The Role of the Federal Government

[therealUT]

After reading and posting in several forums in the Pub, I am lead to believe that there are many Americans who do not completely comprehend the role of our federal government as put forth in the late 18th Century.

The pure role and obligation of our federal government is to do nothing more than provide security to the people and to provide the opportunity for the people to pursue life, liberty, and happiness. The honus of making that opportunity work for you, is on the individual citizen, not the federal government.

 

[smokedog#3]

in the early going yes. that changed after the civil war when the government decided they could tell you what to do. prohibition, taxes and all those other great amendments that have nothing to do with what you are talking about.

 

[OWB]

The pure role and obligation of our federal government is to do nothing more than provide security to the people and to provide the opportunity for the people to pursue life, liberty, and happiness. The honus of making that opportunity work for you, is on the individual citizen, not the federal government.

:lolabove:

 

[OrangeEmpire]

:lolabove:

? to above......

The country was founded on the idea that it would be a country of individual states that had their own seperate laws.

 

[therealUT]

? to above......

The country was founded on the idea that it would be a country of individual states that had their own seperate laws.

Yeah, it was called Federalism. And it worked until South Carolina seceded over the presumption of a loss of state's rights.

 

[smokedog#3]

your point is.

 

[vader]

After reading and posting in several forums in the Pub, I am lead to believe that there are many Americans who do not completely comprehend the role of our federal government as put forth in the late 18th Century.

The pure role and obligation of our federal government is to do nothing more than provide security to the people and to provide the opportunity for the people to pursue life, liberty, and happiness. The honus of making that opportunity work for you, is on the individual citizen, not the federal government.

I think it would be quite refreshing if the federal government adhered to this philosophy.

 

[rwemyss]

Preaching to the choir here... somehow the libertarian movement can't get any steam though.

 

[utvolpj]

Preaching to the choir here... somehow the libertarian movement can't get any steam though.

It's because of the lack of a foreign policy stance.

 

[rwemyss]

It's because of the lack of a foreign policy stance.

Interesting point... especially in the world we live in today. Libertarians do seem to try and be exclusionists, but that just won't work any more.

 

[TennFan]

The role of the Federal Government has changed somewhat over the years. It still may be to provide security to people whenever possible, but the role of the Federal Government is also to "screw" those whomever possible (LOL&#33. Now think long and hard about it and it will come to you sooner or later and you'll agree to this. Believe me I know.

 

[jdsa]

After reading and posting in several forums in the Pub, I am lead to believe that there are many Americans who do not completely comprehend the role of our federal government as put forth in the late 18th Century.

The pure role and obligation of our federal government is to do nothing more than provide security to the people and to provide the opportunity for the people to pursue life, liberty, and happiness. The honus of making that opportunity work for you, is on the individual citizen, not the federal government.

1. We're not living in the late 18th century.

2. Does our government currently do something other than 'provide the opportunity for the people to pursue life, liberty, and happiness?'

 

[volinbham]

Preaching to the choir here... somehow the libertarian movement can't get any steam though.

While I have some libertarian leanings, it is an unworkable approach as a whole (including the foreign policy components already mentioned). The notion that as long as someone isn't hurting others they can do what they want fails because there is no uniformly accepted version of what hurts someone else.

E.g. I should be able to do what ever I want with my yard including never cutting it and leaving a bunch of junk in it. However, this affects my neighbors enjoyment with their living area and their property values. What's the libertarian answer? Someone somewhere will always be offended by someone else's actions. Which view gets supported? Govt. steps in through laws enacted via elected officials to say who is right but someone's libertarian rights are always violated.

 

[GAVol]

I think most conseravtives have some Libertarian leanings, but in it's totality, it's more of a utopian pipe dream (literally in some cases).

 

[volinbham]

I'll smoke to that

 

[therealUT]

While I have some libertarian leanings, it is an unworkable approach as a whole (including the foreign policy components already mentioned). The notion that as long as someone isn't hurting others they can do what they want fails because there is no uniformly accepted version of what hurts someone else.

E.g. I should be able to do what ever I want with my yard including never cutting it and leaving a bunch of junk in it. However, this affects my neighbors enjoyment with their living area and their property values. What's the libertarian answer? Someone somewhere will always be offended by someone else's actions. Which view gets supported? Govt. steps in through laws enacted via elected officials to say who is right but someone's libertarian rights are always violated.

It is not and should not be the federal government that forces you to keep your yard looking nice. Usually, that is a neighborhood government issue that you agreed to by signing a contract when you bought the house.

 

[vader]

I think most conseravtives have some Libertarian leanings, but in it's totality, it's more of a utopian pipe dream (literally in some cases).

:lol: :devilsmoke:

 

[therealUT]

I think most conseravtives have some Libertarian leanings, but in it's totality, it's more of a utopian pipe dream (literally in some cases).

Unfortunately, I do believe it is a pipe dream, however, far from utopian. I believe that utopian ideals is what has caused our government to get off track. I believe that happiness is reserved to those who pursue it...i.e. happiness can't come in the form of government handouts.

 

[volinbham]

It is not and should not be the federal government that forces you to keep your yard looking nice. Usually, that is a neighborhood government issue that you agreed to by signing a contract when you bought the house.

I completely agree - I was discussing libertarianism not necessarily the role of the Federal Govt.

 

[rwemyss]

But you pointed out that everything we do can/will offend someone in some way... the government shouldn't be about protecting you from being "offended", that's what the current PC culture is all about, and it has gotten ridiculous. I'm offended by my neighbor displaying a UF flag, and it decreases my enjoyment of my home... the gov't should pass a law banning them from doing so!

That's retarded.

OOPS! Edit, calling something 'retarded' offends some people, I shouldn't say it... this crap never ends.

THAT is the prime basis behind the Libertarian movement, and while it is a little radical, you can compromise the two and get this country back to a little sanity.

 

[volinbham]

But you pointed out that everything we do can/will offend someone in some way... the government shouldn't be about protecting you from being "offended", that's what the current PC culture is all about, and it has gotten ridiculous. I'm offended by my neighbor displaying a UF flag, and it decreases my enjoyment of my home... the gov't should pass a law banning them from doing so!

That's retarded.

OOPS! Edit, calling something 'retarded' offends some people, I shouldn't say it... this crap never ends.

THAT is the prime basis behind the Libertarian movement, and while it is a little radical, you can compromise the two and get this country back to a little sanity.

Perhaps my point wasn't clear. Libertarianism (see definition below) is a stance that the govt should not regulate the actions of individuals if those actions don't negatively affect others. Good in theory but who defines "negatively affect". Here's where it is unworkable in practice. There is always a need for the collective to impose it's restrictions on the individual. I hate PC crap - believe me working at a university I see more of it everyday than most.

My second point was that I don't believe much of this collective controlling the individual is the role of the Federal govt. but rather that of local govt's. Either way though, someone will always feel that their actions do not negatively affect others but others will disagree. Hence the true libertarian view is untenable.

Take drug use - a true libertarian stance would say it doesn't affect anyone but the user so it should be legal. Others will claim that is also has negative consequences on others (for example a parent using drugs and it's negative psychological effects on the children). The debate will always continue since there is no universal definition of "negative affect on others".



Libertarianism is a ideology advocating that individuals should be free to do whatever they wish with their person or property, as long as they do not infringe on the same liberty of others. Libertarians hold as a fundamental maxim that all human interaction should be voluntary and consensual. They maintain that the initiation of physical force against another person or his property, the threat of initiating it, or the commission of fraud against any person, is a violation of that principle. Force used against others is considered by libertarians to be illegitimate except in retaliation for initiatory aggressions.

 

[rwemyss]

I hear you Volinbham... I'm just saying, those views have to be so extreme so that when they compromise (give the rights back at the local level) we'll be good.