Some broad ideological questions

[Blackjack200]

These are a few questions that I have often pondered myself.

1. Which is the more important role of a citizen: To challenge the government when he thinks it is wrong, or to try to strengthen his country by showing patriotic support? (One could argue that there is a time and place for each, but let's say 2009 & in your current country.)

2. There seems to be a whole spectrum of different levels of government involvement. At one end of the spectrum is the libertarian or anarchist ideal which wants as little involvement as possible. At the other end of the spectrum are highly paternal governments like China and North Korea. What do you feel is the correct level of government involvement?

It is usually much easier for a government to enforce its laws if it keeps closer track of its citizens. How much privacy are you willing to trade for security? (This question probably doesn't apply if you take the anarchist/libertarian view in the second question.)

I hope someone finds these at least a little interesting...

 

[brandonbull]

1. People should question first.

2. The correct level of government is what people are willing to tolerate.

3. Freedoms above security.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Blackjack200
These are a few questions that I have often pondered myself.

1. Which is the more important role of a citizen: To challenge the government when he thinks it is wrong, or to try to strengthen his country by showing patriotic support? (One could argue that there is a time and place for each, but let's say 2009 & in your current country.)

I'll answer with this quote recently used in my sig:

The sharpest criticism often goes hand in hand with the deepest idealism and love of country.
- Robert Kennedy

2. There seems to be a whole spectrum of different levels of government involvement. At one end of the spectrum is the libertarian or anarchist ideal which wants as little involvement as possible. At the other end of the spectrum are highly paternal governments like China and North Korea. What do you feel is the correct level of government involvement?

It's not the level, it's the type. Both of the extremes you mentioned are terrible.

The role of government is - subject to the approval of the people - protect their freedoms, implement policies that serve the national interest and be a good citizen in the world, IMO.

And it's not just what government does - it's about the process of protecting the public's ability to influence policy and to protect 'the weak from the strong'.

Its role includes supporting the ideals of the nation's people - such as the rule of law and liberty.

It is usually much easier for a government to enforce its laws if it keeps closer track of its citizens. How much privacy are you willing to trade for security? (This question probably doesn't apply if you take the anarchist/libertarian view in the second question.)

I find it difficult to answer that generally. It's case by case.

I support some policies going both directions. I'd like to see more videos taken, both with mandatory cameras on police cars and various public locations, to help reduce error of eyewitness testimony in the criminal justice system. But in general I'm in favor of civil liberties. I think our system is not too bad now, though some reforms are needed to further improve the accuracy of trial outcomes. I'd give police some more resources to use to shut down serious criminal enterprises such as the growing Mexican gangs.

 

[PrinceofWands]

1. It is every citizens duty to stand for what is right (to them) regardless of cost or outcome. One should NEVER accept wrong actions by any government. In America, that stance IS showing patriotic support as it is the foundation of this nation. Showing support for a government acting incorrectly isn't patriotic, it's participation in evil. While compromise is admirable (and necessary), any fundamental insurmountable ideological differences call for division of a nation rather than concession. It's worth the strife and potential war to live in a nation you can believe in.

2. The government is best which governs least. That doesn't mean no government, it means as little involvement as reasonable. Governments should provide all essential aspects of citizenry - healthcare, emergency services, criminal justice, regulation, education, infrastructure (transportation, energy, communication) etc. There is also nothing unreasonable about providing emergency aid such as welfare, disaster relief, food stamps, etc - but those things should be limited programs, carefully monitored. The government should NEVER be involved in individual morality decisions, marriage, sexuality, religion, self-medication, monitoring of citizens, interfering with the sovereign operation of another nation (unless said nation has committed acts of war already), economics, business (other than regulation) etc.

3. Absolutely NO surrender of privacy or liberty for security. NONE whatsoever. Ever. In my opinion even pre WWII government had too much power to interfere in the lives of citizens without cause or oversight. NO wiretapping without specific warrant issued in light of actual evidence for the commission of a specific crime. NO video surveillance of public areas, with the possible exceptions of use on the border to monitor crossings, or in law enforcement vehicles to regulate officer conduct. NO collection of electronic usage data on individuals without a warrant issued in light of actual evidence for the commission of a specific crime. NO interference with the right to defend oneself against attack or criminal actions, including the right to carry a weapon to achieve such ends (licensing, training, and basic regulation of extreme public threat (ie explosives) aside). NO maintaining of records about an individual except as specifically allowed during direct criminal investigation of a specific crime. That sort of thing.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Of course most people will say in some form -- freedom above Security.....that is until someone on their family gets killed or is a part of a 9/11 type disaster!
Then they will be crying that the Governement did not do enough to prevent this disaster.....not realizing that they wantyed-- FREEDOM above security...hahahaaa

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
Of course most people will say in some form -- freedom above Security.....that is until someone on their family gets killed or is a part of a 9/11 type disaster!
Then they will be crying that the Governement did not do enough to prevent this disaster.....not realizing that they wantyed-- FREEDOM above security...hahahaaa

Nope. Even if it means my life or the lives of my friends and family. What's right is more important. Always.

 

[LumbergTech]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
Of course most people will say in some form -- freedom above Security.....that is until someone on their family gets killed or is a part of a 9/11 type disaster!
Then they will be crying that the Governement did not do enough to prevent this disaster.....not realizing that they wantyed-- FREEDOM above security...hahahaaa

Nope. Even if it means my life or the lives of my friends and family. What's right is more important. Always.

I sort of agree, but on the other hand , it isn't always easy to apply when faced with a decision

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: LumbergTech

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
Of course most people will say in some form -- freedom above Security.....that is until someone on their family gets killed or is a part of a 9/11 type disaster!
Then they will be crying that the Governement did not do enough to prevent this disaster.....not realizing that they wantyed-- FREEDOM above security...hahahaaa

Nope. Even if it means my life or the lives of my friends and family. What's right is more important. Always.

I sort of agree, but on the other hand , it isn't always easy to apply when faced with a decision

It's not supposed to be easy. If it were easy there'd be no benefit to doing it. I have no doubt that it would be torturous, and possibly even drive me to suicide. It would STILL be the right thing to do however. What is right is worth ABSOLUTELY any cost.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: LumbergTech

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
Of course most people will say in some form -- freedom above Security.....that is until someone on their family gets killed or is a part of a 9/11 type disaster!
Then they will be crying that the Governement did not do enough to prevent this disaster.....not realizing that they wantyed-- FREEDOM above security...hahahaaa

Nope. Even if it means my life or the lives of my friends and family. What's right is more important. Always.

I sort of agree, but on the other hand , it isn't always easy to apply when faced with a decision

It's not supposed to be easy. If it were easy there'd be no benefit to doing it. I have no doubt that it would be torturous, and possibly even drive me to suicide. It would STILL be the right thing to do however. What is right is worth ABSOLUTELY any cost.

Absolutely, I woud sacrafice the entire human race for what is right because, of course, I am a fanatical moron.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: LumbergTech

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
Of course most people will say in some form -- freedom above Security.....that is until someone on their family gets killed or is a part of a 9/11 type disaster!
Then they will be crying that the Governement did not do enough to prevent this disaster.....not realizing that they wantyed-- FREEDOM above security...hahahaaa

Nope. Even if it means my life or the lives of my friends and family. What's right is more important. Always.

I sort of agree, but on the other hand , it isn't always easy to apply when faced with a decision

It's not supposed to be easy. If it were easy there'd be no benefit to doing it. I have no doubt that it would be torturous, and possibly even drive me to suicide. It would STILL be the right thing to do however. What is right is worth ABSOLUTELY any cost.

Absolutely, I woud sacrafice the entire human race for what is right because, of course, I am a fanatical moron.

Welcome! We have jackets.

 

[SilentZero]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
Of course most people will say in some form -- freedom above Security.....that is until someone on their family gets killed or is a part of a 9/11 type disaster!
Then they will be crying that the Governement did not do enough to prevent this disaster.....not realizing that they wantyed-- FREEDOM above security...hahahaaa

Nope. Even if it means my life or the lives of my friends and family. What's right is more important. Always.

The important question is not what is right, but WHO is interpreting right and wrong!

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: Blackjack200
These are a few questions that I have often pondered myself.

1. Which is the more important role of a citizen: To challenge the government when he thinks it is wrong, or to try to strengthen his country by showing patriotic support? (One could argue that there is a time and place for each, but let's say 2009 & in your current country.)

2. There seems to be a whole spectrum of different levels of government involvement. At one end of the spectrum is the libertarian or anarchist ideal which wants as little involvement as possible. At the other end of the spectrum are highly paternal governments like China and North Korea. What do you feel is the correct level of government involvement?

It is usually much easier for a government to enforce its laws if it keeps closer track of its citizens. How much privacy are you willing to trade for security? (This question probably doesn't apply if you take the anarchist/libertarian view in the second question.)

I hope someone finds these at least a little interesting...

1) Challenge
2) Somewhere in between.
3) Somewhere in between what Dick Cheney would say and what Abbie Hoffman would say.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: brandonbull
1. People should question first.

Questioning without understanding does not good. Too many people have no idea what government is doing.

2. The correct level of government is what people are willing to tolerate.

What people? The majority? Doesn't sound fair to those in the minority.

3. Freedoms above security.

Agreed, but care to be more precise? Just socially, or economically free as well?

 

[AFMatt]

Originally posted by: Blackjack200
These are a few questions that I have often pondered myself.

1. Which is the more important role of a citizen: To challenge the government when he thinks it is wrong, or to try to strengthen his country by showing patriotic support? (One could argue that there is a time and place for each, but let's say 2009 & in your current country.)

2. There seems to be a whole spectrum of different levels of government involvement. At one end of the spectrum is the libertarian or anarchist ideal which wants as little involvement as possible. At the other end of the spectrum are highly paternal governments like China and North Korea. What do you feel is the correct level of government involvement?

It is usually much easier for a government to enforce its laws if it keeps closer track of its citizens. How much privacy are you willing to trade for security? (This question probably doesn't apply if you take the anarchist/libertarian view in the second question.)

I hope someone finds these at least a little interesting...

1. Challenge. It is the base of what our country was formed on. Electing officials into government is, in effect, one of the methods we are allowed when challenging what the people believe is right or wrong. Unfortunately, the better part of our country is easily persuaded and manipulated by what they hear, without the details or facts, and vote accordingly. That does not mean, however, you can not support and defend your government in a patriotic manner. In the end, all Americans can at least support the fact that the people got to choose them. Besides, is it not patriotic to stand up for what is right?

2. This one is a tough one, but I have to go with the minimal side. With that, there are of course places where regulation and control from the gov't side are in the best interest of the people. It's drawing the line and determining where that leads to conflict.

3. How much "privacy" do we really have? Sure, there are no cameras in my house...but I cant really go anywhere without someone knowing. As far as things like the Patriot Act are concerned, I have no reason to fear the government is listening to my calls.

 

[EXman]

This place is a partisan cesspool. Dems are blind and Repubs are in denile.

 

[Ichigo]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: LumbergTech

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
Of course most people will say in some form -- freedom above Security.....that is until someone on their family gets killed or is a part of a 9/11 type disaster!
Then they will be crying that the Governement did not do enough to prevent this disaster.....not realizing that they wantyed-- FREEDOM above security...hahahaaa

Nope. Even if it means my life or the lives of my friends and family. What's right is more important. Always.

I sort of agree, but on the other hand , it isn't always easy to apply when faced with a decision

It's not supposed to be easy. If it were easy there'd be no benefit to doing it. I have no doubt that it would be torturous, and possibly even drive me to suicide. It would STILL be the right thing to do however. What is right is worth ABSOLUTELY any cost.

Absolutely, I woud sacrafice the entire human race for what is right because, of course, I am a fanatical moron.

What does that even mean when you say "sacrifice [sic] the entire human race for what is right"?

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Ichigo

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: LumbergTech

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
Of course most people will say in some form -- freedom above Security.....that is until someone on their family gets killed or is a part of a 9/11 type disaster!
Then they will be crying that the Governement did not do enough to prevent this disaster.....not realizing that they wantyed-- FREEDOM above security...hahahaaa

Nope. Even if it means my life or the lives of my friends and family. What's right is more important. Always.

