An issue of democracy...Think about it.?

Question

When/where do the powers of government (state and otherwise) eclipse those rights of the individual Can the government limit the freedoms of the individual in all matters?

Answer 1

The ultimate purpose of government is, ostensibly, to make life better for people. It criminalizes certain actions & behaviors, defined by the legislature & enacted by the executive, and runs a system of justice to punish the rule-breakers.

When discussing any _just_ form of gov't, a primary rule is that gov't exists for the protection and benefit of the individual; the individual does _not_ exist for the benefit of the gov't. When the people live to serve gov't, then gov't has gone from being protector to master and from just to unjust.

Ideally, people should be free to live however they please and do whatever they want, subject to the following limitations:
1. That they always take responsibility for their actions and the outcomes of those actions;
2. That they harm no one else;
3. That they do no harm to anothers' property (including wealth); and
4. That they do nothing to restrict the rights of others to similarly live as they please, subject to the same restrictions.
This is basically known as the libertarian political philosophy, and it is loosely the ideals that America was founded on.

Any restriction of rights beyond the minimum needed to protect the health, property, and freedoms of other individuals constitutes an excessive taking of rights. Such rights include not only those spelled out in the Bill of Rights, but also rights such as the right to privacy, the rights of employers to determine wages with employees, the right of an adult to do drugs or sell sex in the privacy of his/her home, the right of someone to start up a non-fraudulent business without permits, fees, or other gov't hindrances, etc. etc. etc.

The thing about limiting peoples' rights is, that whenever some elitist holier-than-thou sponsors or passes such legislation, he never means to restrict _his_own_ freedoms, just those of others. People are seldom afraid of having too much freedom for themselves; rather, restrictions on freedoms get passed because people are afraid of _others_ having too much freedom. Thus, restrictions on freedom are rarely a matter of morals or of "public" safety. Usually they are at their core a mere emotional reaction, a fear or distrust in others. Thus, such restrictions on freedoms are unjustified from a moral stance.

Some time back I wrote some articles in a blog regarding the nature of democracy, and what an ideal democracy might look like. You might want to check them out below.

Answer 2

In ALL matters? Certainly not - at least, not in a democracy (or, as in the case of the USA, a republic.)
But the government can and should "limit the rights of the individual" in SOME matters. That's why we have laws.
The devil is in the details, that is, in deciding which matters the government has the right to mandate about.
A good example is motorcycle helmet laws and seat belt laws. The argument against having laws for these is that the individual has the right to act like an idiot as long as no one but him/herself will suffer the consequences.
Euthanasia's another example. Does the government have the right to make it illegal for a sane individual, dying, say, of an incurable, extremely painful disease, to kill him/herself? Whose life is it, anyway?

Answer 3

Our rights should NEVER be sacrificed, whatever the reason the government gives. Then, it's like a form dictature. Democracy is not perfect, but it's still the best type of government so far.

Answer 4

u have freedom to only do certain things and thats it. everything else is peripheral (there are limitations on doing everything else) but im not really sure that i want 100% freedom either. in most cases not having 100% can turn out to be a good thing

Answer 5

The framers guaranteed the citizens of this country rights that could not be infringed upon by the government. That is, they gave us the right to challenge any infringement upon our rights by any source , including our government. So, it's all up to you.

Answer 6

overriding utilitarian considerations
- ticking time bomb
- with due process of law
- to preserve the union..