Opinions on Smoking and Drinking

Debate Room
61

The government is made up of people. How do you expect people to not use the government for issues like this? That is government, unless you want to opt out of it the benefits of organized government like roads and bridges, infrastructure, subsidized food, etc. the government has every right to decide what else you can and can’t do. Wether they should or shouldn’t is your personal opinion, just like the personal opinion of the PEOPLE in government to enforce such laws.

Definition of Law: A set of rules that are created and are enforceable by social or governmental institutions to regulate behavior, with its precise definition a matter of longstanding debate.

Regulate behavior.

So again, this isn’t a government issue. Governments are just people. This a people issue, so why should people in government not have this authority? You, I, or any human can hold the position that makes these rules. Now is it fair who sits there, and should they, that is a completely different issue.

You only get to make the rules if you participate, but no one here wants to participate, we just want to throw rocks from our mud hills

62

Speak for yourself.
I am just curious here. What, if any, limitations on government do you accept or acknowledge?

63

Wow. I typically only see such absolutes in connection with religion, so I’m surprised to see it here, but then again most people here came from a hardcore religious background, so perhaps it isn’t so surprising.

64

Plenty, firstly it’s antiquated bullshit. We bind ourselves to the words of tyrants and rebels from over 200 years ago. They couldn’t fathom that we would ever get to where we are. Could you imagine one of them seeing a smartphone? Yet we think their wise words are some how relevant today. They had less than a modern grade school education, half thought the dark arts could transmute lead into gold. We need to at some point get with the times, and stop carrying a millstone with us.

Size wise, the government is disproportionately overpowered compared to its territory. States should be more independent, even to the point of breaking many states down to smaller states and merging quite a few others.

Also government needs to be redistributed and moved around from time to time. Familiarity breads exploitation, once you know how the system works it’s easy to abuse it. This is its most glaring limitation.

How we solve these issues I’m not entirely sure. Also sorry to non-American members, I know I’m speaking of American government.

1 Like
65

How far do you want to go with that concept? Example: what if a state decides it wants a state religion or that it’s okay with going back to segregation? Would you be okay with that?

66

As I have already agreed in another post in this thread, I am sure there may be a few “lower-level” political types who genuinely care about their citizens and try to do what is right by them. But we are mostly talking about small town mayors and counsel members and such. Hell, there might even be a small handful of larger city gov’t officials who remember that they are SERVANTS of The People. But they are few and far between, and effective only within their local area.

HOWEVER, for those who desire to climb higher up that political ladder, the only way for them to succeed is to “play the Big League game.” And if they try to rock that boat, their lofty ambitions will be quickly snatched out from under them. If you cannot see and understand that, then please feel free to continue living under the delusion our government actually cares about us. Allow me to give you a smaller scale real life example that I personally experienced. A bit of background first, though…

As I mentioned, I worked for a large police department in a large crime-filled city. And some of those working within the city government (including a couple of the mayors) were actually worse than some of the thugs I use to arrest. Even within the department, there were at any given time a number of higher ranking “officers” (mostly captains and above) who were “less than reputable.” As a result, the department rules and policies were more often than not geared FOR the criminals and AGAINST the officers on the streets. (By the way, the ranks were Officer, Sergeant, Lieutenant, Captain, Deputy Chief, Chief.) So, with that in mind…

Each precinct had a captain in charge of it. As with any such organization, captains were rotated in and out of precincts every two to four years or so, depending on various factors. Sometimes we would get a good captain. Sometimes we would get a damn nightmare captain. One captain we had for awhile was a prime example of a commander I would follow into hell. Great man and leader. Got to know him pretty well while we were working together helping to organize the annual Special Olympics Torch Run. Anyway, one day we were discussing the department and why we had joined the police career path. Long story short, he confided in me and told me, “I started rising in the ranks because I really wanted to make a positive difference in how this department is run. But it was shortly after making Captain that I began to realize there is really nothing I can do to counter those who actually control this department.”

Now, let that sink in a moment. That is just ONE corrupt city administration within a moderately large city. With the higher officials maybe pulling in low-to-mid six figure salaries a year. Upper 80’s to 90’s at the very least. And that ain’t counting the damn kickbacks they get “on the side”. And I can tell you right now they did not give a single rat-fuck about the citizens or the officers hired to protect them.

But you somehow are naive enough to believe the federal Senators, and Reps, and Congress-clowns, and such, who are all raking in MILLIONS a year each, actually CARE about you and your family and friends?.. :joy::joy::joy::joy::joy::joy::joy::joy::joy::joy::joy::joy: Do you still believe in Santa, too?

67

I said MORE independent, not completely. Something like the European Union as an example. It must be agreed upon, and there must be an option to opt out or form your own union.

68

Hence my comment… Don’t give up power and control to the government. People blindly give up their rights, power and control while thinking they are making their lives better. They are caging themselves like an animal kept in a zoo. “Feed me 3 times a day and keep me comfy. I don’t want to know anything else. Give me my video games, TV, and Internet. I am sated.” We give up our power and control to the government.

1 Like
69

No, we give up our power to the video game industry, the TV industry, the internet industry. You are sated by businesses exploiting your wants. You give power, time, and money to shitty business owners over giving power, time, and money to finding good people who want to get into government.

If you don’t think big business and corporations have their hands shoved up every politicians ass, you’re daft. Want government to get better, find a way to defund big businesses so their politicians don’t get into offices.

You give these companies your money and power for entertainment and cheap shitty food. Then they take your money and push their agenda over yours.

2 Likes
70

Spot on.

I’ve worked for the owner of a privately owned business in the middle of a big U.S. city who’s approach to customers was, to directly quote: “People are basically stupid.”

They may be, but his resultant approach to business was to basically raid the wallets and insurance deductibles of patrons by hook or crook. He was also good buddies with an influential career state politician and exploited that connection to the hilt. To be fair, I did learn a some practical lessons about running a business but the stomach turning stuff saw me eventually waving goodbye to the place.

As a for-profit business owner, I’d be all for entirely turning the country over to free market principles and the blanket presumption of individual liberty… if not for what, I have a strong feeling, would be the result.

2 Likes
71

There is a distinction between manipulation of the video industry and coersion of the government.

Government serves the people, it does not rule over them. Our government is currently out of control and it is only getting worse.

1 Like
72

No, once again, PEOPLE are out of control. Does government exist without people?

So how do you usurp power and control from these people and “correct” what wrong you say these people have perpetrated on others?

73

Thanks for the response to my question. Unfortunately you went off on unrelated tangents.
Some aspects of our government are outdated and should be modified to reflect our current understandings. Demonstrating this with the question of how the founders would react to a smartphone is useless sophistry. You demean their knowledge by criticizing their “wise words”, but you and others here (including me) will refer to the same information they had accumulated from their privileged educations. (I.e. Greek philosophy)
I am not aware of any public grade schools that teach Greek philosophy, Latin, etc…Of course our knowledge base has expanded overall but the comparison you make would have to come up several levels to qualify as absurd. George Washington is the only founder not to have attended or graduated college. They were all “privileged” and thusly acquired educations not even imagined at the time by most of their fellow citizens. Thomas Jefferson, being financially broke, sold his book collection to the U.S. government for $25,000, which began what is now known as the Library of Congress. The “millstone” you mention is the carryover of religion. Check out the Jefferson Bible sometime. He recognized the widespread attachment to Christianity but rejected the supernatural nonsense.
Next you parade your “states rights” nonsense.
We have seen in the past how that works out. Imagine for a minute what life in Mississippi would be like if they were left to their own devices. That is not to assert that centralized governments do not have inherent problems. They do. The fact that the U.S. is now an oligarchy is evidence of perhaps the biggest problem we have to address. Btw, this isn’t just my opinion. Former President Jimmy Carter had some harsh words to say about the current state of America’s electoral process, calling the country “an oligarchy with unlimited political bribery” resulting in “nominations for president or to elect the president.” When asked this week by The Thom Hartmann Program (via The Intercept) about the Supreme Court’s April 2014 decision to eliminate limