Poll on the role of government power and freedom

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
348
126
I've put two main assumptions into the poll: that everyone is in favor of 'freedom', and that no one wants the sort of massive Soviet-style government.

I've narrowed it down to one question: do you believe that government plays a useful role in protecting the public's rights against concentrated power, or that it's the enemy of freedom?

This applies only to domestic policy; I think pretty much everyone agrees that the military is needed against external threats, putting aside the issue of its uses beyond defense.

Why a whole thread about this? Because I think this one difference can explain many specific issues that are argued about, and is important to discuss.

Since I'm on one side on this one, I'll say why I think it's right: power has always existed in societies, usually held by one small group who has special privileges, usually under one man, while the large majority are oppressed into serving that small group. That's not going to change, it's a matter of degree (serfs/slaves versus low-paid worker). But the idea of taking the nation's power out of the hands of a king or warlord and creating democracy (a republic for the nit pickers) where the masses each get an equal vote to the wealthiest or most powerful person is a radical idea for distributing power that the masses would otherwise not have. For example they could, though they don't, pass a law taking all wealth above, say, a billion dollars for one person; nothing to stop them, since the billionare has only one vote.

This in theory increases freedom by protecting the masses from the oppression of a few who get concentrated power. Democracy means nothing if the instrument of the votes, the elected government, lack power against the other powers in society. It's my view that attacks on the government are often attacks on the public's power; that reductions in the government's ability to do things creates a vacuum filled by unaccountable private small groups, just as throughout history.

So, while I certainly don't want an 'excess' of government power where the government is simply used for oppressing the masses a la fascism or communist states, I do want a 'powerful' government, a la JFK era, where it can take on things from the war on poverty to putting a man on the moon to leading a war on racism in society to stimulating the economy to spreading democracy around the world to things like the Peace Corps and Social Security and medical care for the public and such.

In short, being against democratically elected government is being against democracy.

It seems to me that the basic flaw for the right is in their imagining a libertarian utopia where reducing government power is not replaced by an oppressive private power.

A secondary flaw is in their not recognizing where government can be efficient. For example, their ideology would lean towards some sort of private system for creating the nation's highways which, IMO, would lead to disaster from the profit-taking and private corruption without the guiding hand of democratically elected government, the way the nation's highways were built under Eisenhower.

They are welcome, of course, to argue why they differ.

I suspect the poll will show most on the left seeing government as a force for protecting public freedom, while many on the right will see government as the enemy of freedom.

Vote, discuss.

Edit: the poll's not showing up for some reason. I tried updating, I tried adding an answer.

The poll was supposed to be:

I'm on the left and think the government protects the public's freedom against other powerful groups, e.g., the wealthy/corporations

I'm on the left and think the less government, the more freedom for the public

I'm on the right and think the government protects the public's freedom against other powerful groups, e.g., the wealthy/corporations

I'm on the right and think the less government, the more freedom for the public
 

Arkaign

Lifer
Oct 27, 2006
20,736
1,377
126
I'm not sure of the oversimplifications you're put forth here. Reagan spoke correctly when he said quite famously 'Government is not the solution to our problems; government is the problem.' The problem actually arises because BOTH sides fail to do what they say they want to do.

Republicans/Right-wing in speech : "we are for lower taxes, less intrusive government, reduced spending, no nation-building/policing the world."
Republicans/Right-wing in power : Lower taxes for the rich, more intrusive government, increased spending, massive nation-building, policing the world, letting corporations run amok

Democrats/Left-wing in speech : "we are for freedom of expression, helping the poor, solving problems, saving the environment, etc"
Democrats/Left-wing in power : higher taxes, more intrusive government, larger and more corrupt social programs, legislation and laws for everything, generally weaker national defense, etc.

Personally, I think the US Govt is okay for many things (Military, Post Office, maintenance of highways) .. but certainly isn't the solution to everything. The polar opposite is the libertarian mindset, which of course is far too extreme to be realistically valuable to very many americans. I hate how we're already selling our highways to foreign countries, like here in Texas. The idea of toll roads everywhere makes me sick.

Anyway, this topic is far too large for a single thread, and I'll count to 3 until we see poo-flinging and party-line insults coming from both sides.
 
Oct 16, 1999
10,490
4
0
Unfortunately I think there are just as many on the right today as the left that want big government, and I think there are a lot more on the right that won't come out and own up to it. The fact Ron Paul gets labeled as a fringe Republican candidate when he stands more for what the Republican party is supposed to stand for more than any other candidate is evidence of that.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
348
126
Originally posted by: Arkaign
I'm not sure of the oversimplifications you're put forth here. Reagan spoke correctly when he said quite famously 'Government is not the solution to our problems; government is the problem.' The problem actually arises because BOTH sides fail to do what they say they want to do.

Republicans/Right-wing in speech : "we are for lower taxes, less intrusive government, reduced spending, no nation-building/policing the world."
Republicans/Right-wing in power : Lower taxes for the rich, more intrusive government, increased spending, massive nation-building, policing the world, letting corporations run amok

Democrats/Left-wing in speech : "we are for freedom of expression, helping the poor, solving problems, saving the environment, etc"
Democrats/Left-wing in power : higher taxes, more intrusive government, larger and more corrupt social programs, legislation and laws for everything, generally weaker national defense, etc.

Personally, I think the US Govt is okay for many things (Military, Post Office, maintenance of highways) .. but certainly isn't the solution to everything. The polar opposite is the libertarian mindset, which of course is far too extreme to be realistically valuable to very many americans. I hate how we're already selling our highways to foreign countries, like here in Texas. The idea of toll roads everywhere makes me sick.

Anyway, this topic is far too large for a single thread, and I'll count to 3 until we see poo-flinging and party-line insults coming from both sides.

Simplification is necessary for a topic like this, and can be done 'right' (or, unfortunately, 'wrong', too).

While you use the term over-simplification, I think your comments actually are the clearer target of the term, with the quote of 'government is the problem'.

(By the way, I think that was one of the more harmful quotes ever from a US president. It was hugely anti-democracy, IMO, trying to trick people into giving up power to the few.)

You introduce the issue of republicans who promise one ideology and behave differently; I'd ask to avoid that issue, and stick to the principles, not the details/corruptions, for this.

Your fourth paragraph is closest to the topic; I'd disagree with your assertion that the libertarians are the 'polar opposite' of the democrats, since I think the democrats are more on the equator, to adopt your metaphor, and the polar opposite of libertarians is one where the government owns everything (whether you call that some forms of communism, or some forms of facism, or some forms of dictatorship/king/emperor/warlord).

However, you also seem to shift the topic to 'things government does efficiently enough' as opposed to 'protecting the public's domestic freedoms'. I'm trying to ask, in this thread, about the threat that seems visible only to the left when the government is eliminated - for example, the left thinking that government safety regulations protect people, while the right tends to say "government regulators just reduce efficiency; the marketplace is adequate because people just won't buy unsafe products'. And so on.

Thanks for the response and hopefully you will not see the prediction of 'poo-flinging'. If you do, it may mean we need more government to stop that sort of thing.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,265
126
Originally posted by: Arkaign
I'm not sure of the oversimplifications you're put forth here. Reagan spoke correctly when he said quite famously 'Government is not the solution to our problems; government is the problem.' The problem actually arises because BOTH sides fail to do what they say they want to do.

Republicans/Right-wing in speech : "we are for lower taxes, less intrusive government, reduced spending, no nation-building/policing the world."
Republicans/Right-wing in power : Lower taxes for the rich, more intrusive government, increased spending, massive nation-building, policing the world, letting corporations run amok

Democrats/Left-wing in speech : "we are for freedom of expression, helping the poor, solving problems, saving the environment, etc"
Democrats/Left-wing in power : higher taxes, more intrusive government, larger and more corrupt social programs, legislation and laws for everything, generally weaker national defense, etc.

