The ungovernable people ???

[Mercury]

So, in another thread I got to thinking about that age old discussion and debate regarding society and how much governing must/should be done.

So what do you think? Are people "smart enough", "capable" enough to have less government in their lives? How much regulation and law should be in a society? Do people need a lot of government regulations in place to protect them from themselves and each other?

This concept really covers quite a lot of ground ranging from drugs, firearms, seat belts, speed limits, health care and so on.

 

[porterjack]

a very wide ranging question

there are some aspects of my daily life where i dont want government to interfere, for example I am not allowed to keep chickens in my backyard for the purpose of egg collecting/consumption

however i am also quite pleased that the government will prosecute my neighbour if he drives drunk and kills someone

 

[Kakapo Dundee]

Laws exist to protect us from selfishness and stupidity. We like to think that it's the selfishness and stupidity of others, but as often as not, it's our own.

 

[Panacea]

Laws exist to protect us from selfishness and stupidity. We like to think that it's the selfishness and stupidity of others, but as often as not, it's our own.

I think this is very true.

 

[Alien Allen]

We could roll back govt 25 years and not skip a beat. IMO

 

[Mercury]

All well said for sure!

Seems like the best (that we can possibly do) is to have a good balance between personal liberties and government regulations.

A society without much in the way of Governing would be pretty chaotic while a society that is overwhelmed with Governing is oppressed.

Where is the line between the two?

 

[porterjack]

Where is the line between the two?

middle of the road ? centrist? politics

sorry could not resist

seriously - i think federalism needs to be reinforced, states/provinces need to be left to govern themselves without undue influence from the capital/ol

 

[Tim]

there are some aspects of my daily life where i dont want government to interfere, for example I am not allowed to keep chickens in my backyard for the purpose of egg collecting/consumption

If you don't mind, I'll use this as an example...

Laws are in place for a reason, you might not like the reason or agree with it but it's not like someone just woke up one morning and decided that you can't have chickens.

The fact that you can't have chickens in your backyard is not a matter of law, but one of zoning. The zoning laws are unique to your area and are determined by you and your neighbors. You have as much say in your community as does your neighbors. Getting your zoning laws changed is as simple as getting your community to agree to the change. But understand that valid objections can stand in your way.

Zoning laws aren't meant to restrict you and your liberties, they are in place to protect you and your property. Would you really want your neighbor burning his old tires right on your property line?

 

[Leananshee]

What Tim just said. One of the biggest reasons I live out in the country is so I can shoot guns (within reason, I do still have neighbors), have whatever animals I wish, and so on. I wouldn't live anywhere with a homeowners' covenant even if I lost a bet.

 

[Stone]

All well said for sure!

Seems like the best (that we can possibly do) is to have a good balance between personal liberties and government regulations.

A society without much in the way of Governing would be pretty chaotic while a society that is overwhelmed with Governing is oppressed.

Where is the line between the two?

Good question.
And difficult to answer specifically.

When citizens object and the legislators respond according to the majority opinion.... is about the best generality I can think of.
When self imposed rule by a society is denied, then it's obvious that liberty is being infringed upon.

 

[porterjack]

If you don't mind, I'll use this as an example...

Laws are in place for a reason, you might not like the reason or agree with it but it's not like someone just woke up one morning and decided that you can't have chickens.

The fact that you can't have chickens in your backyard is not a matter of law, but one of zoning. The zoning laws are unique to your area and are determined by you and your neighbors. You have as much say in your community as does your neighbors. Getting your zoning laws changed is as simple as getting your community to agree to the change. But understand that valid objections can stand in your way.

Zoning laws aren't meant to restrict you and your liberties, they are in place to protect you and your property. Would you really want your neighbor burning his old tires right on your property line?

to me zoning=bylaw=regulation=law, albeit at a lower level of government but just as frustrating, i suppose a grass roots desire for change from the community might ( repeat might - if a civic election were looming) persuade the city to change the zoning but even then is unlikely there would be enough support for something like my chicken and egg story, seems to me that something that can be done safely and organically is not allowed due to its minority appeal

 

[Jackass master]

All too often laws are imposed because folks forgot how to mind their own business and treat others right. I live in a land where there are way too many laws and folks with common sense ignore most of them and leave others alone. We help and support each other locally and sure don't need people from the big cities telling us how to live. Even worse is the idea that a group of jokers in Washington know what we need to live our lives. We need to get back to personal responsibility not be drowned in more laws.

 

[porterjack]

All too often laws are imposed because folks forgot how to mind their own business and treat others right. I live in a land where there are way too many laws and folks with common sense ignore most of them and leave others alone. We help and support each other locally and sure don't need people from the big cities telling us how to live. Even worse is the idea that a group of jokers in Washington know what we need to live our lives. We need to get back to personal responsibility not be drowned in more laws.

You got chickens?

 

[Jackass master]

You got chickens?

Yep! Get my jumbo brown eggs fresh every day. Got cows and sometimes pigs and a friggin zoo of rescue pets. Do volunteer work for a local private no kill shelter. (mostly cats) I have 107 acres on top of the mountain and raise my own food and crops for the most part.

