• We are looking for you!
    Always wanted to join our Supporting Team? We are looking for enthusiastic moderators!
    Take a look at our recruitement page for more information and how you can apply:
    Apply

vote your conscience not your wallet

Lannister the Rich

Well-Known Member
The government cannot give you liberty ... They can only give you privilege ... Like a drivers license is a privilege, not a freedom or liberty.

If you mean in a sense of allowing you to do something ... At that point they are giving you permission and not liberty of freedom.
True, I suppose it’s a bit of a different way to look at it. Your view there is more pessimistic though lol. I look at it more as “you are free/permissioned to do anything within the confines of the law”. The government gives you privilege/permission to do something, which can then be considered liberty as it is “freedom” to do something with restriction.
 

DeletedUser40495

But ... Any kind of goverment prevents Anarchy (oligarchy, or republic) ... So saying Government is anything other than Anarchy is true but irrelevant to my point.
But it is relevant to MY point (that’s why I said it). The absence of government is anarchy, which is certainly not freedom for everyone. That would be freedom only for a select few.

So that is why I said that a good government exists to defend freedom. I never said that they don’t place restrictions on us, but those restrictions are necessary to defend the freedom of EVERYONE.


All I said is that government is not freedom and goverment can only limit freedom.
And all I said is that the government exists to defend the freedom of EVERYONE by not allowing individuals to interfere with the freedom of others.

That is a fact, stop trying to argue completely different things in an attempt to say that I am wrong.
 

DeletedUser36572

True, I suppose it’s a bit of a different way to look at it. Your view there is more pessimistic though lol. I look at it more as “you are free/permissioned to do anything within the confines of the law”. The government gives you privilege/permission to do something, which can then be considered liberty as it is “freedom” to do something with restriction.

I don’t know ... To me, your view is more pessimistic.

If the government is the origin of your freedom and liberty (which I don’t think it is), then they have the right to deny it. In that case you would really have no rights at all ... But simply the privilege to enjoy what the government allows you.

At that point ... In the least ... You would have to admit anything you have been taught about the People being in charge in our Republic would certainly be hogwash.
 

DeletedUser

I guess my view would be that in theory, but less often in practice, government's power and legitimacy comes from the people. Government is supposed to exercise its power to ensure that the collective will of society is reflected in its laws and regulations, to ensure that every person’s rights are balanced by each person's responsibility to exercise those rights without impinging on the rights of others.

While governments, like any concentration of economic and social power (e.g. corporations, trade unions, political parties, churches, Homeowners Associations, etc.) are prone to abuse power, in the absence of government you have Somalia or any of a dozen war torn areas in today’s world. Try talking to people who live there; see if they are happy without having a government or independent courts that enforce laws.

Anarchy is the ultimate expression of might makes right. The abolition of all laws restricting the behavior of individuals leads to no formal way for a society to protect individuals and their families from theft, murder, pedophilia, etc. Everything becomes fair game to those able to gather power and exercise the most violence towards their neighbors. Equally, with no independent courts, property rights can’t be enforced, meaning what’s yours is mine if my gun’s bigger. In every case where governments fall, it is the most vulnerable, children, the poor, the workers, who get screwed while the most violent and amoral warlords rise to the top, as ISIS did on the power vacuums in the middle east.

I’ve worked in most African countries, and several ones in South and West Asia. With weak courts and weak governments, land and property get confiscated all the time. If you think the USA, Canada, or Europe are as bad, you need to do more than visit poorer countries, you need to live there and actually talk to those trying to make a living and trying to protect their families. North Americans and Europeans have so many liberties and freedoms (and wealth) compared to the rest of the world, and yet they whine constantly about not being able to do whatever they want whenever they want. We have political parties. Imperfect, certainly idiotic at times, but if you don’t like the leaders, you can vote or even run for office. If you are too lazy/apathetic to get involved, the fault for poor government is yours.

Equally, nothing undermines the answerability of nominally ‘democratic’ governments to its citizens more than the population’s apathy and/or fear in the face of growing totalitarianism. Police, trade unionists, petty bureaucrats, CEOs, anyone with authority can abuse power. Democracy is a participatory sport; you need to work for it to keep it. Independent courts, free speech, an investigate press, vibrant opposition parties, and the unfettered rights of all citizens to organize and vote are absolutely essential for holding political leaders and government agencies accountable. In their absence, the slide to a dictatorship is all too easy, as my grandparents found out when the Nazi’s marched in.
 

Godly Luke

Well-Known Member
Take a Minecraft server for example. An anarchy server would allow you to do whatever you want, that be hack, cheat, duplicate items etc. The anarchy comes from the government, the people that "control the server", but they can't ban anyone because there is no rules, laws, and you can do whatever you want to and there is no one to stop you except other people.
 

Lannister the Rich

Well-Known Member
I guess my view would be that in theory, but less often in practice, government's power and legitimacy comes from the people. Government is supposed to exercise its power to ensure that the collective will of society is reflected in its laws and regulations, to ensure that every person’s rights are balanced by each person's responsibility to exercise those rights without impinging on the rights of others.

While governments, like any concentration of economic and social power (e.g. corporations, trade unions, political parties, churches, Homeowners Associations, etc.) are prone to abuse power, in the absence of government you have Somalia or any of a dozen war torn areas in today’s world. Try talking to people who live there; see if they are happy without having a government or independent courts that enforce laws.

