Where do we draw the line?

[Southern_Gent]

I would like to propose a thought experiment regarding freedom. How free should a society be? Too little government involvement and you end up with anarchy, too much involvement and you end up with authoritarian control. The problem with anarchy is that laws, and enforcement of such laws, may not exist to protect citizens from the criminal element. The problem with authoritarian control is that the population is oppressed with limited, if any, freedoms.

Hence, where do we draw the line?

[Fastnought]

Night watchman state minarchy.......

[bookwormom]

I guess in the middle

[Southern_Gent]

So, how do we determine the middle ground? Such a concept means different things to different people.

[333]

Peace,

Eastern philosophy adores the middle way, and enjoys moderate success in the world ..no pun. All things in moderation so to speak...... this is freedom.


[imho] Government should always be limited to simple fiduciary maintenance period. That is to say they should maintain that which exists already, (assuming functional) assuring efficiency. New changes should always be carefully considered, legislated and put to the people.

Unfortunately with complete freedom and individual must be self sufficient and responsible, with no need of the "state" other then the assurance of the already known law. Free to do business, responsibly, no fraud, negligence, or racketeering folks or...we need more gov to sort it out.

I personally believe it is truly education and motivation.

If your well educated you will be less likely to be defrauded, more likely to gainful self employment or employment period.

Teach A Person to fish so to speak he be able to eat as long as he gets out there and reels them in.


Motivated to get out there and make a decent living because there is no safety net... your free, your responsible.

Give a person a fish, and they will just keep coming back for more fish and then they will bring their friends, who would deny the logic free fish or earned fish. Unmotivated folks will choose the free fish every time, as long as it is there, its human nature, its education it is a free choice to be sedentary.

Government intrusion under pretense of ensuring responsible citizens is the surest way to end up in a totalitarian state.

"...for erecting a multitude of "offices" and sending hither swarms of "officers" to harass the people and eat out their substance."

---candid indictment of King George III 1 of 26 "grievance's" in the declaration of independence, check out the rest they apply today as they did then, some even more so.

Bottom line in my opinion through out history "compassion" always seems to be the back door extremist used to subvert freedom.

I am a compassionate fella, I will help those in need to a point, then they better help themselves, government should be the same, there just in case, not a way of life or a free ride.

333

[macgeoghagen]

I take a libertarian view.

I think that government powers should be limited to protecting people's rights, and punishing those who harm others. when governmant starts to attempt to give people things, it must take from other people. it must intrude into people's lives

I don't think government should dispense charity to those who can't provide for themselves by forcing others to pay. I don't belive in welfare, govt. healthcare, or any other nanny state programs. People who can work should work. if they can't find a job, they should start a company and MAKE a job. people who cannot work should be provided for by their families or by an applicable charity.

I don't think the government should take a cut of people's earnings, or charge fees to people who wish to start businesses. Europe, and increasingly the US governments charge fees for everything imaginable when they provide no service, but impede an individual's entry into the marketplace.

I also don't think government should be involved in ethics or morals. a group of politicians(the most criminal professon) have no business determining right and wrong. morals are to be judged by the individual and by those he attempts to exert his morals upon. Government intrudes upon marriage when they make marriage licenses, they intrude into the people's beds when they make sodomy laws, they intrude into the raising of people's children with mandatory school laws.

I think the government should stay out of the marketplace. subsidies, handouts, bailouts, interest rate tampering, fiat currency, etc. interfere with the operation of commerce. people say that the government must regulate the market. they are wrong. the market is self regulating through the desire to make money and manage risk. once bailouts and subsidies are made available, investors take bigger risks and lose more often.

Government should provide for the common defense of it's citizens, protecting the national border from invasion and protecting the rights of its citizens in international waters, to include defending from piracy and agression by other powers.

[flatwater]

I can agree with what some of you said especially with the being educated part because it seems to me it is the people who are to lazy to learn and the ones who just don't give a rats putooty that brings about forces that seem to want to control the rest of us. I can't stand blanket laws that cover everyone when they should only cover a few.
Flatwater

[Fred_47460]

I think the originators of this country (USA) did an awesome job in dividing power up amongst various branches. In fact....it would really seem that they MUST have had Divine Inspiration in their efforts. Our problems since then have mostly come because we've strayed SOOOO FAR from the original intent. This really was supposed to be a Union of Sovereign States.....and if you didn't like how your state did things, you could just move to a state more to your liking. But it's EVOLVED into a mega federal conglomerate with little responsibility toward those it rules. It's come to the point that I really don't think that those we have the power to elect....or UN-elect...are actually in charge of much.

Fred

[FZRaven]

Well I'm a libertarian, so i'll agree with macgeoghagen. I think the government should be in control of as little as possible. I think that a person should be able to do anything as long as that person harms no other people or infringes on their rights.

[mule1rider]

Your question implies that people can themselves decide on our rights. This is dangerours thinking. Men have inalianable rights that we continue to have whether others agree that we have those rights or not. We may be denied those rights by a despot, but they remain ours rights. No man (or group of men) has the right to start violence against another man. It is a moral act to commit an act of violence against those who start violence against you. Trading in some fashion with other men is only acceptable way men may get things from each other. A true exhange of things of equal value. The sole purpose of government is to keep external forces from commiting acts of of violence against its citizens, to keep citizens from commiting actis of violence against other citizens, and to set up a fair court system to settle disputed between citizens. That's it! Period!

[333]

Peace,

Well there it is, LOL. Well said, thanks everyone.

But.... to play the devils advocate, What institutions or offices are truly necessary in a government? The way I see it sometimes is ," The bigger the trough, the more pigs can be fed" I see it this way is not to say I condone it, after all. I am we the people too and thats my money being spent for me.

333

[ozarksnick]

What a great thread.

I tend to lean heavily towards a libertarian point of view, I like what mule rider wrote very much.

But I still have problems when I start thinking about how such a government would be implemented.

One of the basic tenets of my "small gov" theory is that most folks are honest and trustworthy.

But so far my real world experience tells me otherwise.

[walls0stone]

the gov' that goverens least goverens best.

The bigger the trough, the more pigs can be fed" actualy Old Abe said. "there are to many pigs for the tits" in government.

Mule spoke of vilence.. ya know, I've never seen a real fight at a CW reenactment.(less on the field that's not the same) .know why? we are all armed.

Give you anothere, here were I live, you don't start somthing with another man. fellow last fall picked a beef with another man, and the second man was justified in his responce.. he hit him once...knocked him cold.

This is also why we have a seond Amendment (wich my 3 y/o knows) to keep them in check.. remember the shot heard round the world? ya think the redcoats were come'n for tea? After Pa became a Comonwealth, it's constatution included all able bodied men to OWN A GUN to use in the defence of PA agenst others. guess we forgot that law.

Here is my point, a small government is not over extended and a smaller government is easyer to keep in some sort of check. It's not like we have a King. I also think that if our government were smaller now, it would be easyer to understand and be involved with. This trickles down to a world were we must all be acountable for ourself



so nick I think your last line is also true, I'd agree...
But if you have an olive branch in one hand, and brass knuckles in the other...you can get along with anyone, even in govenment.

[333]

Peace,

It's not like we have a King.

Interesting point, sometimes I wonder about that. For to long the focus has been on the executive branch and its interesting exploits. Congress however seems to me the real problem, then of course the judicial follies.

Not being opposed to defensive aggression, aggression is still the absence of reason.

333

[flatwater]

You are spot on 333 about aggression being the absence of reason, But out of two or more people gather together and only one can reason then sometimes aggression is neccesary.
Flatwater

[swedishfish]

i tend to be a 'leave it alone' libertarian. society needs rules and structure but there should be a path for those of us who will follow the rules without regulation and over involvement from the feds.

[333]

Peace,

But out of two or more people gather together and only one can reason then sometimes aggression is neccesary.

imho, It is not necessary so much as it is unavoidable, when reason is lost in debate.

Hence... education in this regard is, communication or the lack there of..disengage.

