What right does the government have to restrict people?

[TheBajan]

This question was posed by someone in the payday loan thread and I thought it was a great topic of it's own. He was referring to people's right to choose to take on a payday loan. Give us your thoughts. It could be about anything. For example, the 'right' to smoke marajuana, or the right to ride a motorcycle without a helmet, or the 'right' to drive without wearing a seatbelt. What are your thoughts about personal liberties and where the government should draw the line in it's responsibility to intervine or regulate those liberties. No personal attacks in this post but be ready to defend your position.

[mlsj2009]

I am a big believer of individual's rights, that you cannot legislate morality, and in the legalization of about anything that doesn't hurt anyone else.
Having said that, your rights should stop at the end of your nose. As individuals, we as a nation have collectively agreed to make laws that will make an even playing field for every individual citizen, regardless of their stance in life.
That means there will be gray areas in any of these topics you select to discuss. Good luck in working out the details in the GRAY.

For instance, do you have the right to smoke in public and blow smoke on your neighbor? Do you have the right to overindulge in alcohol and let taxpayers pay for your rehabilitation? etc etc etc.
Tough and never ending. Good luck!

This question was posed by someone in the payday loan thread and I thought it was a great topic of it's own. He was referring to people's right to choose to take on a payday loan. Give us your thoughts. It could be about anything. For example, the 'right' to smoke marajuana, or the right to ride a motorcycle without a helmet, or the 'right' to drive without wearing a seatbelt. What are your thoughts about personal liberties and where the government should draw the line in it's responsibility to intervine or regulate those liberties. No personal attacks in this post but be ready to defend your position.

[TheBajan]

I am a big believer of individual's rights, that you cannot legislate morality, and in the legalization of about anything that doesn't hurt anyone else.
Having said that, your rights should stop at the end of your nose. As individuals, we as a nation have collectively agreed to make laws that will make an even playing field for every individual citizen, regardless of their stance in life.
That means there will be gray areas in any of these topics you select to discuss. Good luck in working out the details in the GRAY.

For instance, do you have the right to smoke in public and blow smoke on your neighbor? Do you have the right to overindulge in alcohol and let taxpayers pay for your rehabilitation? etc etc etc.
Tough and never ending. Good luck!

Those are the questions to ask! Even more so, does our government have the right to regulate our rights? For example, (silly I know) but if you have the right to smoke and you want to blow smoke on your neighbor, should you be allowed to? If you aren't allowed to because it's offensive to your neighbor, how would that be enforced? Also, is it even possible to create a level (fair for all) playing field? Where does the reality that life just isn't fair come into the picture? Where does the right to respond to the personal liberties of others come into play? I mean, if someone blows smoke at me and I'm offended, shouldn't I have the right to respond to that offense? Why do I need the intervention of the government? (see the slippery slope here). If I don't have the right to respond, isn't that infringing on my personal liberties?

[mlsj2009]

" For example, (silly I know) but if you have the right to smoke and you want to blow smoke on your neighbor, should you be allowed to? If you aren't allowed to because it's offensive to your neighbor, how would that be enforced?"

That is the whole point, bajan, we make laws for these kinds of grievances and differences. The police have to enforce civil laws as well as criminal laws. Yes and since every incident is different in these types of gray areas, it is SILLY to argue about it.
For instance, say a man blows smoke in another man's face in a no-smoking area. The guy that has the smoke blown in face is highly allergic to smoke. This guy levels the smoker and sends him to the hospital. Who pays and were there any laws violated. Happens every day for similar reasons.
Yes, lawsuits and laws are how civilized society governs itself.

[QUOTE= Also, is it even possible to create a level (fair for all) playing field? Where does the reality that life just isn't fair come into the picture? Where does the right to respond to the personal liberties of others come into play? Why do I need the intervention of the government? (see the slippery slope here). If I don't have the right to respond, isn't that infringing on my personal liberties?[/QUOTE]

The even playing field is the laws in which we pass to fairly govern ourselves. Your rights stop at the end of your nose and the law takes over from there.

You don't have the right to protect only your collective group. Your right to respond is governed by law. That protects every individuals rights for only one group, and that group is the citizens of the US. Your rights are spelled out in the Constitution and the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. You may violate those rights, but when you get caught, you will be forced to abide by them. Just ask countless people who have been jailed, handcuffed, and then gagged and tied when they showed contempt for the law in a court room.

See? Sort of fundamental and basic isn't it?

[mlsj2009]

"see the slippery slope?" No, not really. There is nothing slippery about the Constitution of the United States. It is what gives you the legal and protected right to come here and give your opinion without fear of a violent regress. Freedom to speak out is one of our guaranteed rights, but nevertheless, you must be responsible for what you speak. For instance, it is against the law to advocate the violent overthrow of our government. You can talk about the government until you are speechless as long as you do not incite a riot or advocate violently overthrowing the government. Your right of free speech ends at your nose, responsibility for its effect comes past the nose, and you can be held responsible for its offense.

[mlsj2009]

"Where does the right to respond to the personal liberties of others come into play? Why do I need the intervention of the government?"

Again, it is not your right to respond by taking the law into your own hands. If you are within your right legally respond, by all means do so, but to decide which group is right or wrong is collective mentality and the only collective group in a free society is society all inclusive. In this case, meaning the United States and all its citizenry.
Why do you need intervention from government? Because government is WE THE PEOPLE whom have collectively come together as a nation willingly to live as free men and women in a civilized society. That means we must make fair laws to govern ourselves. The only fair laws are those that protects all individuals within the society group as a whole, not just some special elite group that thinks they are better than everyone else. If you cannot abide that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, then get obstinate and pay the price or leave the country.

Again, discussions on gray areas will be decided as individual cases in court rooms. Discussions about such matters out here I have found to be counter productive.

[TheBajan]

" For example, (silly I know) but if you have the right to smoke and you want to blow smoke on your neighbor, should you be allowed to? If you aren't allowed to because it's offensive to your neighbor, how would that be enforced?"

That is the whole point, bajan, we make laws for these kinds of grievances and differences. The police have to enforce civil laws as well as criminal laws. Yes and since every incident is different in these types of gray areas, it is SILLY to argue about it.
For instance, say a man blows smoke in another man's face in a no-smoking area. The guy that has the smoke blown in face is highly allergic to smoke. This guy levels the smoker and sends him to the hospital. Who pays and were there any laws violated. Happens every day for similar reasons.
Yes, lawsuits and laws are how civilized society governs itself.



The even playing field is the laws in which we pass to fairly govern ourselves. Your rights stop at the end of your nose and the law takes over from there.

You don't have the right to protect only your collective group. Your right to respond is governed by law. That protects every individuals rights for only one group, and that group is the citizens of the US. Your rights are spelled out in the Constitution and the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. You may violate those rights, but when you get caught, you will be forced to abide by them. Just ask countless people who have been jailed, handcuffed, and then gagged and tied when they showed contempt for the law in a court room.

See? Sort of fundamental and basic isn't it?

I don't think it's silly to discuss these questions, I was merely using an illustration that I think is silly. I think these discussions are very important. Making laws and being able to enforce them are two different things. I do recognize and agree that police have a responsibility to enforce both established civil as well as criminal law. I also understand that laws are a function of civilized society. However, my question had more to do with the governments role in regulating personal liberties and at what point is the government overstepping their place in controlling my choices.

We are simply going to disagree regarding your definition of an even playing field but I would like you to clarify what you mean when you say that "your rights stop at the end of your nose". I don't want to make an incorrect assumption.

Regarding your last statement... why don't I have the right to protect my collective group? I would ask you to demonstrate exactly how does that protect every individual as you state. As far the your statements regarding the Constitution... that's a whole other discussion. Thanks for the discussion. I hope you aren't taking any of this with offense. It's not meant that way at all.

The Bajan

[TheBajan]

"Where does the right to respond to the personal liberties of others come into play? Why do I need the intervention of the government?"

Again, it is not your right to respond by taking the law into your own hands. If you are within your right legally respond, by all means do so, but to decide which group is right or wrong is collective mentality and the only collective group in a free society is society all inclusive. In this case, meaning the United States and all its citizenry.
Why do you need intervention from government? Because government is WE THE PEOPLE whom have collectively come together as a nation willingly to live as free men and women in a civilized society. That means we must make fair laws to govern ourselves. The only fair laws are those that protects all individuals within the society group as a whole, not just some special elite group that thinks they are better than everyone else. If you cannot abide that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, then get obstinate and pay the price or leave the country.