Anarchy is the ultimate expression of might makes right. The abolition of all laws restricting the behavior of individuals leads to no formal way for a society to protect individuals and their families from theft, murder, pedophilia, etc. Everything becomes fair game to those able to gather power and exercise the most violence towards their neighbors. Equally, with no independent courts, property rights can’t be enforced, meaning what’s yours is mine if my gun’s bigger. In every case where governments fall, it is the most vulnerable, children, the poor, the workers, who get screwed while the most violent and amoral warlords rise to the top, as ISIS did on the power vacuums in the middle east.

I’ve worked in most African countries, and several ones in South and West Asia. With weak courts and weak governments, land and property get confiscated all the time. If you think the USA, Canada, or Europe are as bad, you need to do more than visit poorer countries, you need to live there and actually talk to those trying to make a living and trying to protect their families. North Americans and Europeans have so many liberties and freedoms (and wealth) compared to the rest of the world, and yet they whine constantly about not being able to do whatever they want whenever they want. We have political parties. Imperfect, certainly idiotic at times, but if you don’t like the leaders, you can vote or even run for office. If you are too lazy/apathetic to get involved, the fault for poor government is yours.

Equally, nothing undermines the answerability of nominally ‘democratic’ governments to its citizens more than the population’s apathy and/or fear in the face of growing totalitarianism. Police, trade unionists, petty bureaucrats, CEOs, anyone with authority can abuse power. Democracy is a participatory sport; you need to work for it to keep it. Independent courts, free speech, an investigate press, vibrant opposition parties, and the unfettered rights of all citizens to organize and vote are absolutely essential for holding political leaders and government agencies accountable. In their absence, the slide to a dictatorship is all too easy, as my grandparents found out when the Nazi’s marched in.
I agree almost completely except for the last part.
If you are too lazy/apathetic to get involved, the fault for poor government is yours.
This is only true if “you” is referring to the entire populace, and then it’d actually be a great example of why this entire thread of voting your conscience by just considering which candidate is pro-birth is flawed. 3 years ago, over half the country got blindsided by a great showman and instead of listening to what he said, just listened to how he said it. The corrupted political system put the voters between a clown and a scandal, and they chose the clown given the choices.
 

DeletedUser

I agree almost completely except for the last part.

This is only true if “you” is referring to the entire populace, and then it’d actually be a great example of why this entire thread of voting your conscience by just considering which candidate is pro-birth is flawed. 3 years ago, over half the country got blindsided by a great showman and instead of listening to what he said, just listened to how he said it. The corrupted political system put the voters between a clown and a scandal, and they chose the clown given the choices.

It applies to both the population, hence the need for a free and independent press, among other checks and balances, as well as the individual: i.e. we are all responsible to be informed and engaged socially and politically.

I occasionally teach university students. The biggest challenge they have is to learn and put to use critical thinking skills. I help them learn to self-assess the content and quality of what they read and hear, by using multiple sources of information/evidence, not just the sources they are comfortable or familiar with. Having them try to figure out the potential motivations/biases of the author(s), takes effort but potentially gives them a life-long advantage. It does take some real effort at first, but after even 1 semester most of my students get pretty good at spotting sloppy arguments, or poorly research opinions presented as "facts". A search for "Critical Thinking for Democracy" yields quite a lot of useful material (along with the usual internet garbage).

The point being, if a person wants to be informed, it is possible. Yes, it does take considerable initial work and practice, especially to step outside your comfort zone and truly try to read and understand opposing viewpoints. It requires studying a range of conflicting opinions, learning to systematically sift through multiple sources of information, to figure out which info is fairly valid and which is baloney, and which is somewhere in-between.

Finally, the concept of voting on a "single-issue" is deeply flawed. Any major social issue is the product of multiple, interacting root social and political causes that arise from the history and present circumstances of that society. IMHO, it is laziness to vote blindly on an issue without bothering to try to really understand the consequences, intended and unintended, that could result from a change to laws and regulations.
 

DeletedUser

Losing My Religion
R.E.M.
Oh, life is bigger
It's bigger
Than you and you are not me
The lengths that I will go to
The distance in your eyes
Oh no, I've said too much
I set it up
That's me in the corner
That's me in the spotlight
Losing my religion
Trying to keep up with you
And I don't know if I can do it
Oh no, I've said too much
I haven't said enough
I thought that I heard you laughing
I thought that I heard you sing
I think I thought I saw you try............
 

Emberguard

Well-Known Member
You can never truly seperate the two though. Politics is about decision making, our beliefs guide those decisions regardless of whether they’re religious or non-religious reasons. To not involve religion at all is to ignore those reasons. Something has to give that moral foundation

Whether you like it or not many of the laws and customs of Christian countries were built off the beliefs of Christianity because of their beliefs
 

Super Catanian

Well-Known Member
You can never truly seperate the two though. Politics is about decision making, our beliefs guide those decisions regardless of whether they’re religious or non-religious reasons. To not involve religion at all is to ignore those reasons. Something has to give that moral foundation

Whether you like it or not many of the laws and customs of Christian countries were built off the beliefs of Christianity because of their beliefs
You're right, but that's for a separate discussion.
 

Freshmeboy

Well-Known Member
I won't start a thread like that..unlike politics that affects us all and we all should have a part it in, religion and faith are a highly personal thing, and trampling on or disputing that faith or belief just isn't my style...
 

DeletedUser

Seems it would be hard to find a constructive way to discuss that could keep things from getting too emotional. Fully agree with Ember that you can't separate religion from politics, any more than you can separate any social or economic aspects of society from its politics. Living for a while in India, it was easy to see (with outsider’s eyes) how religion, politics and economics are all hardwired into every aspect of the society and its institutions. It was pretty much impossible to even gently discuss the reasons they had for various social customs and traditions in a calm way. Don’t think I’ve the courage to try it here.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top