|
| Thread: Limited Rights or Limited Government? [religious opinions not banned from this thread |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 · NEXT» |
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
posted September 02, 2009 12:01 AM |
bonus applied by Mytical on 08 Sep 2009. |
Edited by Mytical at 11:09, 08 Sep 2009.
|
Limited Rights or Limited Government? [religious opinions not banned from this thread
Limited Rights or Limited Government?
Introduction: Government Conrol In Our Lives
Recently I have observed that government seems to want more and more direct and indirect control of things in our lives. The pace of its expansion of power seems to be increasing.
Should we trust the government? How much government control of our lives should we allow? Is government the "benevolent father" who knows what is best for us or is it a threat to our liberties?
What sorts of choices should the government be allowed to make for you? For example, should the government be allowed to:
1) require that you stop smoking or drinking. Wear seat belts or helmets? Require you to exercise or limit the time you spend on the internet?
2) require you to buy health insurance?
3) determine what health care you can't receive or say what medical treatment you or your children must submit to. For example, immunization shots or medical treatment that violates your religious beliefs?
4) tell you what type of light bulb / car/ appliance you can purchase?
5) regulate the temperature in your home and mandate use of radio-controlled thermostats as a means of controlling the temperature in homes?
6) dictate or limit what you can teach your children?
What is a right and where do they come from?
The concept of the founding fathers was that the rights of the people are absolute and come from God. They said that God has endowed all people with certain inalienable rights. Among these are the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Rights are basically liberties that are innate to each human being. Rights are absolute. The founding fathers wrote that rights can only be taken away by due process of law, a criminal trial.
The basis of the power of the government
Quote:
"The authority of [the] people [is] a necessary foundation for a constitution." --Thomas Jefferson to John Hampden Pleasants, 1824. ME 16:28
"[To establish republican government, it is necessary to] effect a constitution in which the will of the nation shall have an organized control over the actions of its government, and its citizens a regular protection against its oppressions." --Thomas Jefferson to Lafayette, 1816. ME 19:240
As mentioned, the rights of the people came from God. The power of the government then came from the people. The US Constitution then is based on the power of the people, not the whims of officials who are placed in political office through elections. The right of a government official to exercise power is based on the discretion of the people, not based on divine right or inheritance of power from a previous ruler or based on the concept that "government knows best."
The Founding Fathers wanted to limit the power of government
The founding fathers were very suspicious of government. They knew that government is an inherent threat to liberty. They wrote the Constitution to limit the power of the government, to bind it so that it can't chain the people.
Quote:
In the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798,
Thomas Jefferson declared, "Free government is
founded in jealousy, and not in confidence; it is jeal
ousy, and not confidence which prescribes limited con
stitutions, to bind down those whom we are obliged to
trust with power."
"Aware of the tendency of power to degenerate into abuse, the worthies of our country have secured its independence by the establishment of a Constitution and form of government for our nation, calculated to prevent as well as to correct abuse." --Thomas Jefferson to Washington Tammany Society, 1809. ME 16:346
"I consider the foundation of the [Federal] Constitution as laid on this ground: That "all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people." [10th Amendment] To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specifically drawn around the powers of Congress is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition." --Thomas Jefferson: Opinion on National Bank, 1791. ME 3:146
Does government have a right to regulate our behavior "for our own good?"
Quote:
"Laws provide against injury from others, but not from ourselves." --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Religion, 1776 Papers 1:546
No. The founding fathers rejected such a concept. The government has no authority to make me do things to keep from getting fat or damaging my brain cells or believing things that the government thinks are false. If I want to be a follower of Scientology even if the government thinks it is a false religion I have the right to follow it.
The state of government today
Quote:
"It is true, we are as yet secured against [tyrannical laws] by the spirit of the times... But is the spirit of the people an infallible, a permanent reliance? Is it government? Is this the kind of protection we receive in return for the rights we give up? Besides, the spirit of the times may alter, will alter. Our rulers will become corrupt, our people careless." --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia, Q.XVII, 1782. ME 2:224
It appears to me today that the fears of the founding fathers are being realized. The people have fallen asleep and the government has crept up on them and slipped the chains around their wrists. The government has been gathering more and more power to itself. It has been slowly shortening those chains so that the people are on an ever shortening leash.
The Tenth Amendment is no longer respected and the government proclaims its right to exercise power that has not been granted to it in the Constitution. The government has become more and more unresponsive to the people from whom it derives its power. The people say "No" to bail outs but the "representatives" say "Yes." The people say "secure our borders against illegal immigration" but Congress refuses.
But there is hope. The recent unrest shown in town hall meetings is a sign of that hope. Some people have begun to awaken and are objecting to the unjust intrusion of government into their lives. Perhaps the spirit of carelessness will be cast off and the times will return to the spirit of the founding fathers. The spirit that results in a jealous guarding of our liberties.
Quote:
"I sincerely wish... we could see our government so secured as to depend less on the character of the person in whose hands it is trusted. Bad men will sometimes get in and with such an immense patronage may make great progress in corrupting the public mind and principles. This is a subject with which wisdom and patriotism should be occupied." --Thomas Jefferson to Moses Robinson, 1801. ME 10:237
Though I disagree with somethings, it is an interesting topic. Shiny given. -Mytical
____________
Revelation
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted September 02, 2009 12:04 AM |
|
|
This isn't US-only you know, "government" doesn't automatically mean "US government" so most of the Founding Fathers thing doesn't work else.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted September 02, 2009 12:30 AM |
|
|
Except for a few specific things, the founding fathers don't mean a hell of a lot in the US either.
As far as what role the government should play, ideally it shouldn't even exist. But realistically it is needed. So they should only exist to the minimum extent that is absolutely necessary. The problem is how do you define necessary? No two people will agree. But the fact that no two people will agree is the reason WHY they are necessary in the first place. It's kind of a Catch 22.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted September 02, 2009 12:48 AM |
|
|
Quote:
This isn't US-only you know, "government" doesn't automatically mean "US government" so most of the Founding Fathers thing doesn't work else.
So are you saying that no wisdom can be found in their writings if you don't live in the US? Which of the quotes I included do you disagree with?
What do you seee the role of government as being? What do you view your rights to be? In what ways can the government limit your rights?
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 02, 2009 01:44 AM |
|
|
Quote:
The recent unrest shown in town hall meetings is a sign of that hope.
Like the guy who said he was a proud "right-wing terrorist"?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted September 02, 2009 02:28 AM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 02:30, 02 Sep 2009.
|
Quote:
Quote:
The recent unrest shown in town hall meetings is a sign of that hope.
Like the guy who said he was a proud "right-wing terrorist"?
I did not hear the quote to which you are refering. If someone said that I assume he was refering to the socialist Obama placed in charge of homeland security who said vets, pro life supporters and other conservatives are potential terrorists.
Right-wing terrorists
Quote:
This morning I wrote a post about a Homeland Security paper that warned about “right wing extremists” and the threat that they may pose to the government.
This paper basically lumped in people who are either pro second amendment, anti abortion, anti illegal immigration, or pro smaller government (or more than one or all of the above) with white supremacists and domestic terrorists. As maddening as I found that paper there was one aspect to the paper that I missed this morning and to me it is much more egregious.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 02, 2009 02:46 AM |
|
|
|
Shyranis
Promising
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted September 02, 2009 03:42 AM |
|
Edited by Shyranis at 03:45, 02 Sep 2009.
|
Quote:
Limited Rights or Limited Government?
Introduction: Government Conrol In Our Lives
Recently I have observed that government seems to want more and more direct and indirect control of things in our lives. The pace of its expansion of power seems to be increasing.
Should we trust the government? How much government control of our lives should we allow? Is government the "benevolent father" who knows what is best for us or is it a threat to our liberties?
Not really, but it's sometimes a necessary evil. There are many cases in which the government goes too far however. Unnecessary wars for example, suppression of free speech by any opposition (which is done by all political parties when in power), prohibition of gay marriage and adoption (on one side) as well as prohibition of a priest's decision not to marry two gay people based on faith (on the other. Both should be permitted IMHO. Doctors, etc should have no right to not work with gay people for the reason of gayness however if it's a matter of importance as they are not in the clerical industry).
It's really a toss-up for abortions. For one, some stupid people use it for birth control but on the other side some kids will suffer needlessly without ever having any parents in an orphanage until they grow up. Preventing them is government interference as well, they definitely should be allowed in cases of rape, incest or possible death of the mother, though some States have passed laws even barring that. More government interference at work.
Quote:
What sorts of choices should the government be allowed to make for you? For example, should the government be allowed to:
1) require that you stop smoking or drinking. Wear seat belts or helmets? Require you to exercise or limit the time you spend on the internet?
Drinking too much is a health hazard for those around the drunk if they choose to drive (which they are more likely to do the further intoxicated they are). The government has some responsibility for the life of its citizens. Perhaps instead of considering bans, higher taxes were placed on them.
Seatbelts and helmets are absolutely necessary if you're to survive a brutal crash (or in a car, even a small one can send you flying through the windshield. Don't believe me? Get somebody to drive you while you sit in the passenger seat and have them floor it then slam the breaks. Enjoy your hospital bill, you'd have earned it.)
Only parents should be able to limit the time spent on the internet (of their kids) =) A private residence isn't a Democracy as you'd pointed out once before =D
Quote:
2) require you to buy health insurance?
I don't think many places even do that. I know you can opt out here if you already have better. Just few people ever do.
Quote:
3) determine what health care you can't receive or say what medical treatment you or your children must submit to. For example, immunization shots or medical treatment that violates your religious beliefs?
Nobody ever forces Scientologists or Jehova's Witnesses to take any treatments they don't want (which would be all of them). They would get sued. That's probably the way it should be.
Quote:
4) tell you what type of light bulb / car/ appliance you can purchase?
In some cases yes, but mostly as a strong suggestion and not an outright demand. More efficient vehicles, light bulbs, appliances are much less strain of resources and the country's infrastructure. However, that shouldn't limit personal freedom. If I wanted to buy a gas guzzling death spewer, I could, but I may choose to go with the government suggestion mostly because it helps more in the long run (in this case), or if the government was espousing the death spewer, I'd probably go against that. Saving gas saves money in the long term =D
Quote:
5) regulate the temperature in your home and mandate use of radio-controlled thermostats as a means of controlling the temperature in homes?
Nope, but the government would probably be okay to tax homes that use say ten times the normal amount of natural gas as an incentive to reduce slightly. As I mentioned, if more people are wasteful it hurts the country's infrastructure more.
Quote:
6) dictate or limit what you can teach your children?
Well, if you theoretically wanted to teach your children that Hitler was some almighty saviour and that Satan is Santa in disguise you could go ahead, but you'd have to accept that you're sentencing your child to be shunned by society for the rest of their life.
When it comes to religious teaching, keep it out of the schools one way or the other and let the parents decide. As long as that person doesn't force their beliefs on others, they should be fine.
Quote:
What is a right and where do they come from?
The concept of the founding fathers was that the rights of the people are absolute and come from God. They said that God has endowed all people with certain inalienable rights. Among these are the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Actually they wrote it ambiguously as "their creator", which can mean their parents, forefathers, ancestors, etc as well. But yes, even without any specific religious reference all people are created equal and have the same rights under the law.
Quote:
Rights are basically liberties that are innate to each human being. Rights are absolute. The founding fathers wrote that rights can only be taken away by due process of law, a criminal trial.
And posthumously restored along with good names in the case of innocents whom are accidentally wronged.
Quote:
The basis of the power of the government
Quote:
"The authority of [the] people [is] a necessary foundation for a constitution." --Thomas Jefferson to John Hampden Pleasants, 1824. ME 16:28
"[To establish republican government, it is necessary to] effect a constitution in which the will of the nation shall have an organized control over the actions of its government, and its citizens a regular protection against its oppressions." --Thomas Jefferson to Lafayette, 1816. ME 19:240
As mentioned, the rights of the people came from God.
Their Creator. Semantics, yes I know. The rights of the people come from their creator. From the sweat and blood of their hard working ancestors.
Quote:
The power of the government then came from the people. The US Constitution then is based on the power of the people, not the whims of officials who are placed in political office through elections. The right of a government official to exercise power is based on the discretion of the people, not based on divine right or inheritance of power from a previous ruler or based on the concept that "government knows best."
Perhaps more bills should instead be decided by referendum, where the people all vote for what they want instead of politicians secretly trying to increase their own power?
Quote:
The Founding Fathers wanted to limit the power of government
The founding fathers were very suspicious of government. They knew that government is an inherent threat to liberty. They wrote the Constitution to limit the power of the government, to bind it so that it can't chain the people.
Funny thing is, all of these Founding Fathers quotes are always used by politicians who aren't in power to discredit the ones who are.
Quote:
Quote:
In the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798,
Thomas Jefferson declared, "Free government is
founded in jealousy, and not in confidence; it is jeal
ousy, and not confidence which prescribes limited con
stitutions, to bind down those whom we are obliged to
trust with power."
"Aware of the tendency of power to degenerate into abuse, the worthies of our country have secured its independence by the establishment of a Constitution and form of government for our nation, calculated to prevent as well as to correct abuse." --Thomas Jefferson to Washington Tammany Society, 1809. ME 16:346
"I consider the foundation of the [Federal] Constitution as laid on this ground: That "all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people." [10th Amendment] To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specifically drawn around the powers of Congress is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition." --Thomas Jefferson: Opinion on National Bank, 1791. ME 3:146
Does government have a right to regulate our behavior "for our own good?"
Quote:
"Laws provide against injury from others, but not from ourselves." --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Religion, 1776 Papers 1:546
No. The founding fathers rejected such a concept. The government has no authority to make me do things to keep from getting fat or damaging my brain cells or believing things that the government thinks are false. If I want to be a follower of Scientology even if the government thinks it is a false religion I have the right to follow it.
Hence laws against public intoxication and drunk driving, which prevents people without sound judgement from hurting others.
Quote:
The state of government today
Quote:
"It is true, we are as yet secured against [tyrannical laws] by the spirit of the times... But is the spirit of the people an infallible, a permanent reliance? Is it government? Is this the kind of protection we receive in return for the rights we give up? Besides, the spirit of the times may alter, will alter. Our rulers will become corrupt, our people careless." --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia, Q.XVII, 1782. ME 2:224
It appears to me today that the fears of the founding fathers are being realized. The people have fallen asleep and the government has crept up on them and slipped the chains around their wrists. The government has been gathering more and more power to itself. It has been slowly shortening those chains so that the people are on an ever shortening leash.
Every government since well... Adams?
Quote:
The Tenth Amendment is no longer respected and the government proclaims its right to exercise power that has not been granted to it in the Constitution. The government has become more and more unresponsive to the people from whom it derives its power. The people say "No" to bail outs but the "representatives" say "Yes." The people say "secure our borders against illegal immigration" but Congress refuses.
Which has been the case for decades...
I certainly don't have the facts straight about this one thing (so I don't believe one side or the other), but a large following on the internet seems to believe that JFK tried to dismantle the Federal Reserve due to it being like the English banks America removed itself from. Ted Kennedy certainly seemed to have a grudge against them and Ron Paul wants it Audited, which I can certainly agree with since use of public money should be transparent. Too bad it hasn't been at all in this or last century.
Quote:
But there is hope. The recent unrest shown in town hall meetings is a sign of that hope. Some people have begun to awaken and are objecting to the unjust intrusion of government into their lives. Perhaps the spirit of carelessness will be cast off and the times will return to the spirit of the founding fathers. The spirit that results in a jealous guarding of our liberties.
A good number of them are paid lobbyists, but I certainly respect the honest people who want to speak their minds respectfully in opposition to the speaker. Too bad the honest dissenters never get air time in any administration, only the crazies. Just like the opposition to Bush, only the crazies got any air time for their 15 minutes of fame.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
The recent unrest shown in town hall meetings is a sign of that hope.
Like the guy who said he was a proud "right-wing terrorist"?
I did not hear the quote to which you are refering. If someone said that I assume he was refering to the socialist Obama placed in charge of homeland security who said vets, pro life supporters and other conservatives are potential terrorists.
You know that DHS report was originally published saying the exact same thing under the Bush administration and the pundit flies kept quiet about it until election time right? The DHS actually regards everybody as a potential terrorist. It's non-partisan oppression, wake up. You're being played for a fool if you think Bush was actually trying to protect you. TBH. Every administration seems to have its own rights abuses, but the pundits on the "right" couldn't even get the dates right about this one. (The pundits on the "left" also have selective memory BTW).
____________
Youtube has terminated my account without reason.
Please express why it should be reinstated on
Twitter.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted September 02, 2009 04:30 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Referring to this.
Yes, the man was referring to what the democrats have been saying about conservatives. Everyone who opposes Obama's socialist policies is a racist Nazi terrorist it seems.
@Shyranis
Maybe you could link to something other than a lef-wing propaganda site for the DHS report comment? Oh, and I seem to remember Obama's appointee claiming that one of her inferiors wrote the report and that she didn't read it for some reason. After a big stink was raised she wound up apologizing. I remember hearing reacently that the comment wansn't even based on any specific facts, just somebody sitting around speculation. I'll see if I can find something on that tomorrow.
Sure, every political party paints the other side though they usually paint the opposing polotician, NOT the voters who don't vote for them.
And the mainstream media is in in the tank for Obama.
Oh, I haven't seen anything about paid lobyists being at the townhall meetings other than ACORN who is a democrat front group being feed at the trough of taxpayers. And uniion thugs.
I think mostly the unrest at the meetings has been a grassroots movement and a some wise democrat congressment have acknowledged that.
____________
Revelation
|
|
Shyranis
Promising
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted September 02, 2009 05:22 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Maybe you could link to something other than a lef-wing propaganda site for the DHS report comment?[/url]
You used a Right-wing propaganda site so it's only fair ^_^
Here's a better link. Another.
The first one was just the first one to come up in google. I was too lazy to dig deeper but I knew it was there.
Quote:
Sure, every political party paints the other side though they usually paint the opposing polotician, NOT the voters who don't vote for them.
Actually, most protesters were mislabelled as communists, loons, or crazies. Sounds very similar to the language used for the town hall people these days. It's the same essentially government targeting a different group.
Quote:
And the mainstream media is in in the tank for Obama.
And Fox and its subsidiaries (also part of the Mainstream media actually), is in the tank for the Republicans. It can't be any more obvious that it's massively profitable to divide the country like this.
Quote:
Oh, I haven't seen anything about paid lobyists being at the townhall meetings other than ACORN who is a democrat front group being feed at the trough of taxpayers. And uniion thugs.
I think mostly the unrest at the meetings has been a grassroots movement and a some wise democrat congressment have acknowledged that.
I'm too tired to find the websites showing the insurance lobbyists at rallies. I'll do so tomorrow. Yes, some unions are way too powerful and corrupt as well. Did you know John McCain also attended ACORN fundraisers and helped raise money for it? Either ACORN is actually non-partisan or the two parties are playing people for fools.
____________
Youtube has terminated my account without reason.
Please express why it should be reinstated on
Twitter.
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted September 02, 2009 06:38 AM |
|
|
So everything somebody doesn't believe in is propaganda...oh I am so NOT touching that with a 10' pole. I again disagree where rights come from, but that is not important.
A good balance with government is a good thing. However, people can be rather dim. They want absolute protection while having absolute freedom. Both can not exsist at the same time. Also they are kinda hypocrits. They want to be able to do whatever they want, but dictate to others what they can/should/can't/shouldn't do.
I will give you some examples. The KKK and the ones that feel that the KKK should not be able to have parades, etc. Some of them feel perfectly comfortable how bad the KKK are, but get all excited when the KKK express how bad somebody or something else is. I don't agree with ANY views of the KKK, but I have no problem with them saying it.
Government should not interfear with peoples rights until those rights endanger other people. However, that means 'safety' is out of the question. Ya pay yer dues, ya takes your chances.
____________
Message received.
|
|
angelito
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
|
|
posted September 02, 2009 10:26 AM |
|
Edited by angelito at 10:27, 02 Sep 2009.
|
1) require that you stop smoking or drinking. Wear seat belts or helmets? Require you to exercise or limit the time you spend on the internet?
Of course the government should have their rights to interfer, when your "free will" touches the rights or the health of others. if you wanna smoke at home, feel free to do so. But if you are a smoker, you should be forced to get a private health care insurance which cares about cancer. You should not be allowed to smoke wherever you want to, especially not in places where non smokers are present.
Same goes with drinking. Drinking at home or in pubs is fine. Drinking and driving is NOT.
Wearing seatbelts has to be a law, otherwise most of the people won't do it. And after their first crash, when they are paraplegic, or lost their wife/kid because they flew through the window in a crash, they became smarter...but too late.
Same goes with helmets and motor bicycles.
