Balancing Act: Power vs. Aid

Discussion in 'Politics & Law' started by Merc, May 21, 2009.

  1. Merc

    Merc Certified Shitlord V.I.P. Lifetime

    A lot of people on this forum believe that people are basically stupid or to some degree inept and thus, the government must step in and help out somehow. If that's the case, then how can you balance the power of government to watch over those people but to not impede the rights of the rest of us? Is it really possible to just trust them? Also, most will say, "then we vote/remove those people" is it really that easy? It never is.

    How do you balance power vs. the need for aid? Should people be left to their own responsibilities more or should there be an increase in government intervention?

    Personally, I think people are bullied and herded enough these days. Eventually, we're going to be one big farm that is harvested and grown by the select few in power, that's the road we're headed down. Everyone loves their personal freedoms, but as soon as they feel threatened, they give those rights up. Well, how much can you possibly love those freedoms if you're not going to defend them? I think less government intervention is needed not only because it's overdone, but because it would help people to begin to trust them again because at the moment, no one seems to trust anyone in a suit on capital hill.
     
    CaptainObvious likes this.

  2. ExpectantlyIronic

    ExpectantlyIronic e̳̳̺͕ͬ̓̑̂ͮͦͣ͒͒h̙ͦ̔͂?̅̂ ̾͗̑

    I think the generalizations you're making here break down when we look at specifics. Let's take public transportation. I know of nobody who stands in favor of it because they think people are too stupid to find another way around, and I hardly think we can contend it opens the floodgates to egregious government control of our lives. Rather, it simply makes sense to implement such a system in cities of a certain size. If the government changes the law, its power doesn't increase, but rather it had such power all along. So rather than grasp onto hard principles concerning there needing to be less government power and intervention, I think we need to consider what specifically we want the government to do, and not to do.
     
  3. Merc

    Merc Certified Shitlord V.I.P. Lifetime

    . . . and you just restated my point. I already said that some parts are just fine in terms of being government regulated (such as your example of transportation) but then I said that when do we stop the government control and leave things to the people? The government is after all made up of people and people are greedy and irrational so it's arguable if a government is even effective considering this mindset of "the people need to be controlled by the government since they're inept".
     
  4. CaptainObvious

    CaptainObvious Son of Liberty V.I.P.

    Public transportation is a service that generates revenue. No one is forced to use public transportation and provide their own transportation. Public transportation isn't being implemented because people are too stupid to drive. Implementing a public transportation doesn't intrude in anyone's like. I think Cons is thinking more in terms of our rights violated because the government knows what is best for us.
     
  5. PretzelCorps

    PretzelCorps Registered Member

    In a lot of cases, I'm simply of the opinion that many of the "rights and freedoms" that people get so steamed up about can be awfully petty and selfish. Naturally, the government doesn't know what's best for the individual, but then, that isn't the government's responsibility.

    The government's responsibility is to look out for the "big picture", and in my experience, the individual is 90% of the time completely oblivious to the "big picture", or to the fact that there even exists a "big picture".

    INSERT - To further a point here:

    Many people stupidly call it stupidity, but it's a real problem that affects an unbelievable amount of people --> The inability to see the "big picture"; even that which surrounds their own lives.

    To give you an example; people complain about the high cost of medical care and pharmaceuticals. Say the government decides to remedy this problem with tax cuts and credits, on the assumption that with more income freed up, people will be able to put aside the money for a sick day.


    The problem is that most people receiving the credit feel fine right now, at this very moment. This would ordinarily be a good thing, except that most people's entire lives are guided by how they feel. Right now. At this very moment. (ie - "It-can't-happen-to-me Syndrome" or "I'll-feel-this-way-forever Syndrome") So what do you suppose is more likely? Putting aside the medical credit as emergency money? Or buying that new Quasi-Dimensional 10,000-inch LCD Plasmatic TV they were eyeballing the other day?

    If pineapples were spreading a livestock or agricultural disease that was killing off droves of animals and crops, rendering them all inedible, and potentially causing future generations to starve, would prohibition be wrong because I'm infringing on a person's right to gorge themselves on whatever the f*** they want, whenever the f*** they want? Pineapple lobbyists would have a fit.



    Oh, scoff if you like, but I betcha I could actually find someone so who'd rather damn the entire world to starvation than give up their "right" to have Hawaiian pizza night. I betcha I could find a few.
     
    Bananas likes this.
  6. CaptainObvious

    CaptainObvious Son of Liberty V.I.P.

    I see your point PC and I agree with you, but to address your example, the tax cuts and credits would be if you purchase insurance, not for buying a plasma TV.

    When I say the government needs to take care of the big picture, I'm talking about national defense, passing and enforcing anti-discrimination laws, FDA regulations for your pineapple example, not what doctor or what treatment I need. If someone is diagnosed as diabetic and doesn't want to exercise, diet and take their medication, who is the government to force them?
     
  7. MenInTights

    MenInTights not a plastic bag

    Nobody want to be uncomfortable. Ask a guy if government can take $10 out of his check to support welfare and the guy will tell you that the best thing for people down on their luck is to work their ass off, cut their expenses and retrain and that welfare will stand in the way of that. Ask the same guy after he loses his job and you get a different story. There's a serious lack of rugged individualism and self confidence in this country. I think that's the root of the problem.
     
  8. PretzelCorps

    PretzelCorps Registered Member

    On the other hand, buying the TV would bolster the economy. :lol:


    I do think that there's a limit; if the government restricts and controls too much, everything becomes so convoluted that the world becomes even more dangerous than it was before --> I read an article a long while back that was talking about a study in traffic accidents. An experimental community had a normal grid of normal roads and highways, except that there was absolutely no regulations or signage (ie: speed limits, stop signs, traffic lights, etc.)

    Apparently, because people became so much more alert when they drove, there was actually a reduction in traffic accidents, rather than an increase.
     
    Bliss likes this.

Share This Page