UPNetwork  

Go Back   UPNetwork > General Forums > Debate

View Poll Results: Which of the following should be the roles of the government?
Protect and defend national economic interests abroad, militarily if necessary. 5 38.46%
Support democracy abroad, even if a democratic electorate is hostile to us. 1 7.69%
Prescribe who may get married. 2 15.38%
Provide free public education to youth through high school. 12 92.31%
Provide all citizens a minimum level of income to cover basic needs. 12 92.31%
Provide health insurance for all citizens, directly or through directed markets. 10 76.92%
Establish rules that protect children from graphic media content. 4 30.77%
Determine which foreign workers who are able to find jobs may immigrate to the country. 7 53.85%
Provide health insurance for all citizens, directly or through directed markets. 8 61.54%
Set tax deductions to promote social goods like business investment or home ownership. 8 61.54%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 13. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 02-15-2012, 09:05 PM   #1
Chaotic
Boulder Badge
 
Chaotic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 110
Role of Government: Specific Version

A new poll with specifics, instead of vague statements. Hooray. Select all that apply.
__________________
Does he look like a bitch?

Chaotic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2012, 09:46 PM   #2
deoxys
Fog Badge
 
deoxys's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,513
Thank you. Can we lock the other thread?
Also, you added "Provide health insurance for all citizens, directly or through directed markets." twice.

And I really want to vote for "Protect and defend national economic interests abroad, militarily if necessary.", but I feel like it's too broad. I don't know how I feel about the "militarily if necessary" part...
deoxys is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2012, 09:53 PM   #3
phoopes
Double Dragon
 
phoopes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 3,776
Hey deo, looks like we have exactly the same views on the things listed, except for on the first one, which I agree with in full while you are kind of lukewarm on it.

EDIT: Oh, I thought those were your votes. My bad.
__________________
phoopes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2012, 09:55 PM   #4
Concept
Archbishop of Banterbury
 
Concept's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Nipple-Hunting with Elsie and Kairne
Posts: 7,030
Send a message via Skype™ to Concept
I'm going to have to quibble a little on the health insurance one - if someone of sound mind willingly chooses not to have health insurance, on their own head be it - but what rankles me is when people are precluded from having it through financial difficulties. Also with some of the others I confess being tired and tipsy isn't helping my comprehension so I left them to be on the safe side :p.

To defend my stance on the foreign workers one - I wish we had the space and resources to accept the entire population of third world nations into Britain and help them get work and such so they can live the lifestyle we take for granted, but unfortunately that's not the case so practically speaking there has to be some limit so we don't end up with an extra few billion citizens. I hardly claim to be an expert on related matters so I make no assertions as to how restrictions should be done or whether current levels of immigration are anything limits. And for the income to provide for basic needs one, only in such circumstances where the people getting it are showing a genuine effort to provide for themselves but are simply unable to. I'm not talking about going around giving billionaires benefits.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by PTerry
What can the harvest hope for, if not the care of the reaper man?

Last edited by Concept; 02-15-2012 at 10:04 PM.
Concept is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2012, 09:57 PM   #5
Jerichi
プラスチック♡ラブ
 
Jerichi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: 蒸気の波の中
Posts: 14,766
If we're having a discussion about Political Theory, this is kind of a terrible selection since a lot of them are only relevant to America in the past 20 years.

I mean, they're better options than the last one, but they're still not all that great.

It's best to be fair, after all.
__________________


私のことを消して本気で愛さないで 恋なんてただのゲーム 楽しめばそれでいい
閉ざした心を飾る 派手なドレスも靴も 孤独の友達

asbwffb

[jerichi]
Jerichi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2012, 10:06 PM   #6
Talon87
時の彼方へ
 
Talon87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Lafayette, Indiana
Posts: 20,578
Going to echo Jeri. This is a step in the right direction, but we've still not made a very solid poll. This is more a "are you a Tea Partier or aren't you?" litmus test than it is anything else. Anyway ...

To be clear, the asked question was, "Which of the following should be the roles of the government?" Because it's asking me what I think government should be and not what I think government is (two different things!), I answered as follows:

o Provide free public education to youth through high school.
o Provide all citizens a minimum level of income to cover basic needs.
o Provide health insurance for all citizens, directly or through directed markets.

Mind you, that last one is a pretty loaded option. You have to define what is meant by "health insurance." Is it minimum coverage? Is it maximum coverage? Is it mean coverage? What exactly is meant by government-sponsored or government-appointed health insurance? In my opinion, even though I think government ought to provide citizens with health insurance, I do not think it's under any obligation to provide health insurance that is competitive with private options as, let's face it, private options tend to be better but for a price and the government may not be able to afford matching that level of coverage for all citizens given just how pricey that would get. In an ideal world, we'd all have the healthcare of kings: but we live in the real world and there are finite resources to go around. :\
Talon87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2012, 10:57 PM   #7
Chaotic
Boulder Badge
 
Chaotic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 110
I only had 10 options to work with /:
__________________
Does he look like a bitch?

Chaotic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2012, 11:32 PM   #8
Muyotwo
Dominator of Bike Levels
 
Muyotwo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,321
Quote:
Originally Posted by deoxys View Post
Thank you. Can we lock the other thread?
Yes we can.
__________________
The Kim Il Sung of ASB.
Muyotwo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2012, 10:53 AM   #9
unownmew
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,319
Send a message via MSN to unownmew
Quote:
Protect and defend national economic interests abroad, militarily if necessary.
Support democracy abroad, even if a democratic electorate is hostile to us.
Prescribe who may get married.
Provide free public education to youth through high school.
Provide all citizens a minimum level of income to cover basic needs.
Provide health insurance for all citizens, directly or through directed markets.
Establish rules that protect children from graphic media content.
Determine which foreign workers who are able to find jobs may immigrate to the country.
Provide health insurance for all citizens, directly or through directed markets.
Set tax deductions to promote social goods like business investment or home ownership.
Biased Poll is Biased. And yet you rail on me for the same? Where is your honor! Mine wasn't half as biased as this one.

Mine was broad for a reason. There's no way to sum up everything a government is responsible for in so few words. My question was also "what should the KEY role of government be?" as in the primary, most important role, not everything under the sun. -_-

Let's break this down shall we:

"Protect and defend national economic interests abroad, militarily if necessary."
I almost agree with this one. But not with Economic interests abroad,
National Defense Interests Abroad. As in, anything that can protect America and our Treatied Allies from War, Terrorism, economic disadvantage, and other hostile relations, by using economics, treaties, military force, and any other stratagem available.
So I can't vote for that.

"Support democracy abroad, even if a democratic electorate is hostile to us."
Again, your stipulations make you terribly biased. I don't support supporting hostile democracies. I support Promoting Democratic governance, when it does not interfere with our own national defense. Unless one is supportive of Treason, no one can agree to this with the stipulation you added.

"Prescribe who may get married."
This used to be determined entirely by churches, Kings, and/or the local villages, back before the middle ages. I consider it still a function of government to determine the legalities and benefits of marriage. (Originally there was no legal difference under law between married and non-married, save that fornication and adultery were punished.) But I consider it the function of churches to perform marriages, not government.

"Provide free public education to youth through high school."
I do not believe this. Government should promote education certainly, but I believe Education should remain something done by the people, in the private sector, not the public.

"Provide health insurance for all citizens, directly or through directed markets."
No role for government, whatsoever. Health Insurance is a private sector solution to super-high medical costs. The Problem is the super-high medical costs, not the lack of insurance coverage, which costs are caused by all sorts of unlimited liability and government mandates put on Medical Practitioners. The problem is impossible be solved by government interference, only can it be solved by Less interference. Health Insurance has NEVER been a role of government till this century, how can you argue that it should be a role when all of humanity has gone without for so many millenia? There is no historical evidence for your claims!

Not to mention, definitions mean everything when regarding law, what does "Health Insurance" mean? And how to you attempt to create a working option that isn't draining the treasury every second, or putting private companies out of business?

"Provide all citizens a minimum level of income to cover basic needs."
Absolutely not! If so, I'll never work another day in my life, and just suck money from those who do work, in order to support myself. Since it's apparently my right to be sustained no matter how little I do to earn it.

By the way, Definitions mean everything when regarding law. What does "basic needs" mean? Is it a basic need to have: ownership of a house, two gasoline-powered cars, 2 phones, 2 computers, internet and cable, a TV, water and electric among other utilities in abundance, good food, A/C, Heating, and enough pet food to cover 3 cats?

"Establish rules that protect children from graphic media content."
I'm confuse. Are you saying protect children from seeing graphic media content, or being graphic media content?
Either way, that's a role for parents and families, not government. Though rules to punish those who make children graphic media content wouldn't go amiss. I support the idea of raising children up understanding brutal reality, but not glorifying in it.

"Determine which foreign workers who are able to find jobs may immigrate to the country."
Almost again, but not quite. It's a role of government to determine qualifications for immigration and naturalization, to keep criminals, terrorists, and societal leeches out, while ensuring we aren't overrun by foreigners and aliens. But not to pick and choose who may enter and who may not.

"Set tax deductions to promote social goods like business investment or home ownership."
Definitely not. Personally I think there shouldn't be many deductions in the first place (it just leads to loopholes where people can avoid paying taxes entirely). Also, government should just not tax things except where necessary, and only at an economical rate, where the tax is not so high it almost completely dries up the market, but just low enough to cover the necessary functions of that tax.


So, what can I vote on?
Option 11 None of the above.
*Click*


In reply to concept from the now-locked thread (I appeal that lock, BTW)
Quote:
And religious freedoms would be amongst these rights? (so long as they don't dick on other peoples rights etc etc)?

I'm actually kinda surprised you struck marriage from your list on the basis that it "requires a third party" - I mean, buying and selling require another person, too, that's still on your list (do I have a right to buy if no-one wants to sell?) Just because it's a right that requires several people to excercise doesn't mean it shouldn't fall under religious freedoms. I mean, correct me if I'm wrong but you could still conduct a marriage ceremony in the absence of any government, or do you religious types requite governmental approval before you're willing to call two people married?

