Government Control?

[Dr. Shoe]

In another thread, someone said something that set me thinking. We have a number of members from all sorts of different countries, do you believe that your government controls your life too much or not? I won't put in a poll because I want to encourage debate.

[foxylady]

Hello Dr Shoe, What do you mean "control your live". I'm a Belgian living in London since 1998 and have the chance to compaire the governements of Belgium (witch is non excisting at this moment) and Great Britain. I would say that the British governement is quite involved in the family live of the people living in GB. It goes from smal items such as the responsebility of raising your children to legal age of smoking/driving etc. It has come to a stage as soon something goes wrong with the teenager that parents point a finger at the governement and tell them it's theis fault. This situation start to come up in Belgium as well, but it is still quite young so people in general don't even notice it yet. It is like implementing Big Brother..... I don't know, but you are right. Sometimes I have the feeling that we are watched all the time and as soon you walk out that door there is the look of the neighbours without the occasional hello.... It could be only me, but it could also be the involvement of the governement into the life of the common people. That's my opinion so far, I might have forgotten something, but hopefully this forum will come to a nice discussion, thank you Dr Shoe. FL

[johnieheel]

Our Government is just plain screwed up and all lies. In my opinion, we have the biggest liars, thieves, law breakers, etc. etc. running our country. On the other hand, I still have my freedom to go and come as I choose and do some what feel safe. But we need to get our priorities strait. I believe we spend way to much time and money trying to solve all the other worlds problems when we can't even get simple street gangs off the streets in our own cities to make it safe for our own children. Seems everything we buy comes from China which that is where we have shipped a lot of our industry and jobs to and put our selves out of work. Illegal aliens have more rights than home bread Americans. YES, we have enough to deal with here without going across the pond. This can go on and on. As for our goverment controling our lifes, well as long as I don't break any laws, and there is more laws in America than the world combined, and except for my pay check, which they help there selves to as they please, yes, to a certain extent they do control my life.

[Ozzard]

My political views are somewhere the far side of Liberatarian, so in short: any group that has power over me - in this case expressed by the police force and the military - controls my life too much.

[Dr. Shoe]

But don't you think Ozzard that where there is society there has to be rules, where there's rules there has to be law and where there's law there has to be enforcement? It doesn't matter how "oppressive" a government is, if you play by the rules then you have all the liberties you need (though not necessary want). The people in Iraq understood this perfectly under Sadam Hussain. If our government brings in a new law, we adapt to it or end up in jail. I have no problem with a government "snooping" on me because I have no ambition to break any laws. By and large the manderins at Whitehall have better things to do than look at a law abiding citizen like me. I have no problem with ID cards either except that they serve no useful purpose and that we will be expected to pay for them...

[CassieJ]

The US was founded on libertarian ideals. The government (federal) was supposed to be kept small and with little power to prevent it from interfering with people's freedom. The states and local communities had more power as it is easier to change the laws of you locallity than it is to change a national law. This would allow the community to set it's standards and not create some national standard that is one-size-fits-all. The US government has violated the restrictions in the constitution and is huge and overbearing now. My beliefs are that a government should only protect the rights of the people it represents, not control them beyond protecting the individual's rights. An example, if I want to do something that doesn't violate the rights of another person, it should not be illegal. No law should be valid without a victim. If I smoked (I don't) and I do it in my own home, the government should have no power to stop or regulate me. The second I go in public and my smoke intrudes on another person's right to clean, non-smelly air, then the local government has the right to protect the non-smoker. Don't take those rights too far though. You do not have a right to not be offended. Taking offense is a personal thing. You cannot have any rights if others claim they are offended by whatever they want to be offended by. With this freedom comes responsibility. If you have the freedom to, say, ride a motorcycle without a helmet, you do not have the right to demand that I, and other taxpayers, pay your medical bills when you crash and fracture your skull. Remeber that nothing is a right if it costs another person. Medical care is not a right. It costs for equipment, personel, and time. A doctor would be forced to give his/her time and use medical materials and drugs to give someone medical care. This violates that doctor's (and the hospital's) rights to be forced into servitude. Free speech is a right because it doesn't cost another person anything. Again, on the local level...if a group of people get together and decide to pool their resources and provide medical care, that is their right to associate freely but they do not have the right to force me to participate. Unfortunately, the one, most important power the federal US government has it does not do...Protect the country from invaders. Our borders are wide open exposing the US to potential dangerous people and groups, and allowing people with no education or job skills to come here without limit forcing the citizens to give up their property (money) to pay for their educations, medical and welfare. Before you label me insensitive, you have to also remember that the citizens of the US are the most generous and giving in the world. Who is the first one there to assist when a natural or man-made disaster occurs somewhere in the world? The people of the US personally give 10 times more money and assistance to victims than the government does. The second someone lays claim to your time, property or abilities without compensation or under force, you are not free. You are a slave. Don't let others or governments control you. CJ

