• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The Government's Authority: Drawing a line

Curious George

Veteran Member
I observe that all governments change over time.
What system of government do you believe will
ensure those unchanging limits?
I am not sure that you can create a thing that cannot be destroyed, so that is beside the point.

The question is where ought the line be. You seem to want to say because we cannot hold the line we should not attempt to draw the line. This is not a reasonable notion. Just because your bathroom will get dirty again does not mean you should not endeavor to clean it.
 

Curious George

Veteran Member
Who would decide what controls would be put on government? Would you add another branch? How would they enforce those controls?

What specific measures would you take to make government more transparent?
Why would we need another branch? The government is already suited to do this.

I would by constitutional ammendment limit the government authority to shield its actions and strengthen the ability to obtain information.
 

joe1776

Well-Known Member
You needn't worry about taking any of my threads off topic.
That's good to know but my reasons for my grades are irrelevant to the topic you set up in the OP.

So you want them to have unlimited power when they want what you do and no power when they want what you don't?
Who said anything about unlimited power or zero power? If it's your intent to be argumentative in this thread, I'm out.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Who said anything about unlimited power or zero power? If it's your intent to be argumentative in this thread, I'm out.
One might think that this is the game.
!) Ask loaded questions.
2) Misread responses.
3) Repeat.

Where is that man in the yellow hat when needed
to discipline the little misbehaving monkey?
 
Last edited:

Curious George

Veteran Member
That's good to know but my reasons for my grades are irrelevant to the topic you set up in the OP.

Who said anything about unlimited power or zero power? If it's your intent to be argumentative in this thread, I'm out.
I asked a question. That hardly constitutes being argumentative. If that is not the line you are suggesting then by all means, explain your line.
 

Curious George

Veteran Member
One might think that this is the OP's game.
!) Ask loaded questions.
2) Misread responses.
3) Repeat.

Where is that man in the yellow hat when needed
to discipline the little misbehaving monkey?
I ditched him, the man in the Yellow Hat, again.

How have i misread any post, especially of yours?
 

dfnj

Well-Known Member
Can we draw a line by which we say a government authority ought to be limited? If so, where is that line? In the U.S. we have levels of scrutiny by which Court systems review whether a statute violates the government's authority as detailed by our constitutions (state and federal).

For fundamental rights strict scrutiny is often involved. However, there are lesser degrees of scrutiny which courts employ based on the type of law, the people affected, and the rights affected.

In addition to this we have some areas that are carved out as it was never the intent of the people to limit the government in regulation.

I often hear, or see written, the notion that "your freedom to swing your arms ends where my nose begins." While this is pragmatic for conceptualization it is hardly coherent.

Most would want some form of limitation. I want to know what your line is, how you rationalize it, and to discuss whether or not such lines are consistent.

Some issues to consider: Vaccinations, guns, discrimination, abortion, freedom of speech, circumcision, freedom of religion.

There are laws that enslave men and there are laws that set them free. The problems we have in this country are not rocket science. The billionaires and CEOs want to have the liberty to have slave labor. The billionaires and CEOs want to have the liberty to create monopolies and cartels. And that is exactly what we have. The billionaires and CEOs use data analytics to price fix wages and pricing of goods and services so the worker making the median wage is driven into poverty on a path to slavery. Essentially, the billionaires and CEOs pay the lobbyists huge sums of money to force the politicians to pass laws creating cartels and monopolies in exchange for campaign financing. And the billionaires and CEOs are winning:


People really have no idea how bad the problem of wealth inequality has become. Companies no longer exist to serve the public. The public exists to serve the billionaires and CEOs. Wealth inequality cannot be any worse and still have a government currency with any shred of value.. Marx said the laissez faire capitalism is always followed by communism because unfettered greed would result in the government's currency collapsing to being zero in value. Once the currency becomes worthless people in the breadlines would demand MORE government not less!!!

This is because paradoxically as more and more wealth is concentrated into fewer and fewer hands the dollar becomes worthless. It doesn't matter what you pay in taxes. All that matters is the purchasing power of your take home pay. And the numbers are ugly:

Quandl

Here Marx's criticisms of laissez faire capitalism are more true today than ever (Entfremdung):


The collapse of our government's currency is inevitable. Government simply cannot stop the greed driving public policies. See you in the breadlines comrades!

This is why I am a liberal Democrat. I think it is inevitable the government's currency will collapse to be worth nothing. The words of FDR from his 1936 Democrat National Convention speech are MORE true today than ever:

"An old English judge once said: 'Necessitous men are not free men.' Liberty requires opportunity to make a living - a living decent according to the standard of the time, a living which gives man not only enough to live by, but something to live for.

For too many of us the political equality we once had won was meaningless in the face of economic inequality. A small group had concentrated into their own hands an almost complete control over other people's property, other people's money, other people's labor - other people's lives. For too many of us life was no longer free; liberty no longer real; men could no longer follow the pursuit of happiness.

Against economic tyranny such as this, the American citizen could appeal only to the organized power of government.
"

Government is the only force strong enough to ensure we have free and open markets. Right now, there is no mechanism to wring out the inefficiencies of CEO compensation packages and shareholder dividends. Government is the only answer to fight the greed and excesses of laissez faire capitalism.

We have a single centralized communist style government in this country. The problem is it's not the kind of communist government that is in the worker's favor. What we have in this country is corporate communism! All the laws are in favor of the corporations and billionaires!

But I am not naive. The words of George Carlin ring MORE true today than when he first spoke them:

 
Last edited:

Brickjectivity

Turned to Stone. Now I stretch daily.
Staff member
Premium Member
Good thoughts, but i am not seeing a line.

I favor strict controls on government action. In most cases this would include imposing strict scrutiny when civil rights are involved, the exception would be for providing equal access to classes with immutable characteristics. I also favor transparency within government so I would also limit the government authority to shield its actions from the public.

Some issues to consider: Vaccinations, guns, discrimination, abortion, freedom of speech, circumcision, freedom of religion.
I think that with many of these issues people and governments go to far and criminalize. These things can all be regulated. They can be encouraged and discouraged with taxes, with fees, with logistics. They don't have to be criminal matters.

In the USA we consider personal gun ownership necessary sometimes, and based upon that we consider gun ownership to be a right. Rights here are considered derived from our natural needs and are far reaching. Those who oppose gun rights argue that guns are not a necessity, and so all is in order. As long as they are considered a necessity then gun ownership will continue to be considered a right by the law or should be.

Abortion is hotly controversial and why? It is because some people want to make it a criminal act while others view it as a necessity sometimes. Some view it as a necessity. Others view it as a crime. The law is unable to distinguish. My opinion is that it should not be criminal if the mother chooses it, and instead it should be regulated through other means. Why? Sometimes it is a necessity. That's why. If its necessity then the law shouldn't criminalize it.

Freedom of speech is a necessity. It can be very harmful, but we still need it.

Circumcision is a necessity for some people, and without it they cannot be Jewish or Muslim. Others want to make it criminal. It can be regulated through fees, education, taxes and logistics. The question here is do we allow people to be Jewish, and do we allow them to be Muslim. A large percentage of the population considers this to be necessary. Therefore it must be regarded as a right.

Freedom of religion is the basis for other freedoms such as the freedom to believe the government is wrong about something. It can't be separated from the freedom to disagree or from the freedom of speech. If these are necessities then so is religion. Maybe this seems extra to some people, on par with the right to be obese or the right to a strange haircut; but I find that a world where I may do things that make no sense to someone else is a good world and that such freedom is necessary.
 

Curious George

Veteran Member
I think that with many of these issues people and governments go to far and criminalize. These things can all be regulated. They can be encouraged and discouraged with taxes, with fees, with logistics. They don't have to be criminal matters.

In the USA we consider personal gun ownership necessary sometimes, and based upon that we consider gun ownership to be a right. Rights here are considered derived from our natural needs and are far reaching. Those who oppose gun rights argue that guns are not a necessity, and so all is in order. As long as they are considered a necessity then gun ownership will continue to be considered a right by the law or should be.

Abortion is hotly controversial and why? It is because some people want to make it a criminal act while others view it as a necessity sometimes. Some view it as a necessity. Others view it as a crime. The law is unable to distinguish. My opinion is that it should not be criminal if the mother chooses it, and instead it should be regulated through other means. Why? Sometimes it is a necessity. That's why. If its necessity then the law shouldn't criminalize it.

Freedom of speech is a necessity. It can be very harmful, but we still need it.

Circumcision is a necessity for some people, and without it they cannot be Jewish or Muslim. Others want to make it criminal. It can be regulated through fees, education, taxes and logistics. The question here is do we allow people to be Jewish, and do we allow them to be Muslim. A large percentage of the population considers this to be necessary. Therefore it must be regarded as a right.

Freedom of religion is the basis for other freedoms such as the freedom to believe the government is wrong about something. It can't be separated from the freedom to disagree or from the freedom of speech. If these are necessities then so is religion. Maybe this seems extra to some people, on par with the right to be obese or the right to a strange haircut; but I find that a world where I may do things that make no sense to someone else is a good world and that such freedom is necessary.
That is an interesting way to draw the line. I will have to give it some more thought. But until then a couple of questions: is the government authorized to determine when it is sometimes necessity or not; and, why when it is only "sometimes a necessity," must the government still be restrained from acting when it is not a necessity?

Lastly, if the government cannot act to limit freedom in instances where such limitations would also prevent a person from being Jewish or Muslim, should the government also be restrained from acting in instances when such limitations would prevent someone from being some other religion? What if there was some sect that required human sacrifice as an initiation rite, such that a follower needed to sacrifice a human in order to become a member or follower? How is this distinguished?
 

Curious George

Veteran Member
There are laws that enslave men and there are laws that set them free. The problems we have in this country are not rocket science. The billionaires and CEOs want to have the liberty to have slave labor. The billionaires and CEOs want to have the liberty to create monopolies and cartels. And that is exactly what we have. The billionaires and CEOs use data analytics to price fix wages and pricing of goods and services so the worker making the median wage is driven into poverty on a path to slavery. Essentially, the billionaires and CEOs pay the lobbyists huge sums of money to force the politicians to pass laws creating cartels and monopolies in exchange for campaign financing. And the billionaires and CEOs are winning:


People really have no idea how bad the problem of wealth inequality has become. Companies no longer exist to serve the public. The public exists to serve the billionaires and CEOs. Wealth inequality cannot be any worse and still have a government currency with any shred of value.. Marx said the laissez faire capitalism is always followed by communism because unfettered greed would result in the government's currency collapsing to being zero in value. Once the currency becomes worthless people in the breadlines would demand MORE government not less!!!

This is because paradoxically as more and more wealth is concentrated into fewer and fewer hands the dollar becomes worthless. It doesn't matter what you pay in taxes. All that matters is the purchasing power of your take home pay. And the numbers are ugly:

Quandl

Here Marx's criticisms of laissez faire capitalism are more true today than ever (Entfremdung):


The collapse of our government's currency is inevitable. Government simply cannot stop the greed driving public policies. See you in the breadlines comrades!

This is why I am a liberal Democrat. I think it is inevitable the government's currency will collapse to be worth nothing. The words of FDR from his 1936 Democrat National Convention speech are MORE true today than ever:

"An old English judge once said: 'Necessitous men are not free men.' Liberty requires opportunity to make a living - a living decent according to the standard of the time, a living which gives man not only enough to live by, but something to live for.

For too many of us the political equality we once had won was meaningless in the face of economic inequality. A small group had concentrated into their own hands an almost complete control over other people's property, other people's money, other people's labor - other people's lives. For too many of us life was no longer free; liberty no longer real; men could no longer follow the pursuit of happiness.

Against economic tyranny such as this, the American citizen could appeal only to the organized power of government.
"

Government is the only force strong enough to ensure we have free and open markets. Right now, there is no mechanism to wring out the inefficiencies of CEO compensation packages and shareholder dividends. Government is the only answer to fight the greed and excesses of laissez faire capitalism.

