Protections VS restrictions

[ihopehefails]

I'm beginning to have an idea that laws that restrict are a violation of our freedom such as laws restricting us from stealing. This is a violation of our freedom but laws that protect us protects us from theft. Its a very minute difference since any law that protects us will be a restriction against someone else but restrictions turn our government into our master while protections turn it into our savior. A government that protects will stand between me and the murdererer, theif, and kidnapper and protect my life, liberty, and property while a government that restricts is capable of taking away my life, liberty, and property.

discuss...

 

[antagon]

depending on the mentality of the citizen, the government could range from always there, dictating your freedoms, protecting them and constricting them, or hardly there at all. my perspective is bent toward the latter. in that dark-alley showdown, its me, the murderous thief and my baby 1911. uncle sam is not an omnipresent care taker or omniscient big brother... for me... not when its life or death.

 

[sparky]

doesn't good government provide for the maximum freedoms with the least restrictions?

 

[Dr Gregg]

I think the key is that your freedom can't infringe on other people's freedoms. Many of hte laws that protect people from themselves, in which their actions don't infringe on other people's rights and freedoms are bullshit

 

[antagon]

doesn't good government provide for the maximum freedoms with the least restrictions?

no.

 

[The Rabbi]

It was Bush's fault.

 

[ihopehefails]

I think the key is that your freedom can't infringe on other people's freedoms. Many of hte laws that protect people from themselves, in which their actions don't infringe on other people's rights and freedoms are bullshit

I actually find myself agreeing with this.

 

[ihopehefails]

depending on the mentality of the citizen, the government could range from always there, dictating your freedoms, protecting them and constricting them, or hardly there at all. my perspective is bent toward the latter. in that dark-alley showdown, its me, the murderous thief and my baby 1911. uncle sam is not an omnipresent care taker or omniscient big brother... for me... not when its life or death.

I am beginning to believe that Uncle Sam should protect me from the thieves and murderers instead of directing me in my positive actions. When he is not restricting my positive actions (whatever that is) he has a negative role in my life which is the way I want it. In other words, government is for the people who sit in jail because they can't behave. its not for good people who know how to behave in society.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

doesn't good government provide for the maximum freedoms with the least restrictions?

Not necessarily. Depends on what one considers good Government. If you were to ask a current Generation Liberal that question they would disagree stating that Government should do all sorts of things, the latest being to force you to buy Health Care Insurance.

An Anarchist would agree with you. There are always going to be some restrictions that are for the betterment of the whole while restricting the individual.

The ops question makes little sense. If a Government does not make laws making theft illegal then it can NOT make laws protecting you from theft. Though our Libertarian buddies might disagree, arguing that if one is robbed they have recourse to sue the thief.

The only way a Government can protect an individual from other individuals is to make laws that restrict individuals in some manner. You can not have the protection with out the restriction.

 

[ihopehefails]

doesn't good government provide for the maximum freedoms with the least restrictions?

Not necessarily. Depends on what one considers good Government. If you were to ask a current Generation Liberal that question they would disagree stating that Government should do all sorts of things, the latest being to force you to buy Health Care Insurance.

An Anarchist would agree with you. There are always going to be some restrictions that are for the betterment of the whole while restricting the individual.

The ops question makes little sense. If a Government does not make laws making theft illegal then it can NOT make laws protecting you from theft. Though our Libertarian buddies might disagree, arguing that if one is robbed they have recourse to sue the thief.

The only way a Government can protect an individual from other individuals is to make laws that restrict individuals in some manner. You can not have the protection with out the restriction.

I see what you are saying is that you can't have protections without restrictions but if we gave the government the power to restrict then their are no limits to how much it can restrict us and at that point it becomes master.

On the other hand, protections forces the government to restrict others from harming me and become a wall between me and others who wish to violate my space. This places limits on how much it can restrict my behavior because it can only restrict me when I violate someone else's protections and vice-versa. In this scenario, Uncle Sam protects my free space as well as everyone elses.

 

[antagon]

depending on the mentality of the citizen, the government could range from always there, dictating your freedoms, protecting them and constricting them, or hardly there at all. my perspective is bent toward the latter. in that dark-alley showdown, its me, the murderous thief and my baby 1911. uncle sam is not an omnipresent care taker or omniscient big brother... for me... not when its life or death.

I am beginning to believe that Uncle Sam should protect me from the thieves and murderers instead of directing me in my positive actions. When he is not restricting my positive actions (whatever that is) he has a negative role in my life which is the way I want it. In other words, government is for the people who sit in jail because they can't behave. its not for good people who know how to behave in society.

im ok with that. you cant run a society without police. there is a problem, a duress of real freedom, that is in line with what i think the general thrust of your OP was:

every local election seems to have some guy who will put more cops on the street or who is tough on crime, etc. because people are so eager to surrender the responsibility of their personal protection to the state, these candidates have a high-ground which often time grants them the win. on a local and federal level, lawmakers make laws by the thousands every year nationwide. most citizens see all of this as a reinforcement of their moral position as law abiding and support all of this.

how often do police get laid off en masse? do lawmakers repeal thousands of laws each year? increasingly, citizens who endorse the expansion of law enforcement have relinquished their ability to deal with neighborhood and family issues to the police. cops are like baby sitters for many americans who love dialing 911. sure i am a law abiding if not model citizen, but i hate having the MAN in my rear-view all the time because of this trend.

 

[sparky]

doesn't good government provide for the maximum freedoms with the least restrictions?

Not necessarily. Depends on what one considers good Government. If you were to ask a current Generation Liberal that question they would disagree stating that Government should do all sorts of things, the latest being to force you to buy Health Care Insurance.

An Anarchist would agree with you. There are always going to be some restrictions that are for the betterment of the whole while restricting the individual.

The ops question makes little sense. If a Government does not make laws making theft illegal then it can NOT make laws protecting you from theft. Though our Libertarian buddies might disagree, arguing that if one is robbed they have recourse to sue the thief.

The only way a Government can protect an individual from other individuals is to make laws that restrict individuals in some manner. You can not have the protection with out the restriction.

then this becomes a balancing act of sorts, does it not Sarge?

i think i recall some past ditty about people who want freedom and security deserving of niether

 

[editec]

ANY law that prevents another from infringing on another person's freedoms is slavery.

Just ask any Mafia Don or sociopthic personality, and I'm sure he'll agree.

If you're not FREE to kill whomsoever you choose, you are not truly free.

Total freedom is not something most of us want others to have.

But somehow we think that any infringement on our ability to decide what we can do, now THAT some of us are now calling slavery by government.

 

[Dr Gregg]

whooips post

 

[beowolfe]

depending on the mentality of the citizen, the government could range from always there, dictating your freedoms, protecting them and constricting them, or hardly there at all. my perspective is bent toward the latter. in that dark-alley showdown, its me, the murderous thief and my baby 1911. uncle sam is not an omnipresent care taker or omniscient big brother... for me... not when its life or death.

I am beginning to believe that Uncle Sam should protect me from the thieves and murderers instead of directing me in my positive actions. When he is not restricting my positive actions (whatever that is) he has a negative role in my life which is the way I want it. In other words, government is for the people who sit in jail because they can't behave. its not for good people who know how to behave in society.

You can't believe that government is only for criminals. Did you forget the military is government. The national guard is government. The people who make sure your food doesn't kill you are government. The people who build and maintain your roads are governemt. The people who build and maintain airports are government. NASA and all of their discoveries are government.

 

[beowolfe]

doesn't good government provide for the maximum freedoms with the least restrictions?

Not necessarily. Depends on what one considers good Government. If you were to ask a current Generation Liberal that question they would disagree stating that Government should do all sorts of things, the latest being to force you to buy Health Care Insurance.

An Anarchist would agree with you. There are always going to be some restrictions that are for the betterment of the whole while restricting the individual.

The ops question makes little sense. If a Government does not make laws making theft illegal then it can NOT make laws protecting you from theft. Though our Libertarian buddies might disagree, arguing that if one is robbed they have recourse to sue the thief.

