How Much Should The Government Be Involved With The Way We Live Our Lives?

[ChristisKing]

This was a part of a discussion that I had today and I thought that it would be a great idea for a thread. The first main point is abortion. I find it to be murder for the most part with some exceptions like a child being raped and impregnated and the life of the mother if there's no way to save both the woman and child (as in the child is going to die anyways) but not murdering your child should just be common sense and it's sad that it isn't and that we have to have a law about it.


The second thing that we talked about are seatbelts. I think that it's stupid for somebody to deliberately choose not to wear a seatbelt but even dumber that we have to have a law about it sense again people don't use common sense. If they even have any to begin with that is.



The third topic is marriage and this is a really big problem for somebody like me who has SSI and my fiancee who has been trying to get on it for a long time now because of the marriage penalty law which is why we're still not married yet. Which I don't think should be the government's business at all.



For the first example I see why we have to have laws about it because we can't trust people to make the right decision but for the second and third example I really think are things that the government has absolutely no business being involved in. To me there's a fine line of laws that we actually need and laws just to make laws.

 

[Darkwind]

For the first example I see why we have to have laws about it because we can't trust people to make the right decision but for the second and third example I really think are things that the government has absolutely no business being involved in. To me there's a fine line of laws that we actually need and laws just to make laws.

So you think that the role of government is to act as a nanny because we are too stupid to understand the risks we take?

 

[ChristisKing]

So you think that the role of government is to act as a nanny because we are too stupid to understand the risks we take?

Pretty much. I'm not saying that you are that stupid but why else would they have seatbelt laws? With the exception of children that has no affect on other people if you die in an accident because you fly through the window and die. I guess that there's a chance your body could always hit somebody else though.

 

[Darkwind]

Pretty much. I'm not saying that you are that stupid but why else would they have seatbelt laws? With the exception of children that has no affect on other people if you die in an accident because you fly through the window and die. I guess that there's a chance your body could always hit somebody else though.

It could be possible that individuals, exercising their liberty as a free citizen, have decided that the risk isn't as great as the government thinks, or that in THEIR situation, they are better judges of what the risks are.

That is the problem with big centralized government.

Not everything fits in their one-size-fits-all mentality.

 

[ChristisKing]

It could be possible that individuals, exercising their liberty as a free citizen, have decided that the risk isn't as great as the government thinks, or that in THEIR situation, they are better judges of what the risks are.

That is the problem with big centralized government.

Not everything fits in their one-size-fits-all mentality.

Oh, so in other words we apparently think alike.

 

[toobfreak]

How Much Should The Government Be Involved With The Way We Live Our Lives?​

Nearly invisible, other than insuring our safety and sovereignty, and insuring my bicycle license is up to date.

The other 98% of all the gov has interjected itself into is patently ILLEGAL and UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

 

[Darkwind]

Oh, so in other words we apparently think alike.

Not in this.

I don't think that the government has the right or authority to tell us what's good for us and how we should behave unless we are breaking some kind of moral law, like killing people and children and other type similar value systems that used to be universal.

Now, who knows what is considered a universal moral system with the left?

 

[ChristisKing]

I don't think that the government has the right or authority to tell us what's good for us and how we should behave unless we are breaking some kind of moral law, like killing people and children and other type similar value systems that used to be universal.

Actually that's exactly what I'm saying.

 

[ChristisKing]

So you think that the role of government is to act as a nanny because we are too stupid to understand the risks we take?

I see where the misunderstanding came from. This is the current role of the government, but I don't think that it should be.

 

[Oddball]

 

[ChristisKing]

View attachment 1253214

LOL!! Again, I think that we still need some government (my SSI comes from the government) but right now I think that we just have too much of it.

 

[Robert W]

This was a part of a discussion that I had today and I thought that it would be a great idea for a thread. The first main point is abortion. I find it to be murder for the most part with some exceptions like a child being raped and impregnated and the life of the mother if there's no way to save both the woman and child (as in the child is going to die anyways) but not murdering your child should just be common sense and it's sad that it isn't and that we have to have a law about it.


The second thing that we talked about are seatbelts. I think that it's stupid for somebody to deliberately choose not to wear a seatbelt but even dumber that we have to have a law about it sense again people don't use common sense. If they even have any to begin with that is.



The third topic is marriage and this is a really big problem for somebody like me who has SSI and my fiancee who has been trying to get on it for a long time now because of the marriage penalty law which is why we're still not married yet. Which I don't think should be the government's business at all.



For the first example I see why we have to have laws about it because we can't trust people to make the right decision but for the second and third example I really think are things that the government has absolutely no business being involved in. To me there's a fine line of laws that we actually need and laws just to make laws.

Send your discussion to the proper place in the current administration since Trump is devoted to removing hundreds of useless laws for every new one put in place.

 

[Oddball]

LOL!! Again, I think that we still need some government (my SSI comes from the government) but right now I think that we just have too much of it.

We have too much of it because it will never ever stay in its box.

 

[JustAnotherNut]

Pretty much. I'm not saying that you are that stupid but why else would they have seatbelt laws? With the exception of children that has no affect on other people if you die in an accident because you fly through the window and die. I guess that there's a chance your body could always hit somebody else though.

There wasn't always seat belt laws that mandated how many people could ride in a vehicle (1 seatbelt=1 person), and people would cram into a car and off they go........if they got in a wreck it didn't just kill the driver, but also any passengers and possibly those in other vehicles as well.

Not to mention those who would load up the back of a pickup truck and drive to the next party......and drinking & driving and numerous other 'fun happenings' that have become 'against the law'


Yes, basically we are too stupid to use common sense when involved in those activities and need government intervention to remind us there are safer ways