I think you could label them "the right to try to buy/sell" and "the right to try to get married". Ditto with the "have a family" one. Idk my point was that just because something requires more than one person to excercise, that doesn't make it not an inherent right under your definitions as it could still be conducted without a government.
Yes, religious freedoms would be among those rights, so long as they don't mess with others' rights, like human sacrifice.

You are correct, buying and selling requires other people to be selling and buying, my mistake. I amend my statement to as you said, the "right to try to buy or sell, or barter, or have a family, etc."

As for marriage, my view is this: it is a covenant between yourself, the spouse, and God, officiated by one who has authority perform the union. It is possible to perform a marriage without a government, or even an officiator if you are one who believes in and keeps covenants. However, such a marriage can't be recognized by governments as providing the legal benefits of marriage unless it is also registered and recognized under the law. Nor can it be recognized by churches unless it conforms to their own statues.
Furthermore, unless a marriage is sealed by God by one whom he gives power to seal, it can only be in effect "until death," whereas a marriage sealed by God, can exist into the everlasting.

Last edited by unownmew; 02-16-2012 at 11:23 AM.
unownmew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2012, 02:19 PM   #10
Concept
Archbishop of Banterbury
 
Concept's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Nipple-Hunting with Elsie and Kairne
Posts: 7,030
Send a message via Skype™ to Concept
Quote:
Let's break this down shall we:

"Support democracy abroad, even if a democratic electorate is hostile to us."
Again, your stipulations make you terribly biased. I don't support supporting hostile democracies. I support Promoting Democratic governance, when it does not interfere with our own national defense. Unless one is supportive of Treason, no one can agree to this with the stipulation you added.
His stipulation is in no way biased - that would require that he's presented it as either a negative or positive thing, which he hasn't. Does this mean you'd prefer a brutal, mass-murdering dictator who does whatever America asks than a free, progressive democracy that takes issue with America invading one of its allies, though? (Not trying to put words in your mouth here, hypothetical question. Feel free to say yay or nay and clarify as much as you want).

Quote:
"Prescribe who may get married."
This used to be determined entirely by churches, Kings, and/or the local villages, back before the middle ages. I consider it still a function of government to determine the legalities and benefits of marriage. (Originally there was no legal difference under law between married and non-married, save that fornication and adultery were punished.) But I consider it the function of churches to perform marriages, not government.
Does this extend to other religious institutions? You explicitly mention churches, does this mean that Muslims and Jews and whatnot can only have a recognised marriage if performed in a Christian institution, or can they marry in their own institutions with their own rituals and practices and expect equal treatment under the law?

Quote:
"Provide free public education to youth through high school."
I do not believe this. Government should promote education certainly, but I believe Education should remain something done by the people, in the private sector, not the public.
I think it would be foolhardy of a government not to require education to a certain age, and unfair to require it if their was the possibility that it was simply impossible. Private education is all well and good, but if that's the only option then there will always be people who through no fault of their own cannot afford it and slip through the cracks of bursaries and such. I can't see any argument for the government not stepping in under those circumstances. Beyond that is certainly debatable.

Quote:
"Provide health insurance for all citizens, directly or through directed markets."
No role for government, whatsoever. Health Insurance is a private sector solution to super-high medical costs. The Problem is the super-high medical costs, not the lack of insurance coverage, which costs are caused by all sorts of unlimited liability and government mandates put on Medical Practitioners. The problem is impossible be solved by government interference, only can it be solved by Less interference. Health Insurance has NEVER been a role of government till this century, how can you argue that it should be a role when all of humanity has gone without for so many millenia? There is no historical evidence for your claims!
There's no historical evidence for mobile phones and cars, either. Clearly we should all live like the Amish.

Jesting aside, see my stance on education for my stance on healthcare, minus the require bit. If someone through no fault of their own simply can't afford it, then I see no problem with the state stepping in to provide at least some measure of cover.

On the other hand I'm really quite fond of the NHS. It can, if nothing else, cut out that delay that would otherwise be caused by the health insurance people arguing over whether they should cover this treatment or not.

Quote:
"Provide all citizens a minimum level of income to cover basic needs."
Absolutely not! If so, I'll never work another day in my life, and just suck money from those who do work, in order to support myself. Since it's apparently my right to be sustained no matter how little I do to earn it.
See my original post - I voted for this then clarified only in those circumstances where the individual is either incapable of providing for themselves (through illness or serious injury eg a soldier come back from Afghanistan missing most of his limbs), or are demonstrably attempting to find work to provide for themselves but need a stopgap to stop them starving.

Quote:
By the way, Definitions mean everything when regarding law. What does "basic needs" mean? Is it a basic need to have: ownership of a house, two gasoline-powered cars, 2 phones, 2 computers, internet and cable, a TV, water and electric among other utilities in abundance, good food, A/C, Heating, and enough pet food to cover 3 cats?
Does freedom of religion include all the sick and twisted punishments of Leviticus? Oh no, let's ban all freedom of religion!

Don't be absurd, it's not helping anyone see you as not a troll. Basic food and accomodation, a few other necessities (see: education above).