"leave the field" so to speak, if egress/ digress is prohibited, then, defensive, aggressive, negotiations, are warranted, and to some a moral imperative, when it is unavoidable.

Mind, Mouth, Muscle, Money, Muzzle in diplomatic order imho.

Thanks folks good discussion

333

[EarthMama]

So, how do we determine the middle ground? Such a concept means different things to different people.

I never thought about this before... too much, anyway... so good topic!

I would begin with each state governing itself. We'd have to have some sort of unification of certain things, between all our states, but primarily I'd like to see states almost-totally govern themselves.

That way all the lines would be drawn at each border.

[333]

Peace,

Good points but ... it has been tried and tested with things like prohibition, slavery and trade rights. Hence the supremacy laws. The state laws must be congruent with the nation.

I however do agree with your sentiment that we are geographically some what 50 "nation sized" states, and the state rights should be sovereign. To a great extent they are, but then it would require responsible, educated people to discharge the civic duty diligently, but then that is difficult when one/ two folks have to work 50 -70 hours a week to pay for all the socialist programs, bank interest, and themselves to survive. Does not leave ample opportunity to get to the village, town , or state meeting on time and regular.


Good stuff folks thank you


333

[EarthMama]

...but then that is difficult when one/ two folks have to work 50 -70 hours a week to pay for all the socialist programs, bank interest, and themselves to survive.

What if a state didn't offer the socialist programs you refer to here? And maybe a state wouldn't borrow the money that would require the bank interest to be paid.

I was thinking about having 50 mini-nations wrapped up into one United States. It would seem to me that then there would be "something for everyone", as the old saying goes. If folks like one certain kind of life or lifestyle, they might choose to live in the state that most mimics their interests. I'm sure the different states would be varied enough to provide that to everyone alive today.

Maybe good roads wouldn't be that important to the folks of a certain state... therefore a big chunk of their tax money would not go towards super-highway maintenance. But maybe the folks in that certain state would find land preservation really important... therefore much of their tax money would go towards that effort. You see what I'm getting at?


??? ;D

I think like-minded people would hang together as a natural course of events and I think the country, as a whole, would be much happier. Big Brother definitely has his place, in the governance of all states, but I think his place at the table has been expanded way too much... and that Big Brother should be an invited guest at a state's table and not assumed.

[walls0stone]

great idea earth amam, I think we had a little spat over that 145 years back, cost about 600,000 lives and they decided in the end it was over slavery guess that was a wash. I'd even say that county govenrment should have more power than state.

Give you another, our area stands to make a pile of money. I'm in north/central Pa and folks around here are making money off the gas under the land they farm. Men who's people didn't have two dimes to rub together now stand to make more in a month than men in Harrisburg, so they want to tax us and give 50% of the income to the welfair rats in philly. I think part of the issue is that if the hillbilly folk get that kind of money, the political power will move to our way of thinking becouse we will have the money to send those men to Harisburg on our behalf.

Now, 333. why do so many people put so much on the one office election? Why do so many just think about the Super Bowl? short attion spans. The lack of desire to understand and follow government. We look at one race and don't care about the rest. Working people have a busy life. But it's no excuse for being ignorant or unwilling to think about who you want for representaion.

[flatwater]

Where do we draw the line?__________________ Right here is a good spot. Sorry couldn't help myself. ;D ;D ;D
Flatwater

[EarthMama]

I think part of the issue is that if the hillbilly folk get that kind of money, the political power will move to our way of thinking becouse we will have the money to send those men to Harisburg on our behalf.

I have two thoughts on that scenario and they are:

1. Either the "hillbillies" will change, right along with their economic status, and become "one of them" (the elitists in this country) or....

2. The wealthy elitists in this country would still outnumber the "hillbilly wealthy" and thus the hillbillies still wouldn't have too much of a say in anything.

I think the wealthy are destined to always rule this country and that will always be the name of that tune.

I was just dreamin' with my "drawin' the line" posts in this thread. Nothing like truly independent states are ever going to exist and I believe that pretty soon, in the not too distant future, we're going to become a socialist nation and that's that. Heck, we're almost there as it is.