[Dr. Shoe]

The problem is is that often the practicalities outweigh the ideals. It was found that certain practices which are deemed abhorrent in the wider society were actually legal in some states or counties even. So therefore it was necessary to increase the authority of the federal government to ensure that it's own ideals were not compromised, they even went to war over it. Sometimes the practical issues of protecting peoples rights do not match the ideals. Take as an example the right to bear arms. Suppose a gun owner is suffering from depression and a symptom of his depression is a paranoia and a belief that his neighbours are plotting to kill him. Suppose he then goes out to shoot his neighbours, where was the protection for these neighbours? Would it have been better to have removed the guns from his reach in the first place? What about the right to euthanasia? Who's rights are the government protecting by making euthanasia illegal? Does a person not have the right to live in peace without having to listen to rhetoric by aggressive and abusive enemies who deliberately seek to be offensive? What about the person who is injured whilst riding a motorcycle with a helmet on? Does he have a greater right to medical treatment than someone who didn't? Why not say that if you have an accident whilst riding a motorcycle you forfeit medical treatment? Why stop there? Why not refuse medical treatment to anyone who is injured on the highway? Surely the line is drawn at an injury regardless of how it's caused? Doctors and nurses are paid for their services so who says anything about servitude? What happened in the 1950s when the US (and the UK) had a shortage of labour? They opened the border to workers who were illiterate. It is a government responsibility to protect and care for everyone within the borders of their country, if you want someone to clean your pool you cannot complain about the fact that you have to pay tax to support his kids at school.

[CassieJ]

Take as an example the right to bear arms. Suppose a gun owner is suffering from depression and a symptom of his depression is a paranoia and a belief that his neighbours are plotting to kill him. Suppose he then goes out to shoot his neighbours, where was the protection for these neighbours? Would it have been better to have removed the guns from his reach in the first place?

Do you remove all his knives and the gas from his car? There are many dangerous items available to a person that wants to harm people, some more dangerous than a gun (like a car driving into a crowd).

When a person is bent on destruction and killing, there are not any better tools to defend yourself than to have a gun. It is portable, concealable and effective. Did you know that almost all the mass shooting events in the US have been stopped by a citizen with a gun? It is not often reported in our liberal media. Also, notice that 9 times out of 10, these shootings occur in a place where weapons are banned like schools, post offices, etc... Even the mall shooting recently was posted "no weapons".

What people that want to ban guns fail to understand is, a person bent on killing is breaking the most important law we have. Gun bans and posted no-gun zones mean nothing to them. Why do you want to take the most effective means of defense away from the rest of us? Everytime someone uses a gun to commit a crime, people want to take them away from (and punish) all the people that didn't do it.

CJ

[tightsnheels]

In the words of comedian Tim Wilson, "Every time someone kills someone we have to pass alaw to stop him."

This is how oppresive goverments get created. A single crime occures and a group has to form a law to prevent it from happening again. Then others climb on board and add more and more to that law and before long no one knows what the original intent was for.

My self I believe we don't need much more than the bill of rights and the constitution. Yes rape, murder and theft should all be crimes but should the mistreatment or death of an animal carry more weight than the same treatment to a human being? In most cases it does here in the U.S.

Some people want to ban the public display of the ten comandments but these are the basis of law. We constantly add more laws, some of which make no sense what so ever.

I feel a goverment that can declare your ground "Blighted" and take it to hand over to a private developer to make a profit from it is oppresive.

