Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
When Should the Government Intrude?; Individual Rights vs. Societal Rights?
Topic Started: Jan 9 2007, 02:21 PM (150 Views)
Steve Cohen
Member Avatar
Junior Carp
All of the sane people her (all 4 or 5 of them!), will probably agree that there are times when our government's obligations to our society trumps the rights of individual choice. Yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theater; firing a gun into an innocent crowd, etc.

Many examples are clear, some not so clear. Should smoking be banned in enclosed public spaces? How about smoking in your car when children are passengers? Should assault weapon ownership by private citizens be illegal? These are harder to answer.

What things should be taken into consideration in deciding what is "worthy" of intrusion; that we should give up our rights on?

For example, IMHO, protection of the many often outweighs the privacy of the few. (I have no problem with the NSA monitoring conversations that have a suspected terrorist as one party to the call.)

But where, and on what basis do we draw the line? :blink:
"I wouldn't mind paying taxes if I knew they were going to a friendly country!" - Dick Gregory


Dealer Principal and Industry Consultant
Jasons Music Centers - Family Owned
Since 1937 - Serving Maryland/DC
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Frank_W
Member Avatar
Resident Misanthrope
This is a compelling question, Steve. My thought, just in general, is that it's the government's job to govern in a very lassaiz-faire sort of way, and that federal control should consist primarily of general guidelines, while state and municipal control should deal more in specifics.
Anatomy Prof: "The human body has about 20 sq. meters of skin."
Me: "Man, that's a lot of lampshades!"
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TomK
HOLY CARP!!!
Frank_W
Jan 9 2007, 06:26 PM
This is a compelling question, Steve. My thought, just in general, is that it's the government's job to govern in a very lassaiz-faire sort of way, and that federal control should consist primarily of general guidelines, while state and municipal control should deal more in specifics.

I'm kind of thinking Frank is a control freak. :biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin:

Government should do roads and some basic services. Prisons police and the army maybe one or two more things.

The rest of the time they should leave people alone.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Frank_W
Member Avatar
Resident Misanthrope
:lol2:

I agree with you, Tom. The government should make a very clear delineation between civil issues and federal issues, and should concern themselves with the latter and keep their nose out of the former. They should take care of taxes, defense, foreign policy, domestic policy, and yeah: Basic services.

Actually, I think our government does a pretty good job, overall. But lately, I see them losing sight of where their limits should be, concerning interfering in the lives of the citizenry.
Anatomy Prof: "The human body has about 20 sq. meters of skin."
Me: "Man, that's a lot of lampshades!"
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ny1911
Member Avatar
Senior Carp
Identify society's risk threshold. What are the things that we do on a daily basis that expose us to high levels of risk. Everything below that stays, everything above that level goes.

For example: Society tolerates "A" which has a relative risk of 5. A group wants to ban behavior "B", which has a relative risk of 4. B can't be banned without either banning A or lowering its relative risk below 4.

Conversely, using the same letters and numbers, a group wants to ban A, but if proponents of A can lower the relative risk below 4, then A can't be banned without banning B.
So live your life and live it well.
There's not much left of me to tell.
I just got back up each time I fell.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
My thoughts on this aren't fully developed, but the give-and-take here tends to help me develop my thinking, so here goes with the preliminary:

1. Individuals should have certain basic rights. We can argue about what those rights should be, but there should be certain basic rights that, absent extraordinary circumstances, are inalienable. Government should stand ready to protect interferences with those rights.

2. Government should step in to do things that the free market cannot do properly. Anything where there is a "free rider" problem would be an example. Anything where there is a large societal benefit, but the resources necessary are huge. (Space flight, for example.) The army, the fire department, the police all fall into this category.

3. Government should protect innocent people who are, for whatever reason, incapable of protecting themselves. Children. The infirm. The elderly. Education falls into this category.

As we go down the chain, it's going to get more and more arguable.

4. Government should step in to protect people from their own folly. They shouldn't be allowed to mainline heroin, for example. And government should ensure that, where we are going to allow people to make their own stupid choices, at a minimum they have all the information necessary to make a good choice, so that if they make a stupid choice at least they had a shot at making a better one.

5. Government should protect people from harmful substances.

6. Government should protect people from taking improper advantage of others. Monopoly laws, for example. Laws against fraud.

7. Government should ensure that everyone has an opportunity to succeed, if they have what it takes ... the intelligence, the persistence, the willingness to devote effort, the fortitude.

8. Government should ensure that everyone has the opportunity, if they are willing to work hard, to make a decent living.

9. Government should ensure that, in the richest society in the world, no one starves. Or has to live in a cardboard box. (By now, the conservatives are pulling their hair out.)

Seriously, do we want to go back to a society in which people get consigned to poor houses? Or indentured servitude? Do we want to be a third world country? (And no cracks about how we already are.) If people go bankrupt or are drowning, should we just let them drown?
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply