Deja Vu all over again?

[farmerlor]

I don't entirely agree with Pat (though I think she is about the wisest person I e-know).

The Constitution outlines what the federal governement is and isn't allowed to do. All other situations are reserved for the states to decide. There is a much neglected ammendment called the 10th Amendment -- "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Consitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

What upsets a lot of people is when the federal government starts to micro-manage things that effect their everyday lives.


Inchworm

And yet, so many people today WANT the government to micro-manage everyone else's lives. It's none of the government's business, not federal, not state, not city or county, who enters into a civil contract of marriage. And yet, we have people in favor of constitutionally challenging that right. People want to legislate morality and religion providing it's THEIR morals and religion. People want to limit freedom of speech so long as what IS allowed corresponds to THEIR beliefs. You can't have it both ways. Either you want the government to limit everyone's freedoms or you want smaller government. It can't be limiting someone else's freedoms so you can feel superior. (by you I mean the generic, all inclusive and not inclusive you)

 

[patandchickens]

The Constitution outlines what the federal governement is and isn't allowed to do. All other situations are reserved for the states to decide. There is a much neglected ammendment called the 10th Amendment -- "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Consitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Sure, and I think there are indeed valid issues with some specific cases where state-level government is not being allowed sufficient autonomy by the federal government.

But, aside from that, state government is still government, and thus no exception to the general principle that it *will* infringe on what people like to think are their rights to do as they please.

(e.t.a.: as far as

And yet, so many people today WANT the government to micro-manage everyone else's lives.

, well, it IS a democracy, and if that IS what a majority of voters and vocal writers-to-congressmen want, well...)

People want to limit freedom of speech so long as what IS allowed corresponds to THEIR beliefs. You can't have it both ways. Either you want the government to limit everyone's freedoms or you want smaller government. It can't be limiting someone else's freedoms so you can feel superior. (by you I mean the generic, all inclusive and not inclusive you)

The difficulty is that to forego some sorts of limitations has more serious practical ramifications than others -- for instance, the right to wear silly hats in public does not really have much affect on anyone else but the right to drive however fast or drunkenly a person wants *does*. I am obviously picking extreme examples here to illustrate the continuum; any real point of contention will fall somewhere in between, but the point is they don't all fall at the *same* in-between place.

(Plus different people have very different views of where certain things fall -- for instance on the issue of smoking. Reasonably sensible arguments can be made both for *and* against the gov't stepping in to regulate it on the basis of protecting other people... the problem is that which argument is most sensible to you depends on certain of your basic beliefs about life and the world and all that stuff, so people are never going to agree on it).

So I would suggest it probably remains "awkward but true" that some freedoms ARE more important to limit vs preserve than others, in particular situations... and that never will everyone agree on exactly which those are.

Really I do not think that hardly anyone wants to limit others' freedoms "so you can feel superior"... people tend to have sincerely-meant well-intentioned and not-idiotic REASONS, it's just that people with diffferent philosophies of life are just never going to see eye to eye on many of these issues.

It might help to see this not as anybody's attempts to oppress anyone else, just the normal everyday functioning of living in a world with many different sorts of people who hold many LEGITIMATE different viewpoints.

Framing it as a 'those stupid people' thing, or 'they are out to get us ' thing, is not at all helpful in the least, IMHO. (This is not directed at you Reinbeau, btw, or at anyone specific, it is jsut a general comment about how these discussions tend to go)

Pat

 

[reinbeau]

People want to limit freedom of speech so long as what IS allowed corresponds to THEIR beliefs. You can't have it both ways. Either you want the government to limit everyone's freedoms or you want smaller government. It can't be limiting someone else's freedoms so you can feel superior. (by you I mean the generic, all inclusive and not inclusive you)

I said this? It must have been in another thread, I don't remember saying any of this. Just trying to keep track.....

 

[Tallman]

, well, it IS a democracy, and if that IS what a majority of voters and vocal writers-to-congressmen want, well...)

Pat

On Our own wrote the following on post 22:

On Our own wrote:

Jefferson said that democracy was mob rule and that what this country was based on was representative republic. The fallacy that this is supposed to be a "pure democracy" is one of the most damaging concepts we have. There is no such thing as pure democracy and there is no such thing as pure capitalism.


This was true in Jefferson's day and is still true today.

 

[inchworm]

No, FarmerLor wrote it. Go figure.

In essence, Pat makes a good point as usual. But I prefer my government to be more local. It is easier to vote out the County Commissioner than a state rep which is easier to vote out than a US Senator.

 

[Big Daddy]

I thought Farmerlor made an excellent point. She was spot on.