Quote:
"Determine which foreign workers who are able to find jobs may immigrate to the country."
Almost again, but not quite. It's a role of government to determine qualifications for immigration and naturalization, to keep criminals, terrorists, and societal leeches out, while ensuring we aren't overrun by foreigners and aliens. But not to pick and choose who may enter and who may not.
I assume by "pick and choose" you mean arbitrarily, as things like "this person has a clear history of terrorism and terror threats against this country" are, I think, a reason we can agree on to prevent someone moving to said country. Honestly, I'd love to be able to move the entire third world population into Britain and give them a chance to make a first world lifestyle for themselves, but unfortunately it would destroy the country. What exactly limits should be I don't pretend to know enough to try to say.

Quote:
In reply to concept from the now-locked thread (I appeal that lock, BTW)

Yes, religious freedoms would be among those rights, so long as they don't mess with others' rights, like human sacrifice.

You are correct, buying and selling requires other people to be selling and buying, my mistake. I amend my statement to as you said, the "right to try to buy or sell, or barter, or have a family, etc."

As for marriage, my view is this: it is a covenant between yourself, the spouse, and God, officiated by one who has authority perform the union. It is possible to perform a marriage without a government, or even an officiator if you are one who believes in and keeps covenants. However, such a marriage can't be recognized by governments as providing the legal benefits of marriage unless it is also registered and recognized under the law. Nor can it be recognized by churches unless it conforms to their own statues.
Furthermore, unless a marriage is sealed by God by one whom he gives power to seal, it can only be in effect "until death," whereas a marriage sealed by God, can exist into the everlasting.
Again, does this extend to other religions than Christianity? Other religions have their own marriage rituals. So long as such a marriage causes no-one harm (children too young to consent, people/animals incapable of consent, forced into it, what have you), the state must recognise any marriage deemed legitimate by any religion, yes? Islam, sikhism, etc etc.

I forsee much ire coming my way from both sides. All hate on the quasi-libertarian.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by PTerry
What can the harvest hope for, if not the care of the reaper man?

Last edited by Concept; 02-16-2012 at 02:36 PM.
Concept is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2012, 05:09 PM   #11
Shuckle
Problematic Fave
 
Shuckle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: VA
Posts: 3,199
I accidentally hit "provide tax deductions"

The current tax code throws tax deductions waaaay off and until we establish a better one I'm all for a tax based entirely on income and familial/medical status. Tax deductions are a beast that I don't think we're ready to confront.
__________________
Shuckle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2012, 05:37 PM   #12
Tyranidos
beebooboobopbooboobop
 
Tyranidos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Krusty Krab
Posts: 3,800
Send a message via AIM to Tyranidos Send a message via MSN to Tyranidos
I thought this poll was a more general case on what responsibilities a good government should have, not what the US government should do right this minute.
__________________
Tyranidos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2012, 05:43 PM   #13
Chaotic
Boulder Badge
 
Chaotic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 110
Bias: a particular tendency or inclination, especially one that prevents unprejudiced consideration of a question; prejudice

Nope. I don't think so. The questions are yes or no. And nothing was presented in a positive or negative light. Just because you don't agree with any of them doesn't make the poll biased. So before you go questioning someone's honor (which you shouldn't be doing to me in the first place, as I never said your poll was biased, just unspecific), learn to detect bias better.
__________________
Does he look like a bitch?

Chaotic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2012, 05:50 PM   #14
Shuckle
Problematic Fave
 
Shuckle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: VA
Posts: 3,199
Shuckle

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyranidos View Post
I thought this poll was a more general case on what responsibilities a good government should have, not what the US government should do right this minute.
Misreadings woo

Then I retract my previous statement.
__________________
Shuckle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2012, 08:13 PM   #15
deoxys
Fog Badge
 
deoxys's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,513
Mew, how are you going to call a poll with no clear left or right leaning bias, just issues people do or don't want to see their government undertake, biased, and you yourself make a poll that has an option that says "GIVE FREE STOOF LOL"? That was a classic Fox News word twister there, turning what you easily could have called "welfare" or "food stamps" or "disability checks" or "Pell grants" or what have you.

This poll isn't perfect by any means (Sorry Chaotic), but it's nowhere near 'biased'. It's a straight "What do you want in your government?" poll.
deoxys is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2012, 08:17 PM   #16
unownmew
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,319
Send a message via MSN to unownmew
Quote:
Originally Posted by Concept View Post
His stipulation is in no way biased - that would require that he's presented it as either a negative or positive thing, which he hasn't. Does this mean you'd prefer a brutal, mass-murdering dictator who does whatever America asks than a free, progressive democracy that takes issue with America invading one of its allies, though? (Not trying to put words in your mouth here, hypothetical question. Feel free to say yay or nay and clarify as much as you want).
Here's my stance:
Push for a democratic government in all nations if possible. Unless, the people in those nations as a whole, are openly against America or our allies, or treating with us as allies or honoring previous treaties (For instance: Iran, Egypt, present day), where a democratic government would simply fuel the fires of hate and promote war-actions against us, or be otherwise controlled in the shadows by anti-American organizations.

In such cases as that, which we'd prefer are few and far between if at all, set up a puppet ruler, dictator or not, whatever it takes to keep that nation from being a threat to us. Preferably not a brutal mass murderer, but if that's all that's going to work, we'll have to take it.

Also, I dislike "progressive" democracy, as the progressives have utterly butchered our Constitution to set up unaccountable bureaucracies that rule over us more then our own Congress.



Quote:
Does this extend to other religious institutions? You explicitly mention churches, does this mean that Muslims and Jews and whatnot can only have a recognised marriage if performed in a Christian institution, or can they marry in their own institutions with their own rituals and practices and expect equal treatment under the law?
Any churches/religions officially recognized as such, may perform a marriage, be they Christian, Hebrew, or Muslim, etc, in their own institutions, according to their own rituals and practices, and be recognized under the law, so long as the marriage conforms to any non-religious related regulations in the law, such as age of consent, etc.



Quote:
I think it would be foolhardy of a government not to require education to a certain age, and unfair to require it if their was the possibility that it was simply impossible. Private education is all well and good, but if that's the only option then there will always be people who through no fault of their own cannot afford it and slip through the cracks of bursaries and such. I can't see any argument for the government not stepping in under those circumstances. Beyond that is certainly debatable.
Foolhardy not to require, but unfair to require if it's impossible. That's why I believe it should not require it at all, but simply encourage it.

For the underprivileged, charity and scholarship organizations can help, but most importantly of all, the government must promote an economy where even an uneducated person can have a use as a worker, to earn money enough to pay for their own education, or work their way up in a company, and housing facilities for the various wage brackets.

This of course, would require a severe change to America's current labor laws and regulations, which essentially force an uneducated person to remain useless, so long as they remain uneducated, simply because they can't possibly comply with regulations they don't understand. As well a major change in other building and business regulations, so that housing is affordable to the underprivileged workers.

Apprenticeships, internships, trade schools, manual labor, assembly lines, relaxing child labor laws, eliminating the minimum wage, promoting manufacturing, Craftsmen, company housing, tenants, etc.


Quote:
There's no historical evidence for mobile phones and cars, either. Clearly we should all live like the Amish.

Jesting aside, see my stance on education for my stance on healthcare, minus the require bit. If someone through no fault of their own simply can't afford it, then I see no problem with the state stepping in to provide at least some measure of cover.
Aye, but you don't see those things as being listed as a role of government do you?

Healthcare is a solution, to a problem government created. Healthcare did not exist back in the 17-1800s, people payed for their medical bills as they needed them, and could afford them, generally.
Instead of government taking over a private sector role, it should remove itself from it.

If people actually saved money, putting it aside for emergencies like unexpected medical, or invested in health savings accounts, there would be less "need" for healthcare. Furthermore, government should relax regulations on the medical industry, so that they can opt to provide "cheap and dirty medical" (but not really that dirty) to people who can't afford the "minimal coverage," and others can opt to provide "the whole shebang" for those who can afford it, and others can opt to provide the "medium value and cost" for the middle guys. As well do something about the exorbitantly high malpractice insurance cost to doctors which has a major impact in medical prices.

I will support however the federal mandate that hospitals, in the case of life-threatening situations, treat first and worry about cost later. Because we are a Christian nation, and that would be the Christian thing to do.


Quote:
See my original post - I voted for this then clarified only in those circumstances where the individual is either incapable of providing for themselves (through illness or serious injury eg a soldier come back from Afghanistan missing most of his limbs), or are demonstrably attempting to find work to provide for themselves but need a stopgap to stop them starving.
In the cases of people who are literally incapable of providing for themselves, I must make exception. Ultimately there should a culture shift where families stay together and provide for each other like used to occur in the past, but that's impossible to expect, so, I do not dispute (Local) Government helping those whom are disabled, or (National) Government providing benefits to veterans, disabled and otherwise.
Though it is a slippery slope which can easily be expanded upon to intentionally create dependents who do not truly need the support..

The "poor" however, should be graced with an economy where it is easy to find work regardless of skill level, and cheap housing accommodations, not stipends and food stamps, among other benefit programs.



Quote:
Does freedom of religion include all the sick and twisted punishments of Leviticus? Oh no, let's ban all freedom of religion!
Nay, much of the law in Leviticus was for the formation of a Hebrew Theocracy, a single nation of Israelites, their own "Constitution" so-to-speak. Those that live in another nation, are subject to the laws of that nation, and have no authority to execute Israelite Law under it, unless granted it by that nation.
The worship and animal sacrifice portions though, they ought to follow as much as possible if they claim to believe that religion, but they are free to choose for themselves, and it has no bearing on the National Law.

Quote:
Don't be absurd, it's not helping anyone see you as not a troll. Basic food and accomodation, a few other necessities (see: education above).
I was being absurd to prove a point: Definitions matter when discussing law, and if something is not strictly defined in a law, it automatically extends to anything and everything it can stick under that label, even totally absurd things.

Quote:
I assume by "pick and choose" you mean arbitrarily, as things like "this person has a clear history of terrorism and terror threats against this country" are, I think, a reason we can agree on to prevent someone moving to said country. Honestly, I'd love to be able to move the entire third world population into Britain and give them a chance to make a first world lifestyle for themselves, but unfortunately it would destroy the country. What exactly limits should be I don't pretend to know enough to try to say.
Essentially, yeah, let's go with that.