 

[porterjack]

Yep! Get my jumbo brown eggs fresh every day. Got cows and sometimes pigs and a friggin zoo of rescue pets. Do volunteer work for a local private no kill shelter. (mostly cats) I have 107 acres on top of the mountain and raise my own food and crops for the most part.

I envy you

 

[Mercury]

Good question.
And difficult to answer specifically.

When citizens object and the legislators respond according to the majority opinion.... is about the best generality I can think of.
When self imposed rule by a society is denied, then it's obvious that liberty is being infringed upon.

When citizens object and the legislators respond according to the majority opinion.... is about the best generality I can think of.

That is what I would think as well.

So, here in the U.S. ... we have had the issue of Gay Marriage come up at state level votes and (if I understand correctly) most have been voted down. This suggests that the MAJORITY of the occupants of these states do not want to have gay marriage legalized. However, Federally this is being challenged as being unconstitutional.

This is where things become complicated even more!

How does a society ensure that a group of people (minority) is being treated fairly (or even humanely in certain circumstances) while appeasing the majority?

Should a society ONLY focus on the majority? Should the minority be ignored as their numbers are less?

 

[Stone]

That is what I would think as well.

So, here in the U.S. ... we have had the issue of Gay Marriage come up at state level votes and (if I understand correctly) most have been voted down. This suggests that the MAJORITY of the occupants of these states do not want to have gay marriage legalized. However, Federally this is being challenged as being unconstitutional.

This is where things become complicated even more!

How does a society ensure that a group of people (minority) is being treated fairly (or even humanely in certain circumstances) while appeasing the majority?

Should a society ONLY focus on the majority? Should the minority be ignored as their numbers are less?

Good point, the conscience of a society.
I have no idea how to legislate it or from it in a distinct formula for this thread.
I suspect it's the wisdom of true intellectual leaders ( no scoffing, please ) that eventually leads to moral and ethical positions that favor a healthy society. Their arguments to sway opinion and acceptance. Then put in law.
Civil rights would be an example. Definitely not originally a majority position in history and still not settled. But advances in correction do occur. And often not popular.

It's not a perfect world and never will be.
It's a struggle between emotion and correctness with blurred lines.
But we endeavor to persevere. ( from an Indian, in a Clint Eastwood movie as I remember )
Some of just need more persuasion than others



good topic :thumbup

 

[Mercury]

Good point, the conscience of a society.
I have no idea how to legislate it or from it in a distinct formula for this thread.
I suspect it's the wisdom of true intellectual leaders ( no scoffing, please ) that eventually leads to moral and ethical positions that favor a healthy society. Their arguments to sway opinion and acceptance. Then put in law.
Civil rights would be an example. Definitely not originally a majority position in history and still not settled. But advances in correction do occur. And often not popular.

It's not a perfect world and never will be.
It's a struggle between emotion and correctness with blurred lines.
But we endeavor to persevere. ( from an Indian, in a Clint Eastwood movie as I remember )
Some of just need more persuasion than others



good topic :thumbup

Thank you

I do not envy law makers and the like.

Speaking of movie quotes ... hehe. During one of my political science classes back in college, I remember that this topic came up and the discussion turned to how intelligent people are. In the movie, Men In Black, Will Smith asks Tommy Lee Jones why they don't just let the population know about all the aliens that live among them since people are smart. Tommy Lee Jones responds with, "A person is smart but people are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals!" I always loved that quote because of the immense truth that is in it. The individual person is amazingly intelligent with the ability to calmly and rationally use critical thinking while a group of people can easily become a violent mob. This, to me, suggests that society needs some form of government in order to ensure people are safe and that a society can operate efficiently.

Which brings me to this:

Anarchists ... they believe that any form of government is oppressive and that people loose their Human qualities because of government.

While I do believe that a society without any form of government would be ideal (with 100% of the population able to behave) I just don't see that EVER being possible. Plus, I can't help but notice that Anarchists that show up at protests usually consist of pretty young "adults" who seem to suffer from an anti-authority mentality (which I wonder isn't really aimed at their parents.)

Is it possible that some day, people will have matured enough in every aspect of life to warrant a world that is void of any form of government?

 

[Tim]

Following right alone the lines of this discussion. I wonder if a form of government can be put together that would be acceptable to all...

Maybe a new thread should be started on this...

But I don't see ANY form of governing/government being correct.

Let me see if I can clarify. I would not want to see our government strictly adhere to any philosophy such as Liberalism, Conservatism, Libertarian-ism, etc. I find good qualities in all of them yet oppose any one of them as a complete package.

What would be the perfect balance between the differing forms of governance?

 

[porterjack]

Following right alone the lines of this discussion. I wonder if a form of government can be put together that would be acceptable to all...

Maybe a new thread should be started on this...

But I don't see ANY form of governing/government being correct.

Let me see if I can clarify. I would not want to see our government strictly adhere to any philosophy such as Liberalism, Conservatism, Libertarian-ism, etc. I find good qualities in all of them yet oppose any one of them as a complete package.

What would be the perfect balance between the differing forms of governance?

be nice to have an experiment where states are created with distinct forms of government that mirror what we know today, and all of these states start off with equal resources, and people could choose where they wanted to live based oin how they wanted their government to operate

fast forward fitfy years and see what happens