 

[Okiemommy]

And yet, so many people today WANT the government to micro-manage everyone else's lives.

, well, it IS a democracy, and if that IS what a majority of voters and vocal writers-to-congressmen want, well...)

I'm not sure if you're referring to my post or not, but in the event that you are, the intention of my post did not specifically mention writing to congress to micro manage everyone's lives...or for bigger government or smaller government or any other kind of specification. I was merely stating that if someone doesn't like something in this country whether it be more government intervention or less, they should actually do something by writing, emailing, etc their congressmen and representatives about it rather than complaining. This is part of government of the people by the people and for the people.


On another note, I'm pretty sure my entire post was middle of the road. I didn't state what party I believe is right or wrong. If that was assumed, I can't help that. I believe that both parties at times have very good ideals for this country. But I don't care for political corruption of any kind. Any kind. And for anyone to think that their party is not capable of political corruption is sadly mistaken. No matter who is in office, there is potential for corruption and that is why it is important to pay attention to the issues and take sensible action as a citizen.

Makes sense to me.

I don't get why that way of thinking gets overshadowed by polarization.

 

[me&thegals]

If you truly feel that strongly against your government then why are you a citizen?

Because I was born here? I like living here. I can't afford to move from here.

It doesn't follow that, just because one doesn't approve of the government's overall program, that one is bashing the government and should move out. If so, all the people who express extreme displeasure with the "previous administration" would be considered government bashers as well and should pack their bags.

Very true! I really can understand this from the other point of view. I could barely handle the last 8 years, but seriously, you don't abandon your country or your government, whichever side you're on. You stay here and work with it to try to make it better!

Hating the way an administration is run does NOT equal hatred of your country, whether we're talking about it today or 2 years ago.

 

[me&thegals]

I don't entirely agree with Pat (though I think she is about the wisest person I e-know).

The Constitution outlines what the federal governement is and isn't allowed to do. All other situations are reserved for the states to decide. There is a much neglected ammendment called the 10th Amendment -- "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Consitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

What upsets a lot of people is when the federal government starts to micro-manage things that effect their everyday lives.


Inchworm

And yet, so many people today WANT the government to micro-manage everyone else's lives. It's none of the government's business, not federal, not state, not city or county, who enters into a civil contract of marriage. And yet, we have people in favor of constitutionally challenging that right. People want to legislate morality and religion providing it's THEIR morals and religion. People want to limit freedom of speech so long as what IS allowed corresponds to THEIR beliefs. You can't have it both ways. Either you want the government to limit everyone's freedoms or you want smaller government. It can't be limiting someone else's freedoms so you can feel superior. (by you I mean the generic, all inclusive and not inclusive you)

Let's get quotes attributed to the proper people here

Farmerlor--excellent point. Very much human nature. I actually find this a difficult one with freedom of speech. There's some pretty nasty stuffy covered by this. But, if I want to weaken the freedom of speech by getting rid of other's rights to the nasty stuff, I better watch out when that weakening starts affecting what I care about!

 

[me&thegals]

And yet, so many people today WANT the government to micro-manage everyone else's lives.

, well, it IS a democracy, and if that IS what a majority of voters and vocal writers-to-congressmen want, well...)

I'm not sure if you're referring to my post or not, but in the event that you are, the intention of my post did not specifically mention writing to congress to micro manage everyone's lives...or for bigger government or smaller government or any other kind of specification. I was merely stating that if someone doesn't like something in this country whether it be more government intervention or less, they should actually do something by writing, emailing, etc their congressmen and representatives about it rather than complaining. This is part of government of the people by the people and for the people.


On another note, I'm pretty sure my entire post was middle of the road. I didn't state what party I believe is right or wrong. If that was assumed, I can't help that. I believe that both parties at times have very good ideals for this country. But I don't care for political corruption of any kind. Any kind. And for anyone to think that their party is not capable of political corruption is sadly mistaken. No matter who is in office, there is potential for corruption and that is why it is important to pay attention to the issues and take sensible action as a citizen.

Makes sense to me.

I don't get why that way of thinking gets overshadowed by polarization.

Another great point! Of course, it only applies to those who believe their government actually listens to them. Maybe that's why it is based on votes. And yes, I'm sure $ has something to do with that, but I bet some politicians actually listen to their constituents.

In my opinion, the biggest threat to America is, and maybe always has been, apathy. I bet most people could tell you who won at the Oscars but not have a clue on who is on the Supreme court, represents their state in Congress or is on the President's cabinet. And I include myself in this shameful comment.