Personally, I'd love for the US to buy up, or otherwise annex, a large portion of third world countries, turn them over to US law (after completely stripping it down to just the necessities), and let them, with help from other citizens and businesses, go wild building themselves up.

Quote:
Again, does this extend to other religions than Christianity? Other religions have their own marriage rituals. So long as such a marriage causes no-one harm (children too young to consent, people/animals incapable of consent, forced into it, what have you), the state must recognise any marriage deemed legitimate by any religion, yes? Islam, sikhism, etc etc.
Yes, so long as the marriage conforms to any non-religious regulations, or other lawful regulation made by government, like those you stated, whatever the religion, the marriage is recognized under the law.

Quote:
I forsee much ire coming my way from both sides. All hate on the quasi-libertarian.
You're libertarian?

Quote:
Originally Posted by deoxys View Post
Mew, how are you going to call a poll with no clear left or right leaning bias, just issues people do or don't want to see their government undertake, biased, and you yourself make a poll that has an option that says "GIVE FREE STOOF LOL"? That was a classic Fox News word twister there, turning what you easily could have called "welfare" or "food stamps" or "disability checks" or "Pell grants" or what have you.

This poll isn't perfect by any means (Sorry Chaotic), but it's nowhere near 'biased'. It's a straight "What do you want in your government?" poll.
Since when did bias have to be left or right? Bias is simply leaning in a discernible direction, it doesn't have to be political right/left to have bias. And even then, it left out the most important option I consider a role for government: Protection of personal inherent rights.

And "Free stuff" is just as clearly neither right nor left leaning, except that the left is more commonly associated with it. Free is free, regardless.
Welfare, social security, Cell phones, Cars, Votes, Scholarships, speech, press, education, etc, doesn't matter what it is, if it's being handed out for free, it fell under that category. Any bias there was self conceived, with help from my poor phrasing of it.

Last edited by unownmew; 02-16-2012 at 08:27 PM.
unownmew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2012, 09:00 PM   #17
Concept
Archbishop of Banterbury
 
Concept's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Nipple-Hunting with Elsie and Kairne
Posts: 7,030
Send a message via Skype™ to Concept
Quote:
Originally Posted by unownmew View Post
You're libertarian?
Eh, debatable. It's a label that's been applied to me before, although most libertarians in this country end up voting for our Conservative party where I do not, because the social freedoms side which the tories are bad at is more important to me than the economics stuff at least partly because, frankly, I'm not an economist and I recognise that my understanding of economic stuff is limited. Also partly because despite my well crafted and studiously maintained reputation around the ASB of being an asshat at all possible opportunities, I feel that people are the most important thing. I'm not religious, I have no deity or what have you to put first, I don't believe there's any long term plan or ultimate goal for humaity, I don't believe we're heading anywhere except for eventual extinction one way or another so all I'm left with to care about is peoples wellbeing in the here and now.

Tl;dr, in principle I'm for a government that puts the lightest restrictions on us necessary. Where you and I disagree is that I look around and think I see suffering and injustice that no-one but the government is willing or capable of trying to do something about (because those people they help are going to be the ones voting for them come next election), and I trust them slightly more than you do. After all, the overall trend of my government over the last century, which can in theory pass any law it wishes, has been to take power from the few and give it to the many - allowing women the right to vote, etc etc. I don't trust them completely. I don't trust them to help us out the goodness of their hearts or anything - people are bastards by nature, the lot of us. But for the most part, oppressing us isn't in their own self-interest.

Quote:
Originally Posted by unownmew View Post
Any churches/religions officially recognized as such, may perform a marriage, be they Christian, Hebrew, or Muslim, etc, in their own institutions, according to their own rituals and practices, and be recognized under the law, so long as the marriage conforms to any non-religious related regulations in the law, such as age of consent, etc.
There are, of course, recognised religions/religious subdivisions that advocate the allowance of gay marriage, and such marriages do not impinge on anyones what you have defined as inherent rights. Based on your own arguments - despite your own personal religious misgivings - do we not have to conclude that tha government should not rule against such marriages? Not talking about forcing religious people/institutions who don't wish to conduct them to do so here, but acknowledging that there will be those that do.

I know you have personal misgivings about gay marriage due to your religious views, but I have personal misgivings about the teachings of most religions, mainstream or otherwise (Jainism is the only one that comes to mind immediately whose moral teachings I don't take issue with) but will still stand for your right to preach and believe them so long as they don't harm anyone.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by PTerry
What can the harvest hope for, if not the care of the reaper man?