We have a single centralized communist style government in this country. The problem is it's not the kind of communist government that is in the worker's favor. What we have in this country is corporate communism! All the laws are in favor of the corporations and billionaires!

But I am not naive. The words of George Carlin ring MORE true today than when he first spoke them:

That is more about which way the government uses its authority than where the line should be drawn, yes?
 

Brickjectivity

Turned to Stone. Now I stretch daily.
Staff member
Premium Member
That is an interesting way to draw the line. I will have to give it some more thought. But until then a couple of questions: is the government authorized to determine when it is sometimes necessity or not; and, why when it is only "sometimes a necessity," must the government still be restrained from acting when it is not a necessity?
The laws are imperfect. Laws must be written in such a way that they recognize that they are imperfect. Law is whatever is written on paper. What causes us all to get along the best that is what is constitutional means -- not whatever is written on paper, so the laws might not keep up with what is constitutional. The written constitution is the law of the land, however the written constitution is written to reflect that which is considered to be constitutional. That is what guides such as the Supreme Court will usually use to make determinations. They'll think about what will keep the country together, or they should.

Lastly, if the government cannot act to limit freedom in instances where such limitations would also prevent a person from being Jewish or Muslim, should the government also be restrained from acting in instances when such limitations would prevent someone from being some other religion? What if there was some sect that required human sacrifice as an initiation rite, such that a follower needed to sacrifice a human in order to become a member or follower? How is this distinguished?
This will be yet another of hundreds of situations in which the rule of thumb fails, and so the law will have to be bridged by a judgment about which decision constitutes the better union. The judges will try to take into account precedent. This is different from mob rule, because its a judicial decision, however in the case that 90% of the population believes human sacrifice necessary then justices will take that into consideration when determining what will hold the country together politically and culturally. The laws then will be adjusted to reflect the constitutionality. By the same token if 80% of the population is Jewish and believes all people are harmed by the eating of bacon, then guess what? Then suddenly bacon is not constitutional and laws will begin to reflect it.

I'm not a lawyer but the Supreme Court thrives upon its dignity, and that dignity should reside in its ability to keep the union together. When the subject is fuzzy and the laws overlap destructively, that is when the imperfection of the law is bridged with constitutionality -- making the decision that brings people together the most. In many cases it means the majority wins.
 

Curious George

Veteran Member
The laws are imperfect. Laws must be written in such a way that they recognize that they are imperfect. Law is whatever is written on paper. What causes us all to get along the best that is what is constitutional means -- not whatever is written on paper, so the laws might not keep up with what is constitutional. The written constitution is the law of the land, however the written constitution is written to reflect that which is considered to be constitutional. That is what guides such as the Supreme Court will usually use to make determinations. They'll think about what will keep the country together, or they should.
I do not think this answers my questions. Could you please explain how it does?
This will be yet another of hundreds of situations in which the rule of thumb fails, and so the law will have to be bridged by a judgment about which decision constitutes the better union. The judges will try to take into account precedent. This is different from mob rule, because its a judicial decision, however in the case that 90% of the population believes human sacrifice necessary then justices will take that into consideration when determining what will hold the country together politically and culturally. The laws then will be adjusted to reflect the constitutionality. By the same token if 80% of the population is Jewish and believes all people are harmed by the eating of bacon, then guess what? Then suddenly bacon is not constitutional and laws will begin to reflect it.
Laws provide consistency. What you are describing suggests there can be no consistency. When the rule of thumb fails we still have rules to explain those instances. What is used here?
I'm not a lawyer but the Supreme Court thrives upon its dignity, and that dignity should reside in its ability to keep the union together. When the subject is fuzzy and the laws overlap destructively, that is when the imperfection of the law is bridged with constitutionality -- making the decision that brings people together the most. In many cases it means the majority wins.
I appreciate that. But are there restraints on this? Should there be?
 

Darkforbid

Well-Known Member
Taking the UK as an example

A referendum was call on staying in or leaving the European Union

The population voted to leave

And three years later this hasn't been enacted

How can the UK claim it's a democracy?
 
Top