jump to last post 1-4 of 4 discussions (4 posts)

Should government's be allowed to make laws that limit rights in order to protec

  1. Sheepsquatch profile image62
    Sheepsquatchposted 5 years ago

    Should government's be allowed to make laws that limit rights in order to protect people against


  2. rfmoran profile image87
    rfmoranposted 5 years ago

    Government has no business protecting us from ourselves. PJ O'Rourke said it well: "America wasn't founded so that we could all be better. [It] was founded so we could all be anything we damned well pleased."

  3. junkseller profile image83
    junksellerposted 5 years ago

    It isn't really that simple. If the government pays for healthcare, which it does, it than has an interest in preventing people from self-harming themselves, for instance from smoking. That is partly why some people are so strongly opposed to government intrusion of any kind. One intrusion can lead to further intrusions. It is like inviting one person to a party and they bring 100 friends.

    How much government intrusion is good/bad, constitutional/unconstitutional is of course one of the great divides we have in America (and probably to varying degrees, everywhere), but ultimately, (democratic) governments are "allowed" to do what the collective will lets them do.

  4. Mary Neal profile image59
    Mary Nealposted 5 years ago

    The government is not making laws to limit rights in order to protect Americans against ourselves. Limiting Americans' freedom is done to get us ready for the anticipated One World Government wherein there will be two classes of people: masters and slaves. In order to make one world government functional, it is deemed as necessary to reduce freedom in America and simultaneously enhance personal liberty somewhat in totalitarian regimes. The same process is happening regarding the U.S. economy. Corporations wish to pay no more for salaries and job benefits in America than they do in developing nations. Therefore, there is a process underway to "flatten" the U.S. economy. Millions of Americans have lost their jobs over the past few years. The lucky ones find new employment, usually at salaries and benefits that are substantially less than they earned before the economic collapse. The process of outsourcing Americans' jobs (including union jobs) overseas and to prisons will eventually get Americans acclimated to having and expecting less. Workers in China, India and other countries gain better job opportunities while Americans simultaneously get used to having less. At some point, workers in the USA will be compensated equal to their counterparts in Africa or China and other developing countries. Since most people contest the loss of person liberty and income, restraints are being placed on freedom of speech, press, and peaceful assembly in order to squash dissent. Therefore, I contend that the laws that limit rights are not enacted for our protection but for the benefit of corporations who wish to have a one world economy. I further assert that laws to restrict freedom are passed by persons who must first violate their oaths of office to uphold the U.S. Constitution, which makes them criminals.

    Thanks for asking this question that has profound relevance. Security is an issue, but from whom?

    Mary Neal