This works hand in hand with a social health care system. To be able to take care of as many ill people as possible, you have to try to reduce possible fatal illnesses, because those things are really expensive. Just look how many dealy accidents with motor bikes we had in germany since the helmet law was established. The number decreased tremendously.
2) require you to buy health insurance?
Without a doubt, see above
3) determine what health care you can't receive or say what medical treatment you or your children must submit to. For example, immunization shots or medical treatment that violates your religious beliefs?
Not at all.
4) tell you what type of light bulb / car/ appliance you can purchase?
If it would have tremendous effect on the environment, it is fine, because most poeple are selfish and think for themself. But we should never forget next generations want to live here too.
5) regulate the temperature in your home and mandate use of radio-controlled thermostats as a means of controlling the temperature in homes?
See above
6) dictate or limit what you can teach your children?
Depends. Of course it should be forbidden to teach things which are against the law (racicsm, discrimination etc...). But exactly due to these things (discrimination), the government shouldn't interfer in what parents teach their children, as long as it is legal. And legal means "not against the law written in the constitution", but not what is written in a religious book.
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted September 02, 2009 11:27 AM |
|
Edited by Mytical at 11:29, 02 Sep 2009.
|
To directly answer the OP's question.
1) require that you stop smoking or drinking. Wear seat belts or helmets? Require you to exercise or limit the time you spend on the internet?
Smoking in public, yes. Because it can interfear with the most basic right, the right to life...for others as well as the person smoking. In private..hmm how about hard drugs like coke?
Wear seat belts. No, if you want to put yourself through a window fine. Helmets, no.
2) require you to buy health insurance?
No. Help people afford it? Absolutely.
3) determine what health care you can't receive or say what medical treatment you or your children must submit to. For example, immunization shots or medical treatment that violates your religious beliefs?
Absolutely not. With one exception, highly contagious diseases, because THAT can interfear with the most basic right.
4) tell you what type of light bulb / car/ appliance you can purchase?
NO. However, I see nothing wrong with them charging 'luxury taxes or extra if you use over a certain ammount of energy.
5) regulate the temperature in your home and mandate use of radio-controlled thermostats as a means of controlling the temperature in homes?
Absolutely not. If I want it to be the Sahara desert in my front room, or Sibera..that is MY thing.
6) dictate or limit what you can teach your children?
This is the hardest question. I don't care about religion, let people teach their children whatever religion they want. My concern is other things. What if somebody wants to teach their children that Incest is ok? Or child pornography. Or.. well you get the picture.
____________
Message received.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted September 02, 2009 04:30 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 16:32, 02 Sep 2009.
|
Quote:
What do you seee the role of government as being? What do you view your rights to be? In what ways can the government limit your rights?
Alright I'll answer the questions you asked then.
Quote:
What sorts of choices should the government be allowed to make for you? For example, should the government be allowed to:
1) require that you stop smoking or drinking. Wear seat belts or helmets? Require you to exercise or limit the time you spend on the internet?
Stop smoking, yes. Stop drinking, yes.
Let's put it this way: you expect people to be reasonable beings that can think for themselves and the government shouldn't decide for them, right? Well, to understand, to comprehend this whole phrase requires that you aren't drunk. When you're drunk you LOSE them.
Drinking can also impact others indirectly, via accidents or random beatings and then getting a "soft sentence" (which is a silly excuse). As for smoking, it affects others directly.
Going more extreme, it is like saying, that people should have the right to become animals. Fine, they do, but once they do, they no longer have human rights, but animal rights, which means the master (or government) decides for them. Is that what you want?
It's a double-edged sword.
No, government shouldn't force you to wear helmets or seat-belts. After all those only damage yourself. However, if you have passengers, you are required to do so -- after all, an accident can cripple their lives too, not just yours.
Quote:
2) require you to buy health insurance?
BUY it? No, absolutely no. They government shouldn't force you to BUY anything -- since I'm a somewhat socialist, of course, for me having free healthcare is vastly different than "buying" it, unless of course, you were given money to buy it -- but I don't see the point then, why give you money and force you to use them for X in the first place then?
Quote:
3) determine what health care you can't receive or say what medical treatment you or your children must submit to. For example, immunization shots or medical treatment that violates your religious beliefs?