Personally, I think the US Govt is okay for many things (Military, Post Office, maintenance of highways) .. but certainly isn't the solution to everything. The polar opposite is the libertarian mindset, which of course is far too extreme to be realistically valuable to very many americans. I hate how we're already selling our highways to foreign countries, like here in Texas. The idea of toll roads everywhere makes me sick.

Anyway, this topic is far too large for a single thread, and I'll count to 3 until we see poo-flinging and party-line insults coming from both sides.

What's odd is that Reagan spoke those words and proceeded to make them come true. He was as guilty as those before him, but he spent money where HE wanted.

The problem isn't big government, but petty, selfish and thoughtless citizens.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
348
126
Originally posted by: eits
where's the poll?

See the last six lines of the OP where I said it's not showing up for some reason.

If anyone knows how to fix it - it's in the system when I hit 'edit poll' - let me know.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,563
9
81
Good topic Craig, just marking it so I remember to come back later and post something.
 

Arkaign

Lifer
Oct 27, 2006
20,736
1,377
126
I've narrowed it down to one question: do you believe that government plays a useful role in protecting the public's rights against concentrated power, or that it's the enemy of freedom?


Both. The best solution is a balance. Smallest gov't possible that can maintain peace, prosperity, personal freedom, and crucial services.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,285
6,026
126
Originally posted by: Arkaign
I've narrowed it down to one question: do you believe that government plays a useful role in protecting the public's rights against concentrated power, or that it's the enemy of freedom?


Both. The best solution is a balance. Smallest gov't possible that can maintain peace, prosperity, personal freedom, and crucial services.

Interestingly, you didn't say as large a government as is necessary to maintain peace, prosperity, personal freedom, and crucial services.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,285
6,026
126
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: Arkaign
I've narrowed it down to one question: do you believe that government plays a useful role in protecting the public's rights against concentrated power, or that it's the enemy of freedom?


Both. The best solution is a balance. Smallest gov't possible that can maintain peace, prosperity, personal freedom, and crucial services.

Interestingly, you didn't say as large a government as is necessary to maintain peace, prosperity, personal freedom, and crucial services.

I see the issue this way:

Humanity has a disease called self hate which it doesn't recognize. This fact requires force to keep the worst self haters from damaging those who manage it better. Self hate is the same as feeling worthless, which is the same as the feeling one can't do for oneself, which is the same as an endless search for Santa Clause. We are vacuum cleaners sucking off vacuum cleaners.

The result, of course, is that we corrupt every thing we touch. If corrupt the social structure which requires government, and then we corrupt government.

A wise society, therefore, and there are none because nobody will look at the real problem, is that we need to structure society in the best way we can to not create more and more self hate. For that we will have to act in accordance with our ancient religions which recognized that the problem is the evil within, if not that it originates in childhood from being put down.

What we need before more or less government, is knowledge and understanding as to who and where the real enemy is.
 

Arkaign

Lifer
Oct 27, 2006
20,736
1,377
126
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: Arkaign
I've narrowed it down to one question: do you believe that government plays a useful role in protecting the public's rights against concentrated power, or that it's the enemy of freedom?


Both. The best solution is a balance. Smallest gov't possible that can maintain peace, prosperity, personal freedom, and crucial services.

Interestingly, you didn't say as large a government as is necessary to maintain peace, prosperity, personal freedom, and crucial services.

That's because (A)- both statements equal the same stated result as the goal, and (B)- to focus on keeping the govt as slim as possible means that overcentralized power (which can and will obviously be abused to varying degrees) will not be as rampant.
 

Arkaign

Lifer
Oct 27, 2006
20,736
1,377
126
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: Arkaign
I've narrowed it down to one question: do you believe that government plays a useful role in protecting the public's rights against concentrated power, or that it's the enemy of freedom?


Both. The best solution is a balance. Smallest gov't possible that can maintain peace, prosperity, personal freedom, and crucial services.

Interestingly, you didn't say as large a government as is necessary to maintain peace, prosperity, personal freedom, and crucial services.

I see the issue this way:

Humanity has a disease called self hate which it doesn't recognize. This fact requires force to keep the worst self haters from damaging those who manage it better. Self hate is the same as feeling worthless, which is the same as the feeling one can't do for oneself, which is the same as an endless search for Santa Clause. We are vacuum cleaners sucking off vacuum cleaners.

The result, of course, is that we corrupt every thing we touch. If corrupt the social structure which requires government, and then we corrupt government.

A wise society, therefore, and there are none because nobody will look at the real problem, is that we need to structure society in the best way we can to not create more and more self hate. For that we will have to act in accordance with our ancient religions which recognized that the problem is the evil within, if not that it originates in childhood from being put down.

What we need before more or less government, is knowledge and understanding as to who and where the real enemy is.

No matter what Timothy Leary said, put down the LSD.
 

cwjerome

Diamond Member
Sep 30, 2004
4,346
26
81
Most people realize that governments are the worst offenders of human rights and the biggest creators of death and destruction in history. The private side is a mere asterisk... and most of the damage they've accomplished was by asking government, ie, working with government to further its ends.

 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
Originally posted by: Craig234

I've narrowed it down to one question: do you believe that government plays a useful role in protecting the public's rights against concentrated power, or that it's the enemy of freedom?

I suspect that I'm more to the right than many of you, yet I agree that the gov can play a useful role in this area

...I do want a 'powerful' government, a la JFK era, where it can take on things from the war on poverty to putting a man on the moon to leading a war on racism in society to stimulating the economy to spreading democracy around the world to things like the Peace Corps and Social Security and medical care for the public and such.

A powerful gov? I don't want it too powerful. Too many opportunities for abuse. Rich people are hard to fight against? Try fighting the gov.


It seems to me that the basic flaw for the right is in their imagining a libertarian utopia where reducing government power is not replaced by an oppressive private power.

Getting oppresive gov power to replace oppresive private power is no bargin either. The balance is the *key*

A secondary flaw is in their not recognizing where government can be efficient. For example, their ideology would lean towards some sort of private system for creating the nation's highways which, IMO, would lead to disaster from the profit-taking and private corruption without the guiding hand of democratically elected government, the way the nation's highways were built under Eisenhower.

I oppose privatizing highways etc. That is one area that clearly falls into the gov's domain.

They are welcome, of course, to argue why they differ.

Edit: the poll's not showing up for some reason. I tried updating, I tried adding an answer.

I have a difficult time with polls also. They need some instructions...


I'm on the left and think the government protects the public's freedom against other powerful groups, e.g., the wealthy/corporations

I'm on the right and think the same thing. Credit card companies etc come to mind

I'm on the left and think the less government, the more freedom for the public

I'm on the right and think the government protects the public's freedom against other powerful groups, e.g., the wealthy/corporations

Of course it has a legitimate role here

I'm on the right and think the less government, the more freedom for the public

The difference, IMO, is one of degree, and whom we want the gov to protect us from. I think the left wants to go so far as impose a nanny state.

The right will accept some (alleged) gov intrusion to protect against external threats. But the left screams about this. However the left is willing to accept gov intrusion to protect us from ourselves (telling us what we can eat etc - transfat, or outlawing smoking), of course this makes the right scream.

