The role of Government

[RobinsontoDuncan]

So many conservatives in America today (I use the term losely because in my opinion small government conservatism has given way to Religious Right you're with us or Satan conservatism) seem to feel that it is Government's job to enforce their view of Christianity on the public. Since when has this been the main concern of government?

Does government have the right to enforce morality? Whoes morlaity does it then get to enforce? In my opinion it is immoral to deny anyone their constitutional right to privacy, even if that privacy is used to have an abortion.... something I am not personaly in favor of.... but something I have no goddamned right to stop.

Does government have the right to determine when I can be married and where? Hell no, the bible has no right to impose on my rights as a private citizen. I'm not gay, and I am a Chrisitian, but I have no friggin right to tell anyone when and where they can be married, and neither does government.

There can be no just government that attempts to enforce morality, let society do that for itself, let people chose for themselves, let the chrisitans stay in their churches and pulpits, where there message is wanted and the attendance is willing, don't force doctrine onto the world, because you have no right to.

[SPARKY]

So "conservatives" want the government out of our lives except for when they don't get their way and "liberals" want the government in our lives except for when they don't get their way.

Great.

Fuck you all.

[RobinsontoDuncan]

i have never heard of liberals wanting to enforce morality, or excuse me, what liberals consider morality, bitch.

[SPARKY]

Ha. Take off your fucking blinders.

[The Ressurrected One]

Isn't murder immoral?

How 'bout theft?

Fact is, all laws are based in morality. In what governments perceive as right and wrong. And, further, they can all be traced to the moral concept that we, as individuals, are endowed with certain unalienable rights; that among them are the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (contemporaneously translated into "fruits of their labor").

Anyway, the argument over abortion should be more appropriately framed over whether or not a fetus is a human deserving of the same constitutional protections afforded all post-partum humans -- not whether or not the Government has the right to legislate morality.

Same-sex marriages are a different matter. Marriage is a Church instituted sacrament co-opted by the Government to effect certain social constructs from tax policy to welfare benefits, etc...

While I have no specific objection to Government instituted "unions" between two people of the same sex, even if they call it a marriage, I would be opposed if Churches are forced to recognize such unions. But, then, I'm opposed to marriage having any relevance whatsoever in Government policy.

They should, in my view, remove, rescind, abolish, or repeal any and all government policies and laws that favorably or unfavorably treat a person based on their marital status. I guess I should state my objection to same-sex marriages is within that context because, I feel it creates a further burden on tax payers and corporations to pick up the tab on non-productive spouses, cohabitators, and life-partners...

But, as I've already said, I'm opposed to any similar breaks for church sanctioned married people too.

[Spurminator]

So many conservatives in America today (I use the term losely because in my opinion small government conservatism has given way to Religious Right you're with us or Satan conservatism) seem to feel that it is Government's job to enforce their view of Christianity on the public. Since when has this been the main concern of government?

Does government have the right to enforce morality? Whoes morlaity does it then get to enforce? In my opinion it is immoral to deny anyone their constitutional right to privacy, even if that privacy is used to have an abortion.... something I am not personaly in favor of.... but something I have no goddamned right to stop.

Does government have the right to determine when I can be married and where? Hell no, the bible has no right to impose on my rights as a private citizen. I'm not gay, and I am a Chrisitian, but I have no friggin right to tell anyone when and where they can be married, and neither does government.

There can be no just government that attempts to enforce morality, let society do that for itself, let people chose for themselves, let the chrisitans stay in their churches and pulpits, where there message is wanted and the attendance is willing, don't force doctrine onto the world, because you have no right to.

Your premise is valid, but it's undermined by your naive belief that it only applies to one side of the political spectrum.

[MannyIsGod]

I would say that murder is illegal because it violates a persons right to live. Theft? Violation of a persons property rights.

If you want to simplify it, only things that violate anothers rights should be illegal. And that has nothing to do with morality. Morality, in my opinion, has to do with a set of guidelines on how to live; regardless of how specific or broad.

[Guru of Nothing]

Does government have the right to determine when I can be married

Care to elaborate on your use of the word "when?"

[The Ressurrected One]

I would say that murder is illegal because it violates a persons right to live. Theft? Violation of a persons property rights.

If you want to simplify it, only things that violate anothers rights should be illegal. And that has nothing to do with morality. Morality, in my opinion, has to do with a set of guidelines on how to live; regardless of how specific or broad.
Rights are derived from moral distinctions.

From where does your right to life, liberty, and property come?

[RobinsontoDuncan]

The two functions of government are to provide saftey and infrastructure for thier people.

Obviously my right not to be murdered is saftey, but Manny is right 100% in saying that governing "morality" or how I used it was attempting to enforce the basic principles individuals use to live, i.e. religious ideals etc. That's what I'm talking about, and ....

care to tell me the last time you heard a liberal telling you the moral way to live your life? Examples please? Are we the pro-lifers now?

[blaze89]

that among them are the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness

I'm not trying to start something rhetorical debate, just curious on one's opinion.

When a woman is pregnant does she give up certain rights because she is pregnant? Does she lose certain parts of her rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness or does the unborn child/fetus (depending on your point of view) rights (if they have any) outweigh the woman?

[Clandestino]

i have never heard of liberals wanting to enforce morality, or excuse me, what liberals consider morality, bitch.

who are the ones passing the anti-smoking laws?

[RobinsontoDuncan]

to protect the public health? I should be able to walk into a federal builidng without a surgeon's mask to avoid second hand smoke, don't you think?

[mookie2001]

TRO and Clan, years ago yall would have had this arguement; small government, states rights and fiscal responsibility, NOT ANYMORE you bastard neocons

[Clandestino]

to protect the public health? I should be able to walk into a federal builidng without a surgeon's mask to avoid second hand smoke, don't you think?

but they are regulating private businesses...

[Clandestino]

TRO and Clan, years ago yall would have had this arguement; small government, states rights and fiscal responsibility, NOT ANYMORE you bastard neocons
:lmao

[GopherSA]

i have never heard of liberals wanting to enforce morality, or excuse me, what liberals consider morality, bitch.


Ah...there I disagree.

Liberals do enforce their morality. That's where we get welfare, "progressive" taxation and the myriad of social programs currently in place. Morality does not have to be based in religion for it to fit the bill of being a morality-based political program.

Now...as for the "enforcement" of Biblical morality by conservatives, I offer you a question:

What is morality, other than the collective value system of the majority?

The opposition of the conservative political wing to things like gay matrimony, big government and socialized medicine is currently the majority value system in the nation. This majority, albeit a slim one, is the one that has been elected into power. That majority is now fulfilling the promises made to its supporters during the campaigns.

But this is bad, you say!

Really?

That same kind of majority rule has made many advancements in this nation's history. It's through it that we were able to end slavery, gain the women's vote and end the stain of school segregation. There were people opposing this type of majority morality then, too.

This nation makes mistakes from time to time, but -- by and large -- it gets things right. You may disagree with the national direction today and I may disagree with it tomorrow.

But we're free to both disagree and to take steps to move the national ship in the direction we like.

And that, gang, is what makes this the best place on earth to live.

[MannyIsGod]

Ah...there I disagree.

Liberals do enforce their morality. That's where we get welfare, "progressive" taxation and the myriad of social programs currently in place. Morality does not have to be based in religion for it to fit the bill of being a morality-based political program.

I agree that liberals try to impose their morality as much as conservatives do. However, I must say that conservative morality is much more invasisve while liberal morality is much more live and let live.

But either way, I don't want either morality pushed on me.



Now...as for the "enforcement" of Biblical morality by conservatives, I offer you a question:

What is morality, other than the collective value system of the majority?

The opposition of the conservative political wing to things like gay matrimony, big government and socialized medicine is currently the majority value system in the nation. This majority, albeit a slim one, is the one that has been elected into power. That majority is now fulfilling the promises made to its supporters during the campaigns.