Again, discussions on gray areas will be decided as individual cases in court rooms. Discussions about such matters out here I have found to be counter productive.

Wow! I would appear I've offended you. It was not my intention. I was simply posing a friendly question but if it incites one to suggest I should leave the country.... wow!
We will agree to disagree. BTW, I am not from America although I've spent most of my life here and I am a patriot to this country. I simply see our government in a different light than you do. I'll end the discussion here.
Have a great day.
The Bajan

[mlsj2009]

I am not taking any of this personally, bajan. But, these types of discussions tend to appear that I might be taking it personally because they can be very personal in nature. The gray areas of life hit us where we all live. WE THE PEOPLE are the only ones that stand in the way of government overstepping their boundaries. We can do something about it by voting the rascals out, and we often do. We can march in protest, and we have. We can fill the streets and make our sentiments known, and we have done that also.
Yes, I really believe our rights stop at the end of our noses, and laws come into effect afterwards, but so do our responsibilities.
There is really no disagreement between us as to a fair playing field. The fair playing field is the law. Anyone can take up umbrage with the law in court, the field of play when they do not agree, or they can elect legislatures that will change the laws as they want them.
The great equalizer of the fair playing field is the Constitution, and it is the only subject worth discussing, in my opinion. To change the Constitution, there has to be an amendment offered and then there has to be by a 2/3 majority in Congress and ratified by 3/4 of the states. A legislature cannot just change the Constitution on a vote in Congress. They might make laws that violate the Constitution, but the Supreme Court has historically corrected it.
As to having a collective mentality, when a nation guarantees the rights of the individual instead of elite groups, everyone is protected. A collective mentality is a vigilante mentality. It seeks to interpret laws for the benefit of a small collective group rather than society as a whole. The only guarantee we have as individuals is in the Constitution and in the form of the Bill of Rights.
By protecting ALL individuals in our society, we collectively protect all groups. We cannot allow some tyrant to bend the laws to fit their group. Happens all the time. Deciding what is the ultimate in gray areas tempts the violation of individual's rights for the benefit of a particular group, don't you see? It is a difficult area to discuss, because it become convoluted with collective mentality for special interest groups. ie, in the form of their particular agendas.

I don't think it's silly to discuss these questions, I was merely using an illustration that I think is silly. I think these discussions are very important. Making laws and being able to enforce them are two different things. I do recognize and agree that police have a responsibility to enforce both established civil as well as criminal law. I also understand that laws are a function of civilized society. However, my question had more to do with the governments role in regulating personal liberties and at what point is the government overstepping their place in controlling my choices.

We are simply going to disagree regarding your definition of an even playing field but I would like you to clarify what you mean when you say that "your rights stop at the end of your nose". I don't want to make an incorrect assumption.

Regarding your last statement... why don't I have the right to protect my collective group? I would ask you to demonstrate exactly how does that protect every individual as you state. As far the your statements regarding the Constitution... that's a whole other discussion. Thanks for the discussion. I hope you aren't taking any of this with offense. It's not meant that way at all.

The Bajan

[mlsj2009]

Again, Bajan, no offense really taken. This particular subject runs deep in my emotions and veins. If you are from another country, then please try to understand the roots that inspire my passion. Individualism is what this country was founded on. I have learned this since boyhood living and growing up in America. Many have lost sight of the reason for the American revolution in the beginning of this nation and the forming of the Bill of Rights.
People who have lost the vision of why America was founded tend to misunderstand the most basic concepts of United States government. We are quickly becoming an elitist and collective society instead of as society of individuals. Certainly, most of the politicians from the President on down have forgotten the Constitution and the purpose for which it was ultimately derived.
As for asking you to leave this country, you misunderstood my context. The offer is for everyone in America. You can abide by the Constitution and its laws or pay the price for violating them, or you can leave the country if you do not like the way the country operates. "You" in this case is used in Old English and its meaning is plural and everyone in general. In America, anyone exercising these rights is exercising their right of freedom. You have the ability to make free choices living here in America. We all do. I have the same choices. The invitation made in context was for anyone, not you in particular, to either pay the consequences of violating the law, abide by the land's laws, or go somewhere else to live. Your free choice, and the freedom to choose is what I think is great about America, is still available even today.

