How responsible is man?

Question

In creating a government, should people be mostly free with minimal restrictions (the underlying assumption being that they will act responsibly), or should there be a law for as many possible evils as the government can think of, thus creating a society where there is minimal freedom and maximum safety (the underlying assumption being that people will not act responsibly)? If you think it's somewhere in between, where do you think the line should be drawn?

Use as many examples and be as specific as you'd like. This is something I always wonder about, with the US government's trend over the past 50 or so years toward taking responsibility for the citizens.

Thanks!

almintaka - Thanks for your response. I was using the term "taking responsibility for" more or less interchangeably with "taking liberties away from." We could argue the semantics but my original philosophical question remains, regardless of which direction you believe the government is currently headed - how responsible is man? My question may have had a conservative tone to it but that was not entirely intended. I remain unaffiliated.

Answer 1

I am a libertarian-socialist. Give as much freedom as you can to start out. if you have to, only later, make some restrictions on freedom. And only to preserve others from physical harm. I see a government like the Scandinavian countries, to give an example.

Drug use should be legal since it only hurts the user. The hurt to family and friend is very indirect.

The socialist part on my belief means that I think people's physical needs should be met if they need them met by the state.

Answer 2

The government isn't "taking responsibility for the citizens" over the last 50 years. This idea is a myth propagated by the Neo-Cons to divert attention away from their agenda.

In fact the country is becoming a right-wing Fascist state, in which the government takes civil liberties away from its citizens.

Thus, your question is moot. The role of an individual in a collectivist state is to serve the state; his/her responsibility ends there.

Ironically, the loudest voices warning us that liberals were threatening us with big government excesses will be the first to be silenced by a conservative big government. This is common practice among newly formed dictatorships - eliminate the noise makers regardless of what they think.

Answer 3

You have asked a good question, and have gotten some good answers. I agree with all of them, but realise that we can't do all of it. I do think that people are basically less responsible than they think they are. So we need some basic rules, particularly in a multi-cultural society. If we could find a way to teach people that "my rights end where someone else's begin" we'd do well, but most people are not really paying attention when the subject comes up. Compulsory education? Then who decides what is compulsory? Me, of course - well, right.

Answer 4

Mininmal laws, and everyone should own a gun and be trained to use it properly. Government works best when the rules are simple. The threat of instant retaliation should minimize violent crime and the responsible citizens should protect the vunerable without the need for government.

Answer 5

I won't pretend to be an expert in philosophy but from my perspective the problem appears to be that some people push their interpretation of individual freedom to the point of becoming a nuisance to other people. This becomes a problem to to a government that can't prosecute an action without a law specifically forbidding that action (hence micromanagement).

An example of this might be spitting on the sidewalk.

Answer 6

As a whole? Completely irresponsible. I remain very disappointed to be a part of the human race.
I am not perfect either, But I would like to see less ego and more humanity.