US Governmental Power

1. The government cannot save people from many past decisions, instead the government can protect future people by preventing them from destroying their own lives.

2. I understand that you don't feel the government should step into your life, but there are some things which people can do to harm themselves possibly forever, and allowing the government to slowly help people from stumbling into lifelong mistakes is good. This doesn't mean we need an immediate government response to all issues, and especially not a full removal of such problems. Instead, we should see the government as an opportunity to help people, in a way no one else can.

 

Why should the government impose in my life because joe schmoe was an idiot? I have absolutely no issue with the government stepping in when the action helps all of society, such as increased education policy, policy to help the homeless, health policy, or common sense and respectful gun laws, etc. But it goes too far when the government begins deciding what I can, or cannot say or what I can eat or drink. You are being fairly vague in your statements, can you provide any examples that would fit this criteria?

But remember, the government is not here to guide us, but to serve us.

 

Joe Schmoe can be anyone who does an idiotic thing such as drinking or doing drugs too early. Another thing is that Joe Schoe could be like one of many who buys into useless diets, doesn't think a situation fully through before acting, or doesn't wear a seat belt. Not everyone does all of these things, but many people fit into at least one category. If people feel that not allowing open selling of hard drugs is preventing them from happiness more than destroying their life, then they can communicate to their representatives, which allows all to say what they want while allowing an easy way to properly protect people from easy to make mistakes which could ruin their lives forever.

 

We currently have laws on the books covering these things. Why / How would we implement new legislature that they would follow if they already do not follow the current laws?

We have laws covering seat belts, which I agree with but if joe schmoe is an idiot and eats a bad diet and dies? Well then he failed life, I suppose. I think the entire theory of the weak dying off and the strong surviving is entirely the way that we got to the level of intelligence we have now, why would we restrict a system that clearly works?



Can you provide an example of an area that the government should be involved in, but currently isn't?

 

1. I personally don't know what the best answer about enforcing laws is, but it's something I feel that we can wait before talking about more, as it doesn't affect the current debate.

2. I'm not saying we don't have laws and need them immediately, but that we shouldn't take away our current ones so we can continue to improve lives with better protections later.

3. Allowing the weak to die isn't really that moral. It goes like this: should we help people with deadly genetic diseases die off? What about those who dumbly stepped into a road without looking? People may not be the smartest or the strongest, but telling people that you won't help them because they have traits you dislike is horrible.

4. The current system is about protecting people. That's why there are regulations in school cafeteria food, on food labels, and in regards to drugs and medication.

5. The government is involved in so many areas, but out of personal opinion, I think the government should find a way to offer better financial security. This is just opinion and the government already has some work in the area as the US already works to stop people from being in bad situations in many areas.

 

They should get the healthcare they deserve and pass peacefully.

They failed at life, unfortunately.

Nature has never once been moral or ethic, it just is, and we exist inside that system.

Sure, these things benefit society. It's not an all or nothing issue.




I'm still confused on what this debate is. Like I don't get your position and it doesn't match what our government currently does?

 

I would like to just say that usually, governments with two little power are easier and less costly to overthrow+replace it than if it were a government with to much power.

Think of governments with too much power in modern times:
Nazi Germany (Combo with others in axis, responsible for 60 million dead)
Fascist Italy (Axis)
Imperial Japan (Axis)
Soviet Union (8-9 million)
Communist China [Under Mao] (49-78 million)
North Korea (Best guess 1.5 million)
Total this all up to 118.5-148.5 million deaths in about 50 years...

Governments with too little power can be deadly too, usually only if there are a bunch of smaller factions trying to seize power. All in all, it's better to err on the side of less power than more.

 

On the other hand, if governments have too little power, you get a ton of infighting and no progress actually is made. Consider the US Government under the Articles of Confederation. Every state wanted to do its own thing, and everybody wanted to do everything differently, and nothing actually happened besides a bunch of petty squabbling.

 

They can, but its NOT THERE JOB.

Nope, thats what humanitarian organizations are for.

This is actually great.

 

1. It is the government's job to do as the people ask of them, so the people decide what the government's job is.

2. Neither the government nor humanitarian organizations can save many people from past mistakes. Helping people by removing dangers is important.

a) If you truly believe the government should take no steps in protecting its people past outlined rights, education, courts, and regulations against lies, then many great protections are lost. The government then has no right to regulate safety of cars, planes, and roads. No need for social security. Harmful drugs would have no regulations. There would be no reason for doctors to have to receive a degree, at least, not according to the government. No need to reduce CO2 emissions either. These are important things you want removed.