No. However, if you refuse a vaccine you have no right to enforce the doctors to treat you "alternatively" since it's probably the only way they know. You can go to someone else, if you want of course, but you have no power to demand doctors to do something else just because you refuse what they would do.
Quote:
4) tell you what type of light bulb / car/ appliance you can purchase?
Hell no.
But it can tell you what you CAN NOT purchase. (example, if the car uses a nuclear reactor instead of gas )
Quote:
5) regulate the temperature in your home and mandate use of radio-controlled thermostats as a means of controlling the temperature in homes?
What?
As long as you're the only one in the house, no. If you are the sole owner, no again. If you have a family/child though, then yeah, if the child or some family member says he/she doesn't like it.
Quote:
6) dictate or limit what you can teach your children?
Depends what you mean by "teaching". Children should at least have relative freedom to read what they want, as long as it is not abusive material.
Brainwashing isn't teaching though. Trust me I do not consider religion brainwashing any more than other "subjects". What I do consider brainwashing is forbidding them information and showing them only what you want -- with the exception of offensive material (this could get a whole different topic, but let's say it's based on psychology), you shouldn't forbid stuff from your kids.
Of course, you don't HAVE to tell them what you don't know, but if they want they can go themselves. So in short, you shouldn't forbid them information (not offensive material).
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
alcibiades
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
of Gold Dragons
|
|
posted September 02, 2009 05:13 PM |
|
|
I must admit I was a bit put off by discovering that since yesterday, you can no longer purchase normal light bulbs in stores in Denmark. Apparantly, it's some sort of directive from EU.
I understand the intention of wanting people to save power, but honestly, I don't think this is the right solution. First of all, power saving light bulbs do not give the same light as normal light bulbs, and while in some cases the difference does not matter too much, in others it does, and I want the right to choose for myself.
What the government can do imo. is to put an environment tax on the unwanted light bulbs so as to make it less attractive for me to buy them compared to the power saving ones. That would be fine by me - but banning them completely from stores is  .
____________
What will happen now?
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted September 02, 2009 05:15 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 17:16, 02 Sep 2009.
|
I think even more saving would be if it imposed a maximum limit you can use electricity per day.
NOTE: that is a very reasonable limit of course, yes you can still have a computer 24/7 no worries, but not your plasma TV 24/7 for instance.
But this is an entire EU thing anyway, not local government.
Normal light bulbs use most of the energy for heat. They are inefficient for lighting purposes.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 02, 2009 05:21 PM |
|
|
Angelito:
Whether I'm wearing a seatbelt/helmet or not does not affect other people - so if I feel like increasing my own risk, I should be able to do so.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
alcibiades
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
of Gold Dragons
|
|
posted September 02, 2009 05:29 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Normal light bulbs use most of the energy for heat. They are inefficient for lighting purposes.
But they still give the more pleasant light ...
____________
What will happen now?
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted September 02, 2009 05:32 PM |
|
|
Hmm I don't know since I didn't use them much, but mine gave a yellow-ish color which wasn't very pleasant. Mind you my current one also gives me a yellow-ish color (it's a fluorescent bulb though), so I don't see a difference at all -- although I would prefer white light.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Darkshadow
Legendary Hero
Cerise Princess
|
|
posted September 02, 2009 05:35 PM |
|
|
Quote:
) require that you stop smoking or drinking. Wear seat belts or helmets? Require you to exercise or limit the time you spend on the internet?
Not for drinking or smoking (you should still get penalty for drunk driving and smoking indoors should be limited).But the law should state that you must wear seat belts and helmets. And the Gov should not put time limits on internet.
Quote:
2) require you to buy health insurance?
No.
Quote:
3) determine what health care you can't receive or say what medical treatment you or your children must submit to. For example, immunization shots or medical treatment that violates your religious beliefs?
No.
Quote:
4) tell you what type of light bulb / car/ appliance you can purchase?
No.
Quote:
5) regulate the temperature in your home and mandate use of radio-controlled thermostats as a means of controlling the temperature in homes?
That is beyond ridiculous.
Quote:
6) dictate or limit what you can teach your children?
Certain religions but lets not get into that.
Quote:
Stop smoking, yes. Stop drinking, yes.
I just have to quote and say, what about regulated drinking?With effective penalty for those that cross the line
____________
|
| |
|
|