But this is bad, you say!

Really?

Yes it's bad. Democracy is not only about the majority ruling. It's about protecting the rights of the minoirty.



That same kind of majority rule has made many advancements in this nation's history. It's through it that we were able to end slavery, gain the women's vote and end the stain of school segregation. There were people opposing this type of majority morality then, too.

I would suggest you read into the actual history of those changes coming about. In every single one of those situations, there wasn't a majority out there clamoring for change. In fact, those situations have much more in common with the current situation surrounding equal rights for homosexuals.

It's about a vocal and active minority who want equal rights and challenge the situation because it is inherently wrong and unequal. Slavery ended by a majority? RIGHT! School Segregation by a majority? HAHAHAHAH!



This nation makes mistakes from time to time, but -- by and large -- it gets things right. You may disagree with the national direction today and I may disagree with it tomorrow.

But we're free to both disagree and to take steps to move the national ship in the direction we like.

And that, gang, is what makes this the best place on earth to live.
Because you can't disagree in other places on earth? I'm sorry, I was fed the lie my whole life and then I discovered there is much of the world that enjoys a larger spectrum of freedom.

Now, I'll sit back and await the obligatory "Why don't you move then?" post.

[desflood]

Actually, I was going to ask you to name all the other places with a "larger spectrum of freedom".

[MannyIsGod]

It really depends on your defention of what is freedom and whether that defention is more economic or social in nature, but here is a lest of countries in the world that are thought to have the largest amount of freedom.

Andorra
Australia
Austria
Bahamas
Barbados
Belgium
Canada
Cape Verde
Chile
Costa Rica
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Denmark
Dominica
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Kiribati
Liechtenstein
Luxembourg
Malta
Marshall Islands
Mauritius
Micronesia
Nauru
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Palau
Poland
Portugal
San Marino
Slovakia
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Tuvalu
United Kingdom
United States
Uruguay


The US is on there, but as are many other countries. Many places - such as the Netherlands - are great about not legislating morality but they tax the hell out of you as well to support many of the social programs in place.

However, personally? I'd rather have someone not telling me who I can marry and what i can smoke. So there are several places on that list that I find much more "free" than the United States.

[MannyIsGod]

In terms of economic freedom, here is a list ranking the countries as well. Once again, the US isn't the number one.

Hong Kong
Singapore
Luxemburg
Estonia
Ireland
New Zealand
United Kingdom
Denmark
Iceland
Australia
Chile
Switzerland
United States
Sweden
Finland
Canada
Netherlands

[MannyIsGod]

The first list is from freedomhouse.org
The second is from http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/countries.cfm

[Clandestino]

yup, europe sucks on taxes.. in germany i paid about 46% income tax.. then 16% VAT, and gas was $4 a gallon!

[mookie2001]

Now, I'll sit back and await the obligatory "Why don't you move then?" post.

no really clan, tro- an "if you dont like this country, you can get out!" would have been a perfect conservative comeback, i guess theyve gotten hackneyed and tired even with yall

[desflood]

So, looking at the lists (impressive, by the way), it's obvious that you're always going to have to give up certain freedoms for others. It all boils down to what else you're willing to give up so nobody can tell you what to smoke, or who to marry.

[MannyIsGod]

So, looking at the lists (impressive, by the way), it's obvious that you're always going to have to give up certain freedoms for others. It all boils down to what else you're willing to give up so nobody can tell you what to smoke, or who to marry.
I don't think it's very obvious at all. I think thats the way it works out at the moment, but why would our economic freedoms be hurt in this country by allowing people to live the way they wanted?

[SpursWoman]

re: those lists

So then, I guess since I don't smoke anything that's illegal (yet, anyway) or have any desire to marry another female, this is the best place for me. :)

[MannyIsGod]

What the best place for you is subject to what you care about, but that doesn't mean you enjoy a larger level of freedom here.

