannot place any limitations on freedom though. They have to go through the process of putting someone into the government in order to get that person to support or propose legislation that places certain limitations on freedom they agree with, and form there, they have to hope that enough like-minded people elsewhere in the country agree with them and have elected officials who will also support such legislation.

The people themselves have little to no power. they can only affect a very small portion of the government. And they are often willfully oblivious to what the government is doing. The government was not designed to give the people power. In fact, aspects of it were designed specifically to place limitations upon the power of the people to choose their leaders (the electoral college is a great example of this).
 
Tucker Case said:
It defines the structuure of the governemnt and the extent to which it can limit freedom. the government still exists to limit freedom, though.
Click to expand...

I believe we are looking at the same thing from two very different perspectives. You believe governments limit freedoms, I believe ours ,just ours mind you, is designed to maximize our freedoms for the maximum number of people.

How I come at that understanding is this way. Total anarchy while you may theoretically have total freedom, in actuality is severely limited because of competing interests and their freedoms to move and do unto you which you then have to defend against. Such chaos has a tendency to limit freedoms in actuality. So unless one is part of a very strong group or an exceptionally resourceful individual by default their options are limited. Our government is designed such that giving up a bit of freedom on one hand theoretically gains one MORE freedom on the other. Freedom is simply the ability to choose how one wishes to proceed in life. A small narrowly focused and defined government can actually enhance and expand freedom. Which was the intent of our founders.
 

Yep, unelected busybodies telling us what we may or may not do, based on their whims, isn't sitting too well with most people! I think our legislators are getting the message, though! Look at all the scandals coming to light currently as proof that the public is on to the game, and they're not happy at all, and demanding explanations from said elected officials as to just WTH is going on! This makes them nervous, since they may be out of a job as a result! "Because I said so" isn't working anymore, so lots of squirming and attempts to change the subject are being seen, too! :thumbs:

Greetings, ocean515. :2wave:
 
Harshaw said:
If you have to mince words and use strange definitions of things, then what kind of point do you have?
Click to expand...

The dictionary definitions of words are "strange" to you?






Calling it "reality" doesn't make it actually so.
Click to expand...

Of course not. It being reality is what makes it so. :shrug: Given the fact that you think dictionary definitions are "strange" definitions, do you really think you are qualified to determine what is reality?

It preserved liberty among those considered members of society.
Click to expand...

rof creating a privileged class =/= preserving liberty.

The problem was with who was considered to be such a member.
Click to expand...

If we ignore the definitions of words, and replace them with pure gibberish, sure.

Jefferson, of course, intended that passage to apply to everyone, including slaves, but society hadn't yet evolved to that point.
Click to expand...

apparently he hadn't evolved to that point himself, given his choice to restrict the liberty of others for personal gain.

You are using modern glasses to make a false argument.
Click to expand...

:lol: If you don't understand my argument, due to your choice to use imaginary definitions for words in lieu of real definitions for those words, then you are not qualified to call my arguments false.



No, you simply omit context -- i.e., the social "reality" of the day.
Click to expand...

How can context alter the reality of what words mean?

If someone is not considered a "person," there's no "freedom" to preserve.
Click to expand...

Now you're just making up gibberish and pretending it is something other than gibberish. A killer whale in the wild has significantly more freedom than you do.

Of course it was wrong to consider them property rather than people. But that's an entirely different sphere of argument.
Click to expand...

Of course it is, because it's totally irrelevant to this discussion. Right and wrong are totally irrelevant concepts in a discussion of freedom.



It certainly does.
Click to expand...

That is simply the single dumbest statement I've ever read.

There has never been much disagreement on that.
Click to expand...

There has certainly never been much disagreement on the fact that crime cannot exist without laws. That is, until you decided, for no reason whatsoever, to **** upon the English language and decided, despite all logic and reason, to pretend that crimes can exist in the absence of law.

The only difference a government makes is that the government will suppress and punish it on your behalf rather than you having to defend against it yourself.
Click to expand...

Learn what the word "crime" means. Seriously.

No, you're confusing what's physically possible for someone to do with it being among the concepts of "freedom" as contemplated by the notion that government exists to preserve freedom.
Click to expand...

No, you are using fictional definitions for words.

You might as well be saying "hjonvjwe fhejoweih wjeqhrydfrbji ehwuh gehujwq ufepwoh bepwq" because that random nonsense actually has the potential to have the definitions you've invented for the words you are using.


Mostly because it would be impossible, or at least extremely difficult, to live your life as you choose if others could willy-nilly disrupt it through crime, invasion, or failure to live up to promises made for exchange.
Click to expand...

So you agree that freedom must be limited for society to function. :shrug: If you weren't ignorant of what the word "freedom" actually means, you might realize that you agree with me.


No, that is NOT what it means in the sense it's used to say that government exists to protect it.
Click to expand...

just because you have decided to take a hot steaming **** on the English language doesn't mean that the nonsense you have made up is actually a real definition for the words you are face raping in order to pretend that reality is not real.

There's this thing called a dictionary. Try opening one.