 

I don't think anyone here is arguing that it's an all or nothing issue. The issue is grey and some of us are arguing that the government intervening in a societal level to some degrees is ok, but it's not ok for the government to say I can't smoke tobacco, or drink pop, etc.

 

Nope.
If you suck at life, the government shouldn't make the world walk on eggshells so that way there are no dangers to you.

Nope, because those things you listed lead to other people killing or otherwise harming me.
If something the government does leads to other people not being able to infringe my rights, go for it.
If something the government does leads to me not being able to harm myself, chug off.

 

A big issue I think we're having @SuperDyl is that there isn't anything specific you're saying. Can you give any specific examples to a hypothetical situation where you think the government should get involved, that it's currently not? Can you give a specific example to what you mean by a government removing dangers?

 

1. I don't have much of what I think the government should regulate which the government doesn't already, I can't give examples of this.

2. When I speak of the government removing dangers, I am referring to things such as regulations on drugs, which have the effects of destroying some people's abilities to work and live a good quality of life.

3. I don't understand this statement practically at all. An explanation would be appreciated.

4. I'd like some examples of places where the government "infringes" on your rights in a way which doesn't harm others in some way. All examples I can imagine you explain away as things the government should do. I seem to not understand what regulations the government has which people feel is the government nosing into their personal lives.

 

Making acid illegal.
There are others, but they are disputable, because you think weeds secondhand smoke is dangerous and stuff. Acid is a pill, and it solely can hurt the users.

 

1. I was a little ignorant in the subject, so I had to do some research. Here's a link to an article about acid: Watch Truth About Drugs Documentary Video & Learn About Substance Addiction. Get The Facts About Painkillers, Marijuana, Cocaine, Meth & Other Illegal Drugs. . I'll go through my thoughts.

a) Here's some dangers of acid. It is recklessly dangerous. There's the potential for a person to become addicted for many years, have psychological issues, or die because of the drug. This is a seriously idiotic thing to do. Acid can be easily overdosed and creates hallucinations and removes logical thinking, to the point that the user can move into ridiculously dangerous situations. The user can also experience extreme terror triggered by the drug, which can psychological impact the user for their entire life.

b) This situation still harms others. By the definitions used to describe what counts as the government's jurisdiction to act for the protection of people's rights, no example has been found of which the government has no right to do something about. A person using acid can easily directly place themselves in situations where others could become harmed. Acid doesn't restrict body movement, it instead creates hallucinations while removing logical thinking. People could easily become hurt by someone using acid from the hallucinations by moving into dangerous places or doing dangerous activities. Also, the harm to themselves could easily lead to death, which hurts family and friends emotionally. Families could even lose working individuals, which would also hurt the family's ability to make needed money for survival.

c) Not doing something to prevent someone from a high addiction to a dangerous drug with permanent effects psychologicaly and possibly physically (from the dangerous situations people could easily get into), is a terrible thing to do when something can be done to help the person. A person's life can be harmed forever, and standing there is good? The government is the best chance we have to protect these people harming their future selves. The government is there to protect its people, and hoping everyone will just see something horrible for what it is just doesn't work. The government can't agree on anything themselves, and society has just as hard of a time.

 

so? doesn't hurt anyone else.

You are responsible for your actions, if a drug influences your actions, there still your actions. The government can penalize bad actions that infringe on rights. Also, if your family is depending on you and you become a degenerate, your a ****, but again, you have the right to do so.

 

1. Acid doesn't harm others directly, but it can easily lead to the user becoming seriously injured or dying. Family and friends are then hurt.

2. The actions of someone under drugs are still their actions, that is true.

3. A person under the affects of acid cannot logically think and is hallucinating, making it impossible for them to decide anything. This is a state which openly creates situations the person can create harm.

4. The person still is harming their own future by creating high possibilities of addictions, psychological problems, and possible injury.

 

Punish them for harming people then !

So you concede?

doesn't matter, literally does not matter if someone decides to harm themselves. Right now we are trying to establish if (specifically) an individual using acid directly harms others.

 

Ahh, the old tyranny of the majority. Gotta love it.

Best Solution: Don't go on an acid trip, kids!