I'm 52 years old. At least I've got more time behind me than ahead of me, to have to put up with all this crap. I hate to see what's in store for my grandchildren and great-grandchildren though.

But... maybe things will turn around... come full circle. I personally feel this nation needs a good old-fashioned depression, with working men standing in cheese sandwich lines everyday for lunch and married couples movin' back home with their parents just to survive and sugar, flour and gasoline being rationed. I think that would be the best thing to happen to the people in this country of ours.

But what do I know?! Probably not much... according to the world's standards anyhow.

::)

[EarthMama]

The lack of desire to understand and follow government. We look at one race and don't care about the rest. Working people have a busy life. But it's no excuse for being ignorant or unwilling to think about who you want for representaion.

I'm not 333, Walls, but I'd like to answer this one too, if I may.

;D

I think folks are just plain disillusioned and that's why they have no desire to understand or follow government. What good is it anyhow? A person turns on the t.v. to become enlightened on a candidate and instead they're told how to think and who to vote for, by the talking heads who all have their own agenda to push.

I remember a time when you NEVER knew who the news reporter was going to vote for or what party line he associated himself with. The news was the news and that's it. Now it seems like everybody has their candidate that they're pushing and to hell with trying to remain neutral or unbiased, in reporting.

I'm personally sick of the whole process.... sick of the political rhetoric of both parties and sick of the talking heads on t.v. making their whole broadcast a free advertisement for the candidate of their choice.

I'm not so sure I'll be voting this year. I swore a few days ago I wasn't going to. I'm disgusted this year... more than most years... and frankly, I couldn't give a rat's behind who wins the presidential election this year. They're both full of poop and have no problem dishing it out every chance they get.

*sigh*

O.K., now I'm glad I've got that rant off my chest. Thanks for listening.

[Funkhouser]

Read up on the way men like George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Benjamin Franklin viewed government. Look at how men like Calvin Coolidge operated in the White House. Listen to men like Ron Paul, Jim DeMint and Tom Tancredo speak. Small government conservatives expressly adhering to the Constitution and eschewing the trappings of PACs and other special interest groups. That is what is needed in DC.

Anything less than this is slap in the face to the forefathers of this country.

[crafty2002]

What a great thread.

I tend to lean heavily towards a libertarian point of view, I like what mule rider wrote very much.

But I still have problems when I start thinking about how such a government would be implemented.

One of the basic tenets of my "small gov" theory is that most folks are honest and trustworthy.

But so far my real world experience tells me otherwise.

Oh, but could it be that the huge gubbernuts we now have, are the ones that caused your real world experience to tell you otherwise???
The government is the ememy. They cause people that would be good hard working people to go to crime to support their families.
Don't look at me. I am not there yet.
But it sure is temping sometime when the house is cold and the cabinets are about empty.

[sam12six]

Like the others here, I'm pretty much a libertarian.

Personally, I think the biggest problem is that the bigger the organization and the more money it controls, the more corruption it breeds.

This doesn't just apply to government. When I was little, my mom was Catholic. In a small town in north Georgia in the 70's, I'm sure you can imagine how few people went to the Catholic mission (it didn't even rate it's own priest - just rented the one from a city an hour away).

At this little mission where there were about 10 families (seriously), all the landscaping and maintenance was done by those few people. I never once heard an argument over who was or wasn't doing their part or what did or didn't need doing. When everybody had an after-church meeting and decided what project to tackle next, everybody showed up and knocked it out.

Several years later, the church (yep, got their own priest) had a couple of hundred families and the money grew proportionally, of course. At the church council meetings (see, there had to be a council now because somebody decided passing out ballots or something like that would result in chaos) you would see people (often some of the original 10 families) bickering over how they should be paid, or the church should buy them a new lawn mower since they were using theirs at the church.

This problem is going to crop up in any situation where there is a lot of money.

Governmentally, I think the trick is to have the majority of power over people's lives be determined by small (geographically) units which are given (very loose) guidelines by the progressively larger units.