[SpursWoman]

What the best place for you is subject to what you care about, but that doesn't mean you enjoy a larger level of freedom here.


The only place you can be 100% free is on a little island all by yourself. :)

[mookie2001]

The only place you can be 100% free is on a little island all by yourself. :)
free yes
have feedom no

[MannyIsGod]

The only place you can be 100% free is on a little island all by yourself. :)
True. And anarchy is not what I'd want either way; there is a very real and nessecary place for laws. But it's the unessecary restrictions on freedom that I don't like. I don't think striving for a society without unessecary freedom restrictions is a bad goal.

[samikeyp]

Morality, in my opinion, has to do with a set of guidelines on how to live; regardless of how specific or broad.

I would agree with that. Who, do you feel, should establish those guidelines?

[Guru of Nothing]

Does government have the right to determine when I can be married and where? Hell no, the bible has no right to impose on my rights as a private citizen. I'm not gay, and I am a Chrisitian, but I have no friggin right to tell anyone when and where they can be married, and neither does government
Care to elaborate on your use of the word "when?"

Hello....

What restrictions are placed upon people for "when" they can marry, with which you disagree?

[GopherSA]

I agree that liberals try to impose their morality as much as conservatives do. However, I must say that conservative morality is much more invasisve while liberal morality is much more live and let live.

But either way, I don't want either morality pushed on me.


Yes it's bad. Democracy is not only about the majority ruling. It's about protecting the rights of the minoirty.


I would suggest you read into the actual history of those changes coming about. In every single one of those situations, there wasn't a majority out there clamoring for change. In fact, those situations have much more in common with the current situation surrounding equal rights for homosexuals.

It's about a vocal and active minority who want equal rights and challenge the situation because it is inherently wrong and unequal. Slavery ended by a majority? RIGHT! School Segregation by a majority? HAHAHAHAH!


Because you can't disagree in other places on earth? I'm sorry, I was fed the lie my whole life and then I discovered there is much of the world that enjoys a larger spectrum of freedom.

Now, I'll sit back and await the obligatory "Why don't you move then?" post.

More freedom? What kind of freedom? The freedom to tax the citizens to death (Sweden)? The freedom to never have to "pay" for medical care (UK)?

You're right on a democracy.

But we're not a democracy in the US.

We're a republic.

And republics are about majority rule.

[GopherSA]

It really depends on your defention of what is freedom and whether that defention is more economic or social in nature, but here is a lest of countries in the world that are thought to have the largest amount of freedom.

Andorra
Australia
Austria
Bahamas
Barbados
Belgium
Canada
Cape Verde
Chile
Costa Rica
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Denmark
Dominica
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Kiribati
Liechtenstein
Luxembourg
Malta
Marshall Islands
Mauritius
Micronesia
Nauru
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Palau
Poland
Portugal
San Marino
Slovakia
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Tuvalu
United Kingdom
United States
Uruguay


The US is on there, but as are many other countries. Many places - such as the Netherlands - are great about not legislating morality but they tax the hell out of you as well to support many of the social programs in place.

However, personally? I'd rather have someone not telling me who I can marry and what i can smoke. So there are several places on that list that I find much more "free" than the United States.

Source?

Hmmm...Amnesty International? Socialist Workers Front? Moveon.org?

[MannyIsGod]

Freedom from Literacy, apparently

Check the thread again, and you'll see sources. And some of those countries are higher both in economic and social freedoms, so apparently the taxation isn't worse than it is here.

[MannyIsGod]

More freedom? What kind of freedom? The freedom to tax the citizens to death (Sweden)? The freedom to never have to "pay" for medical care (UK)?

You're right on a democracy.

But we're not a democracy in the US.

We're a republic.

And republics are about majority rule.
I see, so we spread democracy around the world but not at home. Don't hit me with a technicality about what type of government we run. If you are dense to not see the protection of the minority writen into our constitution then I'm not going to bother with you any further.

The majority does not always rule. If the majority wanted slavery today it would still be illegal. Why, I wonder?