Last edited by Concept; 02-16-2012 at 09:05 PM.
Concept is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2012, 10:10 PM   #18
unownmew
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,319
Send a message via MSN to unownmew
Quote:
Originally Posted by Concept View Post
Eh, debatable. It's a label that's been applied to me before, although most libertarians in this country end up voting for our Conservative party where I do not, because the social freedoms side which the tories are bad at is more important to me than the economics stuff at least partly because, frankly, I'm not an economist and I recognise that my understanding of economic stuff is limited. Also partly because despite my well crafted and studiously maintained reputation around the ASB of being an asshat at all possible opportunities, I feel that people are the most important thing. I'm not religious, I have no deity or what have you to put first, I don't believe there's any long term plan or ultimate goal for humaity, I don't believe we're heading anywhere except for eventual extinction one way or another so all I'm left with to care about is peoples wellbeing in the here and now.
Fair enough, it's nice to know someone else is in favor of least government as possible, even if you are a tad misguided (IMO) on a few other things.
Based on your beliefs as you just explained them, I can fully understand why you believe what you do though.

Though, considering your beliefs, I can see two possible outcomes for humanity as a whole, not just one: Complete extinction, or, eventual mastery of science and natural laws (some form of Godhood within the universe, in other words)
Depending on which one you want, I'd say it's still a good thing to work for the future of humanity, beyond accommodating people in the here and now.

Quote:
Tl;dr, in principle I'm for a government that puts the lightest restrictions on us necessary. Where you and I disagree is that I look around and think I see suffering and injustice that no-one but the government is willing or capable of trying to do something about (because those people they help are going to be the ones voting for them come next election), and I trust them slightly more than you do. After all, the overall trend of my government over the last century, which can in theory pass any law it wishes, has been to take power from the few and give it to the many - allowing women the right to vote, etc etc. I don't trust them completely. I don't trust them to help us out the goodness of their hearts or anything - people are bastards by nature, the lot of us. But for the most part, oppressing us isn't in their own self-interest.
Aye we differ there, because, living in an organized religion, I see people helping to relieve suffering and injustice often, either in donations or service.

I don't trust government, because it has every time, without exception in all recorded history, always ended up tyrannical in the end. The only question is how long it takes, and how bad it'll be to live under. If men were angels there would be no need for government, but because men are not angels, how can one trust them to govern rightly?
you are right though, so long as oppression isn't in the self-interest of government, it won't occur completely. But be wary anyway, for there are those who are power-hungry, and will do anything to set up their own personal rule, even wait generations laying a groundwork to make usurpation all the much easier for their grandchildren.

America however, has done the most good of any nation in history. A higher standard of living then ever in the history of the world, women's and black's suffrage and equality, the abolishment of slavery, and giant strides in eliminating discrimination, among many other things. We're not without our bad spots, but compared to any civilization in history, we've done the most good around the world, in the least amount of time.

Quote:
There are, of course, recognised religions/religious subdivisions that advocate the allowance of gay marriage, and such marriages do not impinge on anyones what you have defined as inherent rights. Based on your own arguments - despite your own personal religious misgivings - do we not have to conclude that tha government should not rule against such marriages? Not talking about forcing religious people/institutions who don't wish to conduct them to do so here, but acknowledging that there will be those that do.
You are absolutely right. Which is precisely why I laid the loophole that I did (we all humans are schemers):
"As long as they comply with non-religious regulations." If it can be proven that homosexual marriages are a detriment to society, I'll have to be all for a non-religious regulation forbidding it.
However you are right, until such a time, I have nothing to stand on except States' Rights.

But I truly fear that, if homosexuals get legal marriages, they will press even harder to force churches to accept their unions against the teachings of the religion, not being satisfied just by legal equality.

Quote:
I know you have personal misgivings about gay marriage due to your religious views, but I have personal misgivings about the teachings of most religions, mainstream or otherwise (Jainism is the only one that comes to mind immediately whose moral teachings I don't take issue with) but will still stand for your right to preach and believe them so long as they don't harm anyone.
I'm curious what you have against Christianity (outside of it doesn't permit gays to marry), but I appreciate your support of my rights, as I support your rights to do the same.

Last edited by unownmew; 02-16-2012 at 10:15 PM.
unownmew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2012, 10:22 PM   #19
Jerichi
プラスチック♡ラブ
 
Jerichi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: 蒸気の波の中
Posts: 14,766
>Biased Poll is Biased. And yet you rail on me for the same? Where is your honor! Mine wasn't half as biased as this one.

Yours was biased by giving us really horrible options that trapped us in logical fallacies. It also pretty much was a false dilemma in and of itself considering it only offered us 4 choices with the ability to make once choice (though that may just be your lack of understanding of the poll system) and it gave us very few contrasting options, including one that was taken by almost everyone as farcical. This poll isn't great either but it's a lot more specific and at least gives us a decent idea of what we might consider an ideal government.

At the same time, it's pretty bad in the sense that it's a bad poll for collecting info on an ideal government when talking about political theory since it only pertains to the USA in the past 20 years.

>Since when did bias have to be left or right? Bias is simply leaning in a discernible direction, it doesn't have to be political right/left to have bias. And even then, it left out the most important option I consider a role for government: Protection of personal inherent rights.

This is absolutely absurd. I'm not sure you actually understand the concept of bias.

Every statement is going to have bias, especially when dealing with sensitive topics. Saying "This poll is biased" is about as obvious as saying "The sky is blue". Calling for a poll with no bias is ridiculous and a fantasy. This does a lot better than your vague poll since it doesn't trap people in interpretation (which is a really horrible way to make an argument, by the way), but, like I've said before, it's not a horribly effective poll anyways.