I sort of agree, but on the other hand , it isn't always easy to apply when faced with a decision

It's not supposed to be easy. If it were easy there'd be no benefit to doing it. I have no doubt that it would be torturous, and possibly even drive me to suicide. It would STILL be the right thing to do however. What is right is worth ABSOLUTELY any cost.

Absolutely, I woud sacrafice the entire human race for what is right because, of course, I am a fanatical moron.

What does that even mean when you say "sacrifice [sic] the entire human race for what is right"?

It means that I am equally as complete and total an idiot as the person who posted before. me.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
1. It is every citizens duty to stand for what is right (to them) regardless of cost or outcome. One should NEVER accept wrong actions by any government. In America, that stance IS showing patriotic support as it is the foundation of this nation. Showing support for a government acting incorrectly isn't patriotic, it's participation in evil. While compromise is admirable (and necessary), any fundamental insurmountable ideological differences call for division of a nation rather than concession. It's worth the strife and potential war to live in a nation you can believe in.

2. The government is best which governs least. That doesn't mean no government, it means as little involvement as reasonable. Governments should provide all essential aspects of citizenry - healthcare, emergency services, criminal justice, regulation, education, infrastructure (transportation, energy, communication) etc. There is also nothing unreasonable about providing emergency aid such as welfare, disaster relief, food stamps, etc - but those things should be limited programs, carefully monitored. The government should NEVER be involved in individual morality decisions, marriage, sexuality, religion, self-medication, monitoring of citizens, interfering with the sovereign operation of another nation (unless said nation has committed acts of war already), economics, business (other than regulation) etc.

3. Absolutely NO surrender of privacy or liberty for security. NONE whatsoever. Ever. In my opinion even pre WWII government had too much power to interfere in the lives of citizens without cause or oversight. NO wiretapping without specific warrant issued in light of actual evidence for the commission of a specific crime. NO video surveillance of public areas, with the possible exceptions of use on the border to monitor crossings, or in law enforcement vehicles to regulate officer conduct. NO collection of electronic usage data on individuals without a warrant issued in light of actual evidence for the commission of a specific crime. NO interference with the right to defend oneself against attack or criminal actions, including the right to carry a weapon to achieve such ends (licensing, training, and basic regulation of extreme public threat (ie explosives) aside). NO maintaining of records about an individual except as specifically allowed during direct criminal investigation of a specific crime. That sort of thing.

I agree with this post almost to the word, odd for someone that i am often in disagreement with on the specifics.

 

[Blackjack200]

My feelings at the current time:

1. Which is the more important role of a citizen: To challenge the government when he thinks it is wrong, or to try to strengthen his country by showing patriotic support? (One could argue that there is a time and place for each, but let's say 2009 & in your current country.)

It is far more important to challenge. It is not only the role of the citizens whose candidate lost the election, but also the role of the citizens whose candidate won. I do see some Liberals/Democratics criticizing Obama on this board, it would be good to see even more.

2. There seems to be a whole spectrum of different levels of government involvement. At one end of the spectrum is the libertarian or anarchist ideal which wants as little involvement as possible. At the other end of the spectrum are highly paternal governments like China and North Korea. What do you feel is the correct level of government involvement?

I think that Government can do an awful lot of good, but for that to happen, there needs to be high levels of transparency to expose corruption, effective checks and balances, and wide participation by the population. Assuming this is achieved, I think the government should provide security and protect civil liberties.

It is usually much easier for a government to enforce its laws if it keeps closer track of its citizens. How much privacy are you willing to trade for security? (This question probably doesn't apply if you take the anarchist/libertarian view in the second question.)

This is a tough one, because I would like as much privacy as possible, but I understand that the police do need some latitude if they are to be at all successful at protecting us.

That said, I think there are a few instances where that U.S. has clearly gone too far, and the top of the list on that is the social security number. I do not believe that we should be barcoded and tracked by the government and anyone else who pleases.