Fern
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
The underlying premise in your question is that humans act selfishly. If humans didn't act selfishly, then we could be perfectly free in a monarchy, since the ruler would be selfless and look out for everyone else's best interests. However, we act selfishly, so one ruler will serve himself rather than everyone else. Democracy simply approaches the problem from the opposite end, saying that if everyone is selfish, the only way to dilute that problem is to disallow one selfish person from gaining power over another - level the playing field. The republic is the realistic compromise between the two extremes. It is optimistic in assuming that some arbitrary number of selfish persons will be unable to lord their selfishnes over the other selfish people who are not in power. One problem is that the proportion of selfish people in power to the total number of selfish people has decreased with an increasing population, resulting in an increase in relative power for each of those in a position of power.

Given all of these things, I see liberals and conservatives as almost identical. The liberal thinks that all of the selfish people should band together and form one big, happy, socialist family. Unfortunately, all of these people will really only be out for themselves and the family is just an illusion. The conservative thinks that since people are selfish, everyone should go it alone and let the power vacuum of anarchy protect their selfish interests. Unfortunately, all of these people will act as animals, allowing natural selection to take its toll on the less able. Therefore, the only real solution is to stop humans from being selfish. Unfortunately, since humans are selfish, they would never willingly go along with this approach, so it remains only an idea in our minds.
 

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,168
60
91
I've narrowed it down to one question: do you believe that government plays a useful role in protecting the public's rights against concentrated power, or that it's the enemy of freedom?


Difficult to determine what you are asking!

The government we have today is sometimes as much a hinderance as an enabler to freedom. I would probably be a fenc sitter on a question like this.

If you take a look at the DOJ case against Microsoft claiming it is a Monopoly, then you might be left scratching your head. I think the justice system was afraid to deliver justice to the people for fear of a little instability. This I think is the key. Sometimes the US Government cares more about stability and less about individual freedoms. Another way you might say this is they care more about the flow of money and the stock market than about people. In some ways, if our market system was severely upset, that might also upset our way of life and eventually our freedom. However, they forget that the stability of the market system is often opposed to individual's rights and freedoms. The health of the stock market is not always what is best for America. This is the real reason we are scared to retaliate against Iran and against China. It is the fear of the loss of oil and the almighty dollar.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,914
2,359
126
Yeah pretty big topic thread, although, I DO think it is well written Craig.

I think your assertions of the difference in parties is correct also. There are always exceptions, but I think the general premise is correct.

I tend to be waaaay right when it comes to fiscal issues. I think 60% of our federal programs and funds should be eliminated and brought to a local level. Things like education (Primary, not college), roads (with the exception of Interstates), housing, and a few others.

Socially I think Im pretty much in the middle insofar as federal legislation is concerned. For example, I personally am against abortion, and think its absolutely barbaric..however, I dont think it should be outright outlawed. I would, however, like to see stringent limits such as...100% parental consent/permission, and if the woman's health or life is in danger, a doctor's referral must be given..other than that..no way. But thats just me, and dont mean to derail the thread.

Anyhow, nice write up.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,285
6,026
126
Originally posted by: Arkaign
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: Arkaign
I've narrowed it down to one question: do you believe that government plays a useful role in protecting the public's rights against concentrated power, or that it's the enemy of freedom?


Both. The best solution is a balance. Smallest gov't possible that can maintain peace, prosperity, personal freedom, and crucial services.

Interestingly, you didn't say as large a government as is necessary to maintain peace, prosperity, personal freedom, and crucial services.

I see the issue this way:

Humanity has a disease called self hate which it doesn't recognize. This fact requires force to keep the worst self haters from damaging those who manage it better. Self hate is the same as feeling worthless, which is the same as the feeling one can't do for oneself, which is the same as an endless search for Santa Clause. We are vacuum cleaners sucking off vacuum cleaners.

The result, of course, is that we corrupt every thing we touch. If corrupt the social structure which requires government, and then we corrupt government.

A wise society, therefore, and there are none because nobody will look at the real problem, is that we need to structure society in the best way we can to not create more and more self hate. For that we will have to act in accordance with our ancient religions which recognized that the problem is the evil within, if not that it originates in childhood from being put down.

What we need before more or less government, is knowledge and understanding as to who and where the real enemy is.

No matter what Timothy Leary said, put down the LSD.

So many of you waste your time with this kind of meaningless post even though in line two of my sig, there for years and years, I address this. You have no meaningful answer to my post because my post is the truth, a truth you are afraid to see. But imagine for a moment the mess you would be in in LSD were the only way to open the doors of your perception. You would be just as lost, with your prejudice that LSD equals fiction as you are lost about what you feel. By the way, I have never seen the slightest indication that T. Leary understood anything at all of what I said.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,285
6,026
126
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
The underlying premise in your question is that humans act selfishly. If humans didn't act selfishly, then we could be perfectly free in a monarchy, since the ruler would be selfless and look out for everyone else's best interests. However, we act selfishly, so one ruler will serve himself rather than everyone else. Democracy simply approaches the problem from the opposite end, saying that if everyone is selfish, the only way to dilute that problem is to disallow one selfish person from gaining power over another - level the playing field. The republic is the realistic compromise between the two extremes. It is optimistic in assuming that some arbitrary number of selfish persons will be unable to lord their selfishnes over the other selfish people who are not in power. One problem is that the proportion of selfish people in power to the total number of selfish people has decreased with an increasing population, resulting in an increase in relative power for each of those in a position of power.

Given all of these things, I see liberals and conservatives as almost identical. The liberal thinks that all of the selfish people should band together and form one big, happy, socialist family. Unfortunately, all of these people will really only be out for themselves and the family is just an illusion. The conservative thinks that since people are selfish, everyone should go it alone and let the power vacuum of anarchy protect their selfish interests. Unfortunately, all of these people will act as animals, allowing natural selection to take its toll on the less able. Therefore, the only real solution is to stop humans from being selfish. Unfortunately, since humans are selfish, they would never willingly go along with this approach, so it remains only an idea in our minds.

Ah, now if we could just make some headway into understanding why some are selfish like vacuum cleaners, and some are not.
 

1EZduzit

Lifer
Feb 4, 2002
11,834
1
0
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
The underlying premise in your question is that humans act selfishly. If humans didn't act selfishly, then we could be perfectly free in a monarchy, since the ruler would be selfless and look out for everyone else's best interests. However, we act selfishly, so one ruler will serve himself rather than everyone else. Democracy simply approaches the problem from the opposite end, saying that if everyone is selfish, the only way to dilute that problem is to disallow one selfish person from gaining power over another - level the playing field. The republic is the realistic compromise between the two extremes. It is optimistic in assuming that some arbitrary number of selfish persons will be unable to lord their selfishnes over the other selfish people who are not in power. One problem is that the proportion of selfish people in power to the total number of selfish people has decreased with an increasing population, resulting in an increase in relative power for each of those in a position of power.

Given all of these things, I see liberals and conservatives as almost identical. The liberal thinks that all of the selfish people should band together and form one big, happy, socialist family. Unfortunately, all of these people will really only be out for themselves and the family is just an illusion. The conservative thinks that since people are selfish, everyone should go it alone and let the power vacuum of anarchy protect their selfish interests. Unfortunately, all of these people will act as animals, allowing natural selection to take its toll on the less able. Therefore, the only real solution is to stop humans from being selfish. Unfortunately, since humans are selfish, they would never willingly go along with this approach, so it remains only an idea in our minds.

Ah, now if we could just make some headway into understanding why some are selfish like vacuum cleaners, and some are not.

I would think fear would explain most if not all of that. Do you think we hate ourselves because of fear?
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Ah, now if we could just make some headway into understanding why some are selfish like vacuum cleaners, and some are not.
Few choose it. Many are this way because they don't realize that there is a choice to be made. They do what they've been trained to do. You are what you eat, after all. Until we realize that we are allowed to be satisfied with what we have and who we are, it will continue to be this way.