>And "Free stuff" is just as clearly neither right nor left leaning, except that the left is more commonly associated with it. Free is free, regardless.

It's really funny that you still say this considering you turned around and said "there is no such thing as a free lunch" in the last thread. Choosing this option traps the choosers in a logical fallacy and since no other option was provided, you make them look like idiots because the poll was too vague.
__________________


私のことを消して本気で愛さないで 恋なんてただのゲーム 楽しめばそれでいい
閉ざした心を飾る 派手なドレスも靴も 孤独の友達

asbwffb

[jerichi]

Last edited by Jerichi; 02-16-2012 at 10:35 PM.
Jerichi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2012, 10:44 PM   #20
Chaotic
Boulder Badge
 
Chaotic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 110
I'm thinking that perhaps a poll in general is NOT the best idea for a topic like this. No matter what options I present, I'm not going to be able to cover everything specifically. Perhaps it would be more efficient to simply pose the question, "What do you feel the roles of the government should be?"
__________________
Does he look like a bitch?

Chaotic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2012, 03:34 AM   #21
Doppleganger
我が名は勇者王!
 
Doppleganger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Emina Isle
Posts: 14,198
Send a message via AIM to Doppleganger
I voted for everything except democracy and graphic media content. First off, not all governments are democracies, but the poll is vague enough so that the PRC qualifies as government. Kind of undermines their regime to promote democracy abroad.

I also think democracy doesn't work without a strong ethics curriculum to culture virtue. One of the interesting take home messages of Political Science is that voters make the best choices even with limited information, although that optimum is capped by external processes. Franklin Delano Roosevelt was a good president because he had strong convictions, lots of presidential power and a judiciary/legislature he could bend to his will. He wasn't corrupted because he was virtuous, which was a product of his education and experiences.

Even if Obama came in with noble intentions, and he probably did in a Mr. Smith sort of way, he didn't nearly have the power or influence of Roosevelt, so had to work within a flawed system. It just turns out that as a hole-plugger, he couldn't plug very well either.

Anyway, the US is too huge, too diverse and too tolerant to make democracy work. The masses will be at the mercy of those who manipulate the system, whether they be bureaucrats, interests or corporations.

Graphic media content...I don't see the big deal?
__________________
あなたの勇気が切り開く未来
ふたりの想いが見つけだす希望
今 信じあえる
あきらめない 心かさね
永遠を抱きしめて
Doppleganger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2012, 09:37 AM   #22
phoopes
Double Dragon
 
phoopes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 3,776
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doppleganger
Graphic media content...I don't see the big deal?
While I agree with you, I do see the other side's point. Would you want 7 year olds exposed to pornography? Now personally, I think parents should be able to explain this to their children at a certain age, and if the child wants to watch it then he or she should be allowed to watch it. However, at a certain age, a child just becomes too young for this. So really I'm kind of half and half on it.
__________________
phoopes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2012, 09:56 AM   #23
Muyotwo
Dominator of Bike Levels
 
Muyotwo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,321
Not wanting seven year olds to watch porn is a common ground, but I'm of the opinion it should be the parent doing the monitoring- not the government.
__________________
The Kim Il Sung of ASB.
Muyotwo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2012, 10:50 AM   #24
Talon87
時の彼方へ
 
Talon87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Lafayette, Indiana
Posts: 20,578
Pretty much an entire debate unto itself, to what extent are all children the wards of the state? Under what circumstances ought a parent to lose custody of their children? Ought there to be intermediate punishments between loss of custody and no punishment at all to cover intermediate-level parenting offenses? On the one hand, nobody wants victims, let alone child victims. On the other hand, are we being too fragile when we start to consider the perversion of young minds via premature exposure to adult media to be victimization? Is the trade-off for rigorous protection of children, what some could argue would have to be a Big Brother state, really worth it? Not an easy decision. Or perhaps it is easy, but not one taken lightly.
Talon87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2012, 01:06 PM   #25
Doppleganger
我が名は勇者王!
 
Doppleganger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Emina Isle
Posts: 14,198
Send a message via AIM to Doppleganger
Quote:
Originally Posted by phoopes View Post
While I agree with you, I do see the other side's point. Would you want 7 year olds exposed to pornography?
See, I wasn't even thinking about porn, I pegged it as an anti-violence option.

Even in this case, I'm with Muyo. I think government should step in when people can't provide for themselves. The underlying assumption for a lot of conservatives is people who don't have work or remain poor are lazy, stupid, or are destined to be consumed by those who can better manipulate the world around them. It's more realistic to say most people have a cap on what they can control - some don't have the talent, others don't have the opportunity.

Parents sure as heck can do things about 'graphic content'.
__________________
あなたの勇気が切り開く未来
ふたりの想いが見つけだす希望
今 信じあえる
あきらめない 心かさね
永遠を抱きしめて
Doppleganger is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Lower Navigation
Go Back   UPNetwork > General Forums > Debate


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:35 PM.


Design By: Miner Skinz.com
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.