I'm probebly rambling so we'll see where this goes.

[Histiletto]

As far as government control, the U. S. usually stays out of our personal activities, unless as was mentioned the breaking of laws or being involved in possible acts of terrorism. The most well known act of government control was used by the Nazi regime in labeling certain people with arm bands and the need to carry personal identification papers at all times. Then they forced them to live in substandard living environments and then used all manner of tactics to degrade and persecute them. In a final act of their inhumanity, they tried to completely annihilate them, which has become known as the "Holocaust". I wish this wasn't part of the world's history, but even worse the use of genocide is even part of our world today. What happened to the worth of a person and why are some people so programmed to value another's life less than theirs? One of government's functions is to collect taxes for its operation. I use to pay about 19% of my pay check to taxes and now it is closer to 24%. I keep wondering if they are using my tax money in the best way. Of course, if I happen to underpay my assessment, they can literally take everything I own in order to exact the correct payment for the difference and their imposed penalties. So, under this treat, I make sure my tax account is correct and complete. Like othes have posted, I too am concerned about the integrity of our leaders and their subordinates of the last 15 to 20 years. It's hard to trust their professed (including religious) standards when they are caught in webs of slighted truths and other prevarications as they reach into our wallets to fund some kind of pork barrel projects, under the table (covert) operations, and/or even wage wars of questionable intentions. As a nation perpetuating the idea of freedom from unjust dictatorships, invading a sovereign nation is an act of aggression that better be well founded and well prepared for the results. I am struggling with the decision to initiate this aggression after hearing many of the facts that have been introduced since. The outcome has become a quagmire of difficulty with no sensible solution in sight. The good intentions of freeing a people to govern their own has turned into a kind of holy war for those who consider the invasion of their land an attempt to undermine their religious beliefs and practices. I'm also concerned about those who make laws that take away the right of choice for ones own welfare, saying "it's for their own good". Seat belts in cars and helmets for cycling, skiing, and surf boarding should be used, especially for dependent children, but they had to make laws so that they could force their use for everyone, which gripes me to no end. I call these kind of laws: "feel good laws". They are hard to enforce most of the time and usually when one is caught breaking these laws it's usually too late. People have to take responsibility for their actions instead of depending on others to bail them out. Others need to quit making feel good laws that clog up the system and are nearly unenforceable on a consistent bases, because these laws are dealing with a person's right of choice. Yes, it would be better for society if smoking, excessive alcoholic consumption, drug abuse, one night stands, were no longer done, but people that indulge in such things have to want a better standard of living. When their practices encroach on the rights of others, then their responsibility is to make ammends for taking what was not theirs. Guns? I have not read all the posted rhetoric concerning the need of personal weaponry on this forum, so I will just state my stand. Everyone that shows they can be responsible to care about the welfare of others, should be able to own things to defend what is theirs. We can't stop a person who wants to break the law, but we have an obligation to defend our love ones, rights, and property from those who would illegally or without consent abuse, damage, and/or pilfer our stewardship. Owning a gun may not completely stop someone, who wants to take, harm, and/or misuse your love ones or possessions, but it does deter such activities. Some times knowing their life could become handicapped or even ended from such activities makes the result of the encroachment or usurpation less enticing to a potential offender. However, if one's life or the life of their loved ones is not in immediate danger, the use of weaponry should be limited to the apprehension and detainment of the offender until the proper authorities can do their job and the system of justice has a chance to allocate a measure of restitution from the offender as adjudicated under the law.

[Dr. Shoe]

Do you remove all his knives and the gas from his car? There are many dangerous items available to a person that wants to harm people, some more dangerous than a gun (like a car driving into a crowd).

The difference is is that guns are designed, made and designed for one purpose. Cars, knives and baseball bats are not.

Anyone can drive a car into a crowd but you never hear of a high scholl student driving a car around the corridors of his school do you?

[Ozzard]

But don't you think Ozzard that where there is society there has to be rules, where there's rules there has to be law and where there's law there has to be enforcement?

Yes; no; yes.

