Protections VS restrictions

Discussion in 'Politics' started by ihopehefails, Mar 10, 2010.

  1. ihopehefails
    Offline

    ihopehefails BANNED

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2009
    Messages:
    3,384
    Thanks Received:
    228
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +228
    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...
     
    Last edited: Mar 10, 2010
  2. antagon
    Offline

    antagon The Man

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2009
    Messages:
    3,572
    Thanks Received:
    285
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +286
    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.
     
  3. sparky
    Offline

    sparky VIP Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2008
    Messages:
    3,327
    Thanks Received:
    324
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    paradise
    Ratings:
    +341
    doesn't good government provide for the maximum freedoms with the least restrictions?
     
  4. Dr Gregg
    Offline

    Dr Gregg BANNED

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2010
    Messages:
    2,901
    Thanks Received:
    198
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +200
    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
     
  5. antagon
    Offline

    antagon The Man

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2009
    Messages:
    3,572
    Thanks Received:
    285
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +286
    no.
     
  6. The Rabbi
    Offline

    The Rabbi Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2009
    Messages:
    67,620
    Thanks Received:
    7,821
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Nashville
    Ratings:
    +18,215
    It was Bush's fault.
     
  7. ihopehefails
    Offline

    ihopehefails BANNED

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2009
    Messages:
    3,384
    Thanks Received:
    228
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +228
    I actually find myself agreeing with this.
     
  8. ihopehefails
    Offline

    ihopehefails BANNED

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2009
    Messages:
    3,384
    Thanks Received:
    228
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +228
    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.
     
    Last edited: Mar 11, 2010
  9. RetiredGySgt
    Offline

    RetiredGySgt Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    39,574
    Thanks Received:
    5,902
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +8,989
    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.
     
  10. ihopehefails
    Offline

    ihopehefails BANNED

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2009
    Messages:
    3,384
    Thanks Received:
    228
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +228
    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.
     

Share This Page