Maybe it's just growing up in a really small town where everyone knew everyone else, but I can imagining a state patrol tazering me, but the deputy who still calls me 'Paul's boy' - not so much.

[walls0stone]

Let me tell you what's going on here in podunk Pa. The gas wells are make'n hillbilly folks rich as hell! hey old farmer, here's 4 million dollars...and what's he do? gets a new tractor with cab, heat, air and radio. HA HA, yea that's not change'n to much.

Then I understand that they are getting a vacation home... otherwise known as renting a camp sight at the little camp gound in the next township...not next county, next township.. cuz they still need to milk cows.

A wealthy man in my town is fighting Lows...he is farm raised, hard working and he owns many companies..he is keeping Lowes out all by himself. why? his values never changed. Just cuz you get money doesn't mean that you become a rich snob over night.. a man can't just turn his back on guns and God when he gets a big check. NOW....

Who will a rich hillbilly support? well out here were things change SLOW.. the old farmers like me will still vote with the right-wing wack jobs ;D who cling to our guns and god..

It's the money that backs the man in office and gets him into office. Why is this dark knight in the running? MONEY! He's got the kind of capital behind him for those megga pillars and wild ass adds.

If people with rural values had city money, PA would not be under the thumb of that **** $$^$% #$^&^ #_+^^ in the Goveners castle in Harisburg.

Keeping us poor is a big part of the reason that scum bucket wants to take half our gas royalty money before the working people who farmed the land in the first place ever get a dime. (hack spit)

[walls0stone]

Earthma'

The kids at the rally are not disscuraged, they are stupid..they don't know anything..young skulls of mush and goo that hang out at the rally with as much love and joy as the home come'n party the following weekend. Ever been on the set of a TV show? the sighn comes on for cheering and they all go nutts..sighn goes off and they shut up. That's what drives half the people at a rally.

The other thing is that people have a short attion span and a lack of understaning. people have not been told are not how gov works..it's about as fun to follow as doing your own taxes or balencing your check book...but we should all do it.

But no, we school our kids on the infield fly rule or how the extra point works. God forbid we teach them how to follow government. This is a world were we can become an extpert just watching 12 hours of the history channel. we can't be bothered to study things over a long span of time.

If people put as much time into Government and understanding it as we do American Idol or our fantisy football team, it would make a diffrance.

[333]

Peace,

Now, 333. why do so many people put so much on the one office election? Why do so many just think about the Super Bowl? short attion spans. The lack of desire to understand and follow government. We look at one race and don't care about the rest. Working people have a busy life. But it's no excuse for being ignorant or unwilling to think about who you want for representaion.

Educational choices/ options, lack of either, to answer in general, but alas the rest of your query falls into the realm of psychology, sometimes mistaken for philosophy. ::)

I'm 52 years old. At least I've got more time behind me than ahead of me, to have to put up with all this crap. I hate to see what's in store for my grandchildren and great-grandchildren though.

Great points

The people,and the government, a reflection of its people, used to make its decisions accordingly thus;
What is in the best interest of my children's, children's, children? Far superior line of logic then fatalism. There is hope when there is future, and the future is precisely why prudence, in less government is preferable.

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Philosophically speaking, for that matter then, drawing the "line" must begin at the "age" of reason. De-ontological or duty bound, the loss of innocence or ignorance, if you will, of thought, is a small price to pay, compared to the cost of watering tree of liberty from time to time.

In other words it would seem prudent to educate the young in truth as soon as they are able to comprehend.

Sam12six welcome to the forum.

WallOstone, thanks for the excellent discussion but please remember this is a family site.


So... where do we draw the line? When is the truth more important then cultural relativism?


333

[spyderhead]

We have a Constitution. Problem is, we have an illegal and unconstitutional federal government. Follow the Constitution. Powers not specifically granted to the Feds are reserved to the States and/or to the people. Our Federal government does nothing well. Nothing. The best I can hope for (from the United States government) is to be left alone. That, to me, is Libertarianism. It is also Constitutionalism. Just my .02 worth.