[exstatic]

Hello....

What restrictions are placed upon people for "when" they can marry, with which you disagree?

Three day waiting period for a blood test?

[GopherSA]

Freedom from Literacy, apparently

Check the thread again, and you'll see sources. And some of those countries are higher both in economic and social freedoms, so apparently the taxation isn't worse than it is here.

You cited no sources in your post, Manny. Why so angry?

[GopherSA]

I see, so we spread democracy around the world but not at home. Don't hit me with a technicality about what type of government we run. If you are dense to not see the protection of the minority writen into our constitution then I'm not going to bother with you any further.

The majority does not always rule. If the majority wanted slavery today it would still be illegal. Why, I wonder?

I'm sorry, I did not mean to be technical with someone who's clearly angry with the US. I'll drop the topic of what kind of government we have in the US. Clearly, the distinction is not something that's within the realm of comprehension for a liberal-leaning person.

[Clandestino]

According to Freedom House the US is one of the best in terms of Civic Power and Electoral Politics.

http://freedomhouse.org/research/freeworld/2005/essay2005.pdf

[MannyIsGod]

I'm sorry, I did not mean to be technical with someone who's clearly angry with the US. I'll drop the topic of what kind of government we have in the US. Clearly, the distinction is not something that's within the realm of comprehension for a liberal-leaning person. Actually, I'm angry with ignorant dolts like yourself who think that we live in a society of majority rule and majority rule alone. Whatever you want to classify our government as, we have a built in system to protect the minority.

Example: Majority wants gay marriage banned and keeps getting bills passed in states. Yet, courts keep overturning these laws.

I'm also tired with the "we live on the best place on earth" line. American's are under the assumption that we live in Disneyland and think that freedom is some extension and privellage granted to you by government. The fact is that government is the main culprit in taking away freedom in any society and this government is no different. Do not take this arguement and turn it into something it is not. I am not saying that I would rather live in an oppressive dictatoriship in some third world country.

What I'm trying to point out is that there is plenty we can learn from other countries who have high levels of freedom that in some ways surpass those of this country. You're attitude is a HUGE problem to me because it is the main culprit in allowing the American people to remain complacent with the society and government they have in place.

Everyone is so busy smoking the American Dream they can't notice how much of what they think we stand for has already been eroded or is in the process of being eroded.

And as for the sources, they are there. Read the thread. And as for being liberal leaning, what is more conservative than smaller government? Your majority rule philosophy is much more liberal than anything I am saying.

[FromWayDowntown]

Whatever you want to classify our government as, we have a built in system to protect the minority.

Example: Majority wants gay marriage banned and keeps getting bills passed in states. Yet, courts keep overturning these laws.

That's one example; others are requirements for supermajorities in some circumstances and allowances for things like filibusters.

If you want the purest example of why we don't live in a nation of majority rule, you need only look at the electoral college and realize that (as has happened before) a candidate can win the Presidency without receiving a majority of the votes cast in the election.

James Madison, who knew a bit more about what the Constitution and this form of government was intended to accomplish, wrote specifically in Federalist No. 51, that the American form of government would ensure that the minority would not be subject to the tyranny of the majority. Somehow, I guess some believe that Madison didn't really know what he was talking about.

And by the way, we have a republican form of government, but it is a representative republic, and actually, a representative democracy. Were this truly a "majority rules" society, there would be little need for Congress except as a rubber stamp for the will of the national majority. I'm sure some are disappointed by this thought, but that was never the way Congress was intended to function.

And then there are those pesky Courts, which shouldn't ever interfere with Congressional lawmaking, even if Congress or a state legislature enacts law that contravenes Constitutional rights, I guess. :rolleyes

[violentkitten]

heres the way to look at it.

personal freedom doesnt mean that we have a free market economy and the government can restrict what you smoke, drink, watch, fuck, and read.

yet also, personal freedom doesnt mean that you can smoke, drink, watch, fuck, and read what you want while the government taxes and regulates the economy to death.