I mean, here's the definition of "crime" "an act or the commission of an act that is forbidden or the omission of a duty that is commanded by a public law and that makes the offender liable to punishment by that law"

Yet you think a crime can exist in the absence of law? That's downright delusional.
 
PirateMk1 said:
I believe we are looking at the same thing from two very different perspectives. You believe governments limit freedoms, I believe ours ,just ours mind you, is designed to maximize our freedoms for the maximum number of people.
Click to expand...

I would say that all governments exist to limit freedom in some way.

Our government is designed with the belief that it is best to minimize the limitations which are placed upon freedom.

That could be termed as "maximizing freedom" as well, but I want the fact that governments themselves exist to place limitations upon freedom for the good of society. Thus, my choice to word it as such.
 

Here's the flaw in your arguments: You are using a law, created by a government, to argue that governments do not exist to create laws.

A government is a ruling body. It creates rules. The rules created by a government are called laws.
 
Harshaw said:
It's the concept upon which our government was founded, and it's in the concept of our government that I say what I say.
Click to expand...

Then your argument is way too limited to refer to properties of government. For example dictatorships to not exist to preserve freedoms.
 
Harshaw said:
It's the concept upon which our government was founded, and it's in the concept of our government that I say what I say.
Click to expand...

Our government was founded on the principle that it is best to minimize the degree to which it places limitations on freedom.

That's a very different thing that preserving freedom. freedom is best "preserved" by the absence of government.

ALL governments exist to limit freedom, even ours. Our merely attempts to minimize the degree to which it places those limitations.
 

In the absence of government, only the very strongest among us have any freedom at all. A government, while dangerous to liberty, is still necessary to preserve liberty. It's a bit ironic, but that's how it is. What was attempted back in '76, was to set up a government that would preserve order, but still protect liberty. That's a tall order, of course, and requires the cooperation of all of us to succeed.
 

The people have all the power, as outlined by the Constitution. It may very well be that voters don't feel they have any power, but the fact is, we elect people to office to represent us, and our power is meant to flow through to them. If we don't like the way they represent us, we can elect someone else.

The electoral college is not an example of the powerlessness of the people, it is an example of the opposite.
 


Hi Polgara :2wave:

The growth in power of the almighty government agencies should be a great concern to all. No accountability, and in the case of the IRS, the ability to destroy a person with very little recourse.
 
Tucker Case said:
Here's the flaw in your arguments: You are using a law, created by a government, to argue that governments do not exist to create laws.

A government is a ruling body. It creates rules. The rules created by a government are called laws.
Click to expand...
No, Tucker - I'm saying that laws are the mechanisms by which governments fulfill their purpose(s).

I agree that governments create laws.
I disagree that that's their purpose. Moreover, I've demonstrated how that is NOT the purpose of our government at least - "....That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."

Again, I think we're talking around one another a bit - I agree with much of what you're saying, but I think your logic w/r to that particular conclusion is incorrect.
 
Government is not the only threat to individual freedom. Even if you believe that the only point of government is to "guarantee freedom," that still suggests that laws are needed to limit the ability of people to infringe on the freedom of others.
 

I wonder just what might happen should the American public ever wake up to that fact. Alas, they watch slack jawed and uncritically while the commercials paid for by special interests feed them a steady line of BS upon which they base their votes.

ocean515 said:
The electoral college is not an example of the powerlessness of the people, it is an example of the opposite.
Click to expand...

Really?
The last time around, I was fairly certain that Romney was the better of the two candidates for POTUS, and still am. However, since I live in California, aka, Obamastan, there was no point in voting for him, as the outcome of the election in this formerly great golden state was already a foregone conclusion. How did that give me any more power?
 

Dude. Crimes malum in se -- i.e., inherently wrong regardless of any legal construct -- is a concept which goes back thousands of years (which is why there's a Latin term for it). There's also jus cogens crime -- crimes against the mind of man -- behavior so heinous that no specific law is necessary for its punishment. You're arguing with a lawyer about the history of crime and punishment.

But let's recap what the exact argument is, lest that gets lost. This started when you said:


You are wrong. That the American government was founded to guarantee freedoms is stated right there in the Declaration.

The premise is that we have unalienable rights -- among them life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness. I.E., those things inherent to living life as we choose with a minimum of interference. NOT among them? Crime.

What is "freedom" -- political freedom? The freedom to exercise those rights. Crime is not among those rights.

Properly understood, what sawyer said is correct. What YOU say is not only historically incorrect (the idea was not borne of lies told by politicians, but in the foundation of the country), but conceptually incorrect, based on an erroneous choice of definition of "freedom." Words mean different things in different contexts, and in this context, "freedom" is "political freedom," not absolute physical possibility, as you're using it.

As for slavery, what you're saying is that because something doesn't work perfectly, it's absolute proof that it was never intended to work that way. That IS silly, which I already said.
 
tacomancer said:
Then your argument is way too limited to refer to properties of government. For example dictatorships to not exist to preserve freedoms.
Click to expand...

Not when I'm responding to something which had specifically and unequivocally to do with the American government an the American government alone.
 

Somebody needs to read our constitution.
 

And THAT is what the American government is supposed to be about.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…