Wow! I would appear I've offended you. It was not my intention. I was simply posing a friendly question but if it incites one to suggest I should leave the country.... wow!
We will agree to disagree. BTW, I am not from America although I've spent most of my life here and I am a patriot to this country. I simply see our government in a different light than you do. I'll end the discussion here.
Have a great day.
The Bajan

[Pandora]

.... You can abide by the Constitution and its laws or pay the price for violating them, or you can leave the country if you do not like the way the country operates. ...... Your free choice, and it is what I think is great about America, even still today.

While the concept is nice - unfortunately the reality of our government abiding by the Constitution is totally FUBAR. Each and every day our rights are being nicked away..by the same people we put in office to uphold that very document. Is America still a great place to live? Sure....its better than other countries - however it has fallen severely over the past 15 years or so.

We cannot raise our children the way WE as parents see fit without some part of gov't interfering - we now must legally support our children and fill out college apps, etc until the age of 26. WTF?! I was married at 20 and a baby at 21 - all on my own with no help or support from anyone, let alone my parents. We are considered 'adults' at 18, can carry a gun and defend this country, be tried as an adult, but cannot legally drink. Therefore, at 21 we are now considered "legal to drink" but not legal enough to be out on our own as our Gov't has seen fit to say "nope..college bound - lets make you a dependent of your parents until XX age, unless you get married or have a child of your own." Gimme a break. Our gov't has proceeded to raise nothing more than an "I WANT / ITS NOT FAIR / HE HAS MORE THAN I DO" generation. Everything is PC....god forbid you say the wrong thing to someone, even in jest - or else you'll get slapped with a lawsuit, or the ACLU will come and get you. *massive eye roll*

Want to make this country great again? Bring the jobs back, fine big business' that outsources, fine any business that knowingly hires undocumented workers, bring "made in America" back, go back to getting our food from INSIDE this country vs. mporting / exporting - and for God's sake - get the hell out of countries we have no business being in!! We have children and families here that are starving that arent being taken care of the way people from other countries are being taken care of by the US. I wont even touch on the illegal immigration area because it will cause an uproar on the forum, however my personal take is if you want to be here, then do it legally, just like those that came through Ellis Island did many many years ago. how can we preach legality in this country or fairness when our own President totally ignores immigration law? We can't - and that's why we get such a bad name in other parts of the world.

Ok..off soap box now LOL

[mlsj2009]

Want to make this country great again? Bring the jobs back, fine big business' that outsources, fine any business that knowingly hires undocumented workers, bring "made in America" back, go back to getting our food from INSIDE this country vs. mporting / exporting - and for God's sake - get the hell out of countries we have no business being in!! We have children and families here that are starving that arent being taken care of the way people from other countries are being taken care of by the US. I wont even touch on the illegal immigration area because it will cause an uproar on the forum, however my personal take is if you want to be here, then do it legally, just like those that came through Ellis Island did many many years ago. how can we preach legality in this country or fairness when our own President totally ignores immigration law? We can't - and that's why we get such a bad name in other parts of the world.

Ok..off soap box now LOL

Pandora, where I understand your rant about the government, WE THE PEOPLE here are not the enemy. Your answers above is to solve the problem with what? More government that will fine big business, fine any business, provide jobs etc. So, which collective group is going to solve all these problems?

The real problem is not in Big Government or Big Business, but it is in how we as a nation are relating to governess. We have allowed lobbyist and money to accommodate the agendas of small collective groups around the country until collectivists in any form that has money rules. It is called corruption.

The only correction of this corruption is to return to our roots as a nation that respects individual's freedoms and rights. Big Government and Big Business, unfortunately, will necessarily remain, but they must do so under the old premises. The fix on all of this is to return to our Founding Father's ways.

Return to a simple use tax, remove special interest groups that have access to Congresses pockets, and limit the time legislators can serve. In addition, reduce our military to a militia in peaceful times, reorganize our National Guard to include the militia, take back control of our borders, and reform our immigration laws and the status of every immigrant to support US citizens first. Constitutionally redefine US citizenry, eliminate foreign ownership of US land, and put the United States first. Lose the One World concept.