The only way a Government can protect an individual from other individuals is to make laws that restrict individuals in some manner. You can not have the protection with out the restriction.

then this becomes a balancing act of sorts, does it not Sarge?

i think i recall some past ditty about people who want freedom and security deserving of niether

It was people willing to sacrafice their freedom(s) for security will have neither.

 

[ihopehefails]

depending on the mentality of the citizen, the government could range from always there, dictating your freedoms, protecting them and constricting them, or hardly there at all. my perspective is bent toward the latter. in that dark-alley showdown, its me, the murderous thief and my baby 1911. uncle sam is not an omnipresent care taker or omniscient big brother... for me... not when its life or death.

I am beginning to believe that Uncle Sam should protect me from the thieves and murderers instead of directing me in my positive actions. When he is not restricting my positive actions (whatever that is) he has a negative role in my life which is the way I want it. In other words, government is for the people who sit in jail because they can't behave. its not for good people who know how to behave in society.

im ok with that. you cant run a society without police. there is a problem, a duress of real freedom, that is in line with what i think the general thrust of your OP was:

every local election seems to have some guy who will put more cops on the street or who is tough on crime, etc. because people are so eager to surrender the responsibility of their personal protection to the state, these candidates have a high-ground which often time grants them the win. on a local and federal level, lawmakers make laws by the thousands every year nationwide. most citizens see all of this as a reinforcement of their moral position as law abiding and support all of this.

how often do police get laid off en masse? do lawmakers repeal thousands of laws each year? increasingly, citizens who endorse the expansion of law enforcement have relinquished their ability to deal with neighborhood and family issues to the police. cops are like baby sitters for many americans who love dialing 911. sure i am a law abiding if not model citizen:razz:, but i hate having the MAN in my rear-view all the time because of this trend.

Does being a model citizen mean law-abiding? This is where I disagree with you. Law-abiding should not make us model citizens since a law could forbid us from helping those in need such as was done during NAZI Germany. Good citizens were people who obeyed the law but did that really make them good people in that case?

I think that being a good citizen should mean not harming other people and following a moral code that allows you to interact with others without harming them which is independent of any government law. The government then should protect us from those who can not do this which is why government is for the criminals in society.

 

[ihopehefails]

depending on the mentality of the citizen, the government could range from always there, dictating your freedoms, protecting them and constricting them, or hardly there at all. my perspective is bent toward the latter. in that dark-alley showdown, its me, the murderous thief and my baby 1911. uncle sam is not an omnipresent care taker or omniscient big brother... for me... not when its life or death.

I am beginning to believe that Uncle Sam should protect me from the thieves and murderers instead of directing me in my positive actions. When he is not restricting my positive actions (whatever that is) he has a negative role in my life which is the way I want it. In other words, government is for the people who sit in jail because they can't behave. its not for good people who know how to behave in society.

You can't believe that government is only for criminals. Did you forget the military is government. The national guard is government. The people who make sure your food doesn't kill you are government. The people who build and maintain your roads are governemt. The people who build and maintain airports are government. NASA and all of their discoveries are government.

Military protects us from foreign invaders and food laws that prevent poisoning will also fall under protection.

Roads, NASA, really don't but they don't infringe on my freedom so I don't mind.

 

[ihopehefails]

ANY law that prevents another from infringing on another person's freedoms is slavery.

Just ask any Mafia Don or sociopthic personality, and I'm sure he'll agree.

If you're not FREE to kill whomsoever you choose, you are not truly free.

Total freedom is not something most of us want others to have.

But somehow we think that any infringement on our ability to decide what we can do, now THAT some of us are now calling slavery by government.

What else do you call it when some people have decided to tell us what to do and we are legally responsible to do so?

The freedom to kill is just a right to die argument that 'liberals' have been making for years about the terminally ill but now you call it murder? See, when you decide to take the life of another with their permission no one's freedom was being violated as in assisted suicide (which I find deeply immoral) but when the intended target does not want to be killed then it becomes a violation of someone's freedom to live which cancels out the murderer's freedom to kill.