Rules can be community-made (ideally small communities) and community-enforced. There can be at least small societies with rules, but without laws and a separate enforcement arm. Whether there can be large societies is more questionable, and whether the small communities are stable is also questionable. The *natural* state is that whoever is most powerful cows those around them into submission, generally by gathering a band of people willing to do violence to those who oppose their boss' views and by paying them well. This is called an army and, in modern days, a police force. I wish to oppose this centralisation of power in the hands of a few people, wherever it occurs.

Oh - it may also be relevant to note that I do not consider a representative democracy to be a democracy. It is, instead, a way of choosing *which* rascal you want to send to be bribed and cajoled by the Whips. The behaviour of the British government is not controlled by the British people; they are increasingly a powerful group with control over the army and the police force, and wield that power accordingly.

[Dr. Shoe]

Yes; no; yes.

Rules can be community-made (ideally small communities) and community-enforced. There can be at least small societies with rules, but without laws and a separate enforcement arm. Whether there can be large societies is more questionable, and whether the small communities are stable is also questionable. The *natural* state is that whoever is most powerful cows those around them into submission, generally by gathering a band of people willing to do violence to those who oppose their boss' views and by paying them well. This is called an army and, in modern days, a police force. I wish to oppose this centralisation of power in the hands of a few people, wherever it occurs.

Oh - it may also be relevant to note that I do not consider a representative democracy to be a democracy. It is, instead, a way of choosing *which* rascal you want to send to be bribed and cajoled by the Whips. The behaviour of the British government is not controlled by the British people; they are increasingly a powerful group with control over the army and the police force, and wield that power accordingly.

This is fantastic in theory but even in a small community you are going to have a "decision maker" and whether he's the strongest or democratically elected he is still going to have to enforce his decisions. Whether this is with a band of baseball wielding thugs or a group of benevolent well-wishers. Even in a true canton democracy, the wishes of the majority need to be enforced as dissenters can cause a lot of trouble.

Of course a small community like this is unworkable in central London for example because this would lead to factionism and little wars and feuds between groups that have opposing views on all subjects from waste collection to foriegn policy.

I agree that here in the UK we do not have a true democracy but for all its faults it's a tried and tested system that has worked for centuries and is the same as the oldest democracies in the world, the Greek Republic, and the Roman Senate... It's not perfect but it works.

[Firefox]

I think we should have proportional representation in the UK The current system has been fixed with boundary changes so labour can get an overall majority with 33% of the vote. And since the turnout is only 50% that's only round 1 in 6 people who have actually voted for a labour gov. For the Tories to get an overall majority they need 42% and for the Lib Dems the figure is closer to 50%. Yet despite the support of 1 in 6 people we are continually told that the Gov has a "mandate" to do whatever it wants, including wasting billions on a pointless war in Iraq when the the country was not in favour if it (when they were given the true facts, rather than lies about WMD). The latest we hear is that the nanny state is going to make it illegal to pay for sex. This restricts freedom of choice of the client and the providers. Instead they should be legalising prostitution to take it out of control of the pimps and the druggies.

[JNR]

Ah,to many to manys. To many rules, to many laws, to many government mandates, to many political parites, to many opinions, to many people offended, to many hours to think about things, to many to manys. If people had to spend more time growing food, weaving cloth for clothes, working to provide the basic needs just to sustain life, as they did 300 years ago, there wouldn't be so many to manys.

[Dr. Shoe]

I think we should have proportional representation in the UK

The current system has been fixed with boundary changes so labour can get an overall majority with 33% of the vote. And since the turnout is only 50% that's only round 1 in 6 people who have actually voted for a labour gov. For the Tories to get an overall majority they need 42% and for the Lib Dems the figure is closer to 50%.

Yet despite the support of 1 in 6 people we are continually told that the Gov has a "mandate" to do whatever it wants, including wasting billions on a pointless war in Iraq when the the country was not in favour if it (when they were given the true facts, rather than lies about WMD).

The latest we hear is that the nanny state is going to make it illegal to pay for sex. This restricts freedom of choice of the client and the providers. Instead they should be legalising prostitution to take it out of control of the pimps and the druggies.

The problem is is that with PP you are still going to be returning MPs you didn't vote for... In some cases you are going to be returning a last choice candidate just because somebody in another part of the constituency didn't vote for your first choice!

[FXHH]

Our Government is just plain screwed up and all lies. In my opinion, we have the biggest liars, thieves, law breakers, etc. etc. running our country. On the other hand, I still have my freedom to go and come as I choose and do some what feel safe. But we need to get our priorities strait. I believe we spend way to much time and money trying to solve all the other worlds problems when we can't even get simple street gangs off the streets in our own cities to make it safe for our own children. Seems everything we buy comes from China which that is where we have shipped a lot of our industry and jobs to and put our selves out of work. Illegal aliens have more rights than home bread Americans. YES, we have enough to deal with here without going across the pond. This can go on and on. As for our goverment controling our lifes, well as long as I don't break any laws, and there is more laws in America than the world combined, and except for my pay check, which they help there selves to as they please, yes, to a certain extent they do control my life.

hi! agree with what you say, however would like to add just 2c, we need the USA to be the world police like they doing at the moment, couz no one else has the balls to do it!

will give a big example, during WW2 every one sat back and watched Hitler do in Europe what he wanted until it was almost to late, we need the USA to patrol the world.

yes there is a price to pay like the price of crude oil and a few others as a result of the USA invlolvement in the middle east, however IMO its a small price to pay!!

very sure not every body will agree with me!!!

[Trolldeg]

however IMO its a small price to pay!!

was 9/11 a small price to pay too?

[Dr. Shoe]

hi! agree with what you say, however would like to add just 2c, we need the USA to be the world police like they doing at the moment, couz no one else has the balls to do it!

will give a big example, during WW2 every one sat back and watched Hitler do in Europe what he wanted until it was almost to late, we need the USA to patrol the world.

yes there is a price to pay like the price of crude oil and a few others as a result of the USA invlolvement in the middle east, however IMO its a small price to pay!!

very sure not every body will agree with me!!!

Everyone sat back did they!?!?

Do you think that the French just sat back or do you think they fought tooth and nail to prevent the German advance? What about the poles? They fought cutting edge military technology with nothing better than horse artillery and crop-dusters? When the Russians were defeating the Germans on the Steppes and the RAF were turning the tide of the Luftwaffe in the summer of 1940, where were the Americans?

Where were the "world police" when the British Expeditionary Force were sitting on the beach of Dunkirk, when thousands of brave young men were losing their lifes because of overwhelming enemy forces? They were dancing in the speakeasies of New York!

It took an attack by the Japanese before the Americans joined the war! I wonder if it would have happened otherwise? It was all that Roosevelt could do but sell us some obsolete old tubs when we needed modern warships...

It's the same when it comes to the so called "War Of Terror". In the UK we have been fighting US funded terrorists for decades without any assistance at all from the "World Police", and yet again it takes a direct attack on US interests to get them to join the fight! Even then one of the first things they did was to settle unfinished business to grab as much of the middle-eastern oil as they could, and now they're ready to attack yet another sovereign state on some trumped up WMD charge!

This isn't "World Policing" it is self serving war mongering!

[at9]

Everyone sat back did they!?!?

Most of what the good doctor has said is 100% true. The only point I would take issue on is Roosevelt. He was very pro the allies well before the US formally came into the war and had to fight against strong anti-war and even pro-axis interests in the US.

[johnieheel]

was 9/11 a small price to pay too?

9-11 is a whole different story. I believe our own government had a lot to do with that. Nobody really knows what was behind 9-11 because our own US government covered it up.

[Dr. Shoe]

Most of what the good doctor has said is 100% true. The only point I would take issue on is Roosevelt. He was very pro the allies well before the US formally came into the war and had to fight against strong anti-war and even pro-axis interests in the US.

OK... I take that back about Roosevelt himself...

[JNR]

9-11 is a whole different story. I believe our own government had a lot to do with that. Nobody really knows what was behind 9-11 because our own US government covered it up.

Good thinking, Johnieheel. You’re a genius! You and 200 other intellectual giant citizens of the United States, managed to figure out that 911 was a conspiracy perpetrated on the American people by the Bush administration to increase the price of oil so that the Big Oil Companies could increase their profits.