ronpaulvoter
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2007
- Messages
- 627
- Reaction score
- 111
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
On any given social topic, how much government involvement should there be?
Oh, I can make a very strong case for "harm" from that. Dysentery and cholera alone are potent points in that argument.I think one could make a strong case that defecating in one's front yard poses no 'harm' to the public. I think there's a solid basis for public decency laws.
Why? It's OK if I let my dog defecate in my front yard, so why shouldn't I be able to do it myself?
Probably not....but if it provides a point of departure for discussion, then it has served its purpose.A poll cannot capture this adequately.
And what is a "flourishing" society?In general gov't can interfere enough in my book to keep society together and flourishing, it must do it at the most appropriate level, according to the principle of subsidiarity thought.
On any given social topic, how much government involvement should there be?
To set boundaries of individual conduct
To prudently conserve public resources
To provide orderly protections of individual rights
To maintain social order
To maintain social justice
Ok...and how do we determine if that legitimate and necessary role has been met and/or exceeded? How much government is too much government?Government has a legitimate and necessary role in all of these things.
Oh, I can make a very strong case for "harm" from that. Dysentery and cholera alone are potent points in that argument.
No, that doesn't pose a health threat (unless you have some highly toxic flatulence).Fine. Let me modify the scenario so that it's still plausible but takes care of the health code problem... I'm at a crowded public fair and decide to defecate in the sanitary port-o-potty... may I leave the door open at my option while I sit there and do my business? Or does that also pose a health threat to the public?
Ok...and how do we determine if that legitimate and necessary role has been met and/or exceeded? How much government is too much government?
But doesn't that just punt the question back to "who decides"--as in "who decides what 'benefits' society?"To me, it is a matter of efficiency. As long as the law benefits society more than the cost-- or the mere imposition-- harms society, I consider it acceptable. It's not a matter of "too much government" or "too little government," it's good government and bad government.
One with strong intermediate associations, individual liberties and general long term sustainability and health in my book.And what is a "flourishing" society?
Essentially, the others disagreed.I'm surprised that only two people voted for "To prevent unjust enrichment" which is essentially laws to protect against fraud based activities.
Essentially, the others disagreed.
I felt that fraud was adequately covered by other categories, most especially "individual conduct", "social order", and "social justice".
I'm surprised that only two people voted for "To prevent unjust enrichment" which is essentially laws to protect against fraud based activities.
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?