Get out of the moral leadership business where we are the policeman and conscience of the world. We simply are not. Yes, FUBAR is the correct word for what has been going on, and not just because of Republican or Democratic leadership, Liberals or Conservatives. It is all sides, and a house cleaning is in order where WE THE PEOPLE are in control once again.

Radical, Yes. Realistic, Yes. A viable 3rd party establishing these goals is the only thing that can accomplish the tasks.

[Pandora]

mljs -

I have no answer to the massive issues we as a Country face - and even if I did - it doesnt really matter in the end as "we the people" have no voice any longer. Doesnt matter what "WE" say, write, do or dont do - those we elect (who always lie to get elected, no matter what Party affiliation they are) - dont do what they say they'd do once in office (any office...).

One massive way to start to fix many of the issues we face, first and foremost, is to have terms set for ALL elected officials - from county, city, state and federal - just like the Presidency is set to terms. Being a politician should not be a life-long career - it should be limited. You get the 'good ol' boy system" playing hard ball when they should be looking out for their constituents instead of their own personal adgendas and gains. Want to fix our healthcare, medicare, social security issues / system easily? Have Congress put themselves in those positions that they so generously (dripping with sarcasm) put US in but excluded themselves from completely in those "laws" they pass. Bet the issues would be fixed within a month! WE THE PEOPLE must live and balance our budgets and purse strings - why doesnt that extend to those in office? Nope, they just rob from peter to pay paul - medicare, social security, retirements, etc would not be in the shape they're in if the gov't would stop borrowing against them.

Prime example: we recently found out our local county gov't was contributing TAX PAYERS MONIES to charities that some of our elected officials held seats on! Was I pissed when this news came out publically 2 days ago? Yep - what right do elected officials in my county have to give away taxpayer monies to charities they head up? they don't, period. Is there fallout now that this "dirty little secret" has been exposed? Yes - and there will be much more in the weeks to come, and there should be removals IMO. Conflict of interest never came into play on any of their minds let alone the ethical / moral issues that they are using taxpayers monies w/out our knowledge? Nope....and thats standard in any area - makes you wonder what you dont know as a taxpayer that is being kept from you. To add insult to injury, they raised our real estate taxes 3% because they were "losing money" due to the housing market falling, so that they could "balance the budget" in some way or another, making up for the deficits they created! Disgusting doesnt even begin to describe how I feel in this situation.

Moral leadership / police of the world - yep - I agree; we are not the World Police, although our elected officials believe otherwise.

ETA: while I agree that our military needs a bit of cutback in some areas (like planes that cost out the ass but cant be used...) I have an entirely different perspective when it comes to the INDIVIDUAL soldier and here's why. It used to be that when you went into the military (any branch) you were provided 3 squares a day, medical for life, barracks, etc - all free in exchange for your service to your country. Not any more.

I am appalled that our daughter must pay for every uniform, boots, chow hall (whether she eats there or not, to the tune of $300 a month, automatically deducted), if sent overseas to combat areas, they must also pay for their kevlar to a certain degree. Where our daughter is located there are no military hospitals, so they must pay to see civilian doctors and be reimbursed after they pay the fee... need to go see an actual military doctor at the closest military facility over 4 hrs by plane / 9 hours by car? Well lets make you pay for your plane ticket and we'll reimburse you for that as well.

Appalling on every level.....and most of these kids make the equivalent of less than $10 per hour. How is she to live when she must pay for everything upfront - then be reimbursed? Answer: she cant...and we must assist.

[helpmeout]

To address the motorcycle and seatbelt issue, driving is a privilege, not a right. If you want to drive, you have to follow the laws.

What I find extremely restrictive is requiring citizens to register by a certain date or lose the ability to vote. If a person were to move to a different state and not have enough time to register to vote before a major election, they would lose out on the right to vote. Which is wrong. I also think that the electoral college should be done away with. Whoever gets the popular vote is who should be President.

[helpmeout]

For example, (silly I know) but if you have the right to smoke and you want to blow smoke on your neighbor, should you be allowed to? If you aren't allowed to because it's offensive to your neighbor, how would that be enforced?

Your rights end where mine begins. I have the right not be exposed to the dangers of secondhand smoke in a public place. I don't smoke, why should I be forced to just because I am out in public? I'm not the one with the addiction that produces a toxic smoke.