Why do you want more government in your life?

[SuMar]

I have the freedom to choose what I want to do.

I would like the freedom to choose where my tax dollars go. Just sayin'....I guess it's that "big government" in action.

You have that freedom in your vote. Except for two things: #1, campaigns are all lies. #2: the lies don't matter because partisans (aka the people who get out to vote) tow party lines regardless.

Your examples in #1 & #2 just proved my point.

 

[G.T.]

I would like the freedom to choose where my tax dollars go. Just sayin'....I guess it's that "big government" in action.

You have that freedom in your vote. Except for two things: #1, campaigns are all lies. #2: the lies don't matter because partisans (aka the people who get out to vote) tow party lines regardless.

Your examples in #1 & #2 just proved my point.

All that they prove is that Politics throughout History are a perpetual failure. There's been no sucessful system in-terms of Great longevity and prosperity.

Give "the people" the power, or "the rope," they hang themselves with it. Give the State the power, they abuse it.

 

[midcan5]

I just want to know why? Why don't you want more freedom to choose what you want to do?

Do you really think government will do everything better than you would?

I just don't get it.

Maybe it's just me but I have no idea what the question means. I have freedom to do anything I want today so who is the big bad ogre? Maybe the monster trying to take my 'freedom' doesn't live in my neighborhood?


"Where freedom is real, equality is the passion of the masses. Where equality is real, freedom is the passion of a small minority." Eric Hoffer



"The unity of Government, which constitutes you one people, is also now dear to you. It is justly so; for it is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquillity at home, your peace abroad; of your safety; of your prosperity; of that very Liberty, which you so highly prize. But as it is easy to foresee, that, from different causes and from different quarters, much pains will be taken, many artifices employed, to weaken in your minds the conviction of this truth; as this is the point in your political fortress against which the batteries of internal and external enemies will be most constantly and actively (though often covertly and insidiously) directed, it is of infinite moment, that you should properly estimate the immense value of your national Union to your collective and individual happiness; that you should cherish a cordial, habitual, and immovable attachment to it; accustoming yourselves to think and speak of it as of the Palladium of your political safety and prosperity; watching for its preservation with jealous anxiety; discountenancing whatever may suggest even a suspicion, that it can in any event be abandoned; and indignantly frowning upon the first dawning of every attempt to alienate any portion of our country from the rest, or to enfeeble the sacred ties which now link together the various parts." Quote DB :: Speeches :: George Washington :: George Washington's Farewell Address Speech

 

[Munin]

Everytime people here call for more REGULATION they are actually calling for more government whther they understand it or not.

Government is way out of control as it is, we don't need more of it, we need less.

For example, say you live in a big city. You have reps from your district, your city, your county, your state, and that isn't even all the feds. Layer upon layer of mindless bureaucracy that wastes a fortune doing absolutely nothing.

Bureaucracy is only 1 aspect of government, this does not mean that it can not improve. You shouldn't use the generalisation "government" to make your point, your point is that the bureacracy is out of controll and that it is inefficient. You should vote for government officials that make it more efficient to solve this problem (people who want less layers of government), not blame all governments on this planet.

Let s assume you could live in a city where you would have less layers of government (only the most essential layers of government), then you would not have this kind of problem. What you re doing is blaming all possible governments for what 1 specific government does wrong.

As I said, I think you can have a good government. All you need is good people to fill it (who want to do more than only want to fill their own pockets).

 

[Ringel05]

I just want to know why? Why don't you want more freedom to choose what you want to do?

Do you really think government will do everything better than you would?

I just don't get it.

I don't think it s good/smart to just say that government in general is good or bad. It would be saying that an apple in general is bad before eating the specific apple and knowing what it tastes like, some apples are bad and others are good: this is not much different with governments. (srry for the very simple explaination, it s just the first comparison that came to my mind )


The fact of the matter is that governments have brought us to where we are today, wether we like it or not. For centuries governments have ruled us and provided us wealth and prosperity, but also have caused us harm (by waging wars, corruption, ...). Like many other things government is like a tool that can be used for 2 things: to harm or to protect/improve.

So to say in general that government is bad would be an ignorant and stupid comment. In the same way you can not say that a government is good to solve everything.


What you re also ignoring is that governments can also provide individuals with freedom instead of denying it to them, a government can make it so by creating laws that enable this situation were people can be able to do things freely (free speech, freedom of expression, ...). A government provides you a safe society to live in: a police force and a military that protect your rights and freedom.

It will help you when you are in serious trouble: if a natural disaster happens, you or your family are being assaulted by another person for no good reason, it will provide your society with the means to increase your freedom of movement (roads, bridges, airports, canals, railroads, ...), ...

Unlike in an anarchy (place with no government), were people can be also "free" but not in the same way: they can be oppressed by others who use violence to achieve what they want.



If you look at all the civilications of the past, you ll notice that all of them were ruled by governments and in certain cases more government was good. Look at how the roman empire improved by implementing more laws and rules (over the centuries).

I m assuming with freedom you mean a gov that keeps making more laws and regulations that restrict how people can behave: It s just wrong to assume that rules and the institution that makes them are always bad, it s like having a sport with no rules. I know at first it can be fun to do, but after a while you would like to do a sport in a more efficient way. That s why certain rules in a sport game are good to improve the game, but if 1 rule is bad then it does not mean you should ban the institution that made the rules: you should figure out a way to ban the bad rule (elect new people that would ban the bad rule).


So the irony of your assumption may be that the reason for your freedom is the government.

I want to make sure I'm reading this correctly. The government, not the constitution, gives us our freedoms?

 

[Munin]

You have that freedom in your vote. Except for two things: #1, campaigns are all lies. #2: the lies don't matter because partisans (aka the people who get out to vote) tow party lines regardless.

True, but within parties you do have something you can call "independant" elections. Only problem is that these 2 massive parties in the US is that they are incredibly influenced by outside lobbies from BIG private corporations.

 

[G.T.]

You have that freedom in your vote. Except for two things: #1, campaigns are all lies. #2: the lies don't matter because partisans (aka the people who get out to vote) tow party lines regardless.

True, but within parties you do have something you can call "independant" elections. Only problem is that these 2 massive parties that the US has are incredibly influenced by outside lobbies from BIG private corporations.

Which brings Capitalism full circle. Money is power. Bigger Government may seem anti-Capitalist, but in reality Capitalist lobbyists are pulling the puppet strings. A wonderful time-bomb we've got going on. I-heart-it.

 

[Munin]

I want to make sure I'm reading this correctly. The government, not the constitution, gives us our freedoms?

Yes, since the US GOVERNMENT(s) wrote and signed the constitution. And the US governments also makes sure you get your rights, because without the government protecting and executing what is in the constitution (and I m sorry to put it this way): the constitution would just be a piece of paper.

 

[Ringel05]

You have that freedom in your vote. Except for two things: #1, campaigns are all lies. #2: the lies don't matter because partisans (aka the people who get out to vote) tow party lines regardless.

True, but within parties you do have something you can call "independant" elections. Only problem is that these 2 massive parties that the US has are incredibly influenced by outside lobbies from BIG private corporations.

Don't forget the large consortiums representing masses of individuals. The NEA, NRA, union lobbies, etc.

 

[Munin]

You have that freedom in your vote. Except for two things: #1, campaigns are all lies. #2: the lies don't matter because partisans (aka the people who get out to vote) tow party lines regardless.

True, but within parties you do have something you can call "independant" elections. Only problem is that these 2 massive parties that the US has are incredibly influenced by outside lobbies from BIG private corporations.

Don't forget the large consortiums representing masses of individuals. The NEA, NRA, union lobbies, etc.

Also true, I forgot those. But I don't think they compare with the scale of the funds that the big corp can put forward.

 

[The Rabbi]

Who do you think wants more government in their lives?

People just like this lady:
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P36x8rTb3jI]YouTube - Obama Is Going To Pay For My Gas And Mortgage!!![/ame]

 

[Ringel05]

True, but within parties you do have something you can call "independant" elections. Only problem is that these 2 massive parties that the US has are incredibly influenced by outside lobbies from BIG private corporations.

Don't forget the large consortiums representing masses of individuals. The NEA, NRA, union lobbies, etc.

Also true, I forgot those. But I don't think they compare with the scale of the funds that the big corp can put forward.

You'd be surprised.

 

[Ringel05]

I want to make sure I'm reading this correctly. The government, not the constitution, gives us our freedoms?

Yes, since the 1st US GOVERNMENT wrote and signed the constitution. And the governments makes sure you get your rights, because without the government protecting and executing what is in the constitution (and I m sorry to put it this way): the constitution would just be a piece of paper.

Here's where I STRONGLY disagree with you. The government did not write and sign the constitution, individuals selected by the representative colonies did - the constitutional convention. (we did not have a true federal government at the time). The constitution does not tell you what rights you have it only confirms what rights are inalienable and tells the government where the line is concerning these rights. I.e, the constitution is the guideline for government and it's it's responsibility to the the citizens and our God given rights.

 

[The Rabbi]

So where did these rights come from and who decided that?

 

[Munin]

I want to make sure I'm reading this correctly. The government, not the constitution, gives us our freedoms?

Yes, since the 1st US GOVERNMENT wrote and signed the constitution. And the governments makes sure you get your rights, because without the government protecting and executing what is in the constitution (and I m sorry to put it this way): the constitution would just be a piece of paper.

Here's where I STRONGLY disagree with you. The government did not write and sign the constitution, individuals selected by the representative colonies did - the constitutional convention. (we did not have a true federal government at the time). The constitution does not tell you what rights you have it only confirms what rights are inalienable and tells the government where the line is concerning these rights. I.e, the constitution is the guideline for government and it's it's responsibility to the the citizens and our God given rights.

They re not GOD given rights (constitution is "secular").

And I m sorry, but if the constitution does not tell you what rights you have then I really don't know what does it for you.

And I also strongly disagree on this: "the constitution is the guideline for government and it's it's responsibility to the the citizens"

individuals selected by the representative colonies did

Represantives of the colonies, so people who represent the people from the colonies and can act on their behalf? That s called a government. Even if it is a non-official one: below you see the signatures state-representatives who represent their States (Delaware, ... ) and the signature of the FIRST US PRESIDENT (George Washington). And if I m not wrong: a president represents something that is called a government (head of government + head of state).

 

[Ringel05]

So where did these rights come from and who decided that?

It was a clear delineation based on the Declaration of Independence phrase "We hold these truths to be self evident".
The constitution was constructed, debated, amended then finally ratified by the individual states (state in this instance meaning independent countries associated under what was a loose confederation).
The Constitution wasn't ratified until June 21, 1788 when, finally, all the states accepted the definition and separation of power between what became the federal government and each state.

 

[DiamondDave]

Who do you think wants more government in their lives?

When you call for and support the expansion of government into more and more aspects of life, you are indeed CALLING FOR more government IN your life

So perhaps YOU should answer the OP's question.

Funny... thought it was pretty evident that I want smaller government and hence less government in my life

 

[Ringel05]

Yes, since the 1st US GOVERNMENT wrote and signed the constitution. And the governments makes sure you get your rights, because without the government protecting and executing what is in the constitution (and I m sorry to put it this way): the constitution would just be a piece of paper.

Here's where I STRONGLY disagree with you. The government did not write and sign the constitution, individuals selected by the representative colonies did - the constitutional convention. (we did not have a true federal government at the time). The constitution does not tell you what rights you have it only confirms what rights are inalienable and tells the government where the line is concerning these rights. I.e, the constitution is the guideline for government and it's it's responsibility to the the citizens and our God given rights.

They re not GOD given rights (constitution is "secular").

And I m sorry, but if the constitution does not tell you what rights you have then I really don't know what does it for you.

And I also strongly disagree on this: "the constitution is the guideline for government and it's it's responsibility to the the citizens"

individuals selected by the representative colonies did

Represantives of the colonies, so people who represent the people from the colonies and can act on their behalf? That s called a government. Even if it is a non-official one: below you see the signatures of people who represent their States (Delaware, ... ).

As for "God given" I am simply quoting the founding fathers. The constitution does not give us the citizens any rights. It simply tells the government these rights are already in place and that the government can in no way infringe upon these rights. Did you never take civics?
People selected to perform a specific function does not necessitate they are a representative government it simply means they have been selected to perform a specific task or duty. In this instance it was to construct a document to form a representative federal government.

 

[Munin]

As for "God given" I am simply quoting the founding fathers. The constitution does not give us the citizens any rights. It simply tells the government these rights are already in place and that the government can in no way infringe upon these rights. Did you never take civics?
People selected to perform a specific function does not necessitate they are a representative government it simply means they have been selected to perform a specific task or duty. In this instance it was to construct a document to form a representative federal government.

lol, you re the one denying that a president does also represent a government and you re asking me if I never took civics?

Edit: I adjusted my post above after posting it (which is not quoted in your current post)

and the signature of the FIRST US PRESIDENT (George Washington). And if I m not wrong: a president represents something that is called a government (head of government + head of state).

 

[Ringel05]

As for "God given" I am simply quoting the founding fathers. The constitution does not give us the citizens any rights. It simply tells the government these rights are already in place and that the government can in no way infringe upon these rights. Did you never take civics?
People selected to perform a specific function does not necessitate they are a representative government it simply means they have been selected to perform a specific task or duty. In this instance it was to construct a document to form a representative federal government.

lol, you re the one denying that a president does also represent a government and you re asking me if I never took civics?

Where did I deny that??????
And it was a simple question, not an accusation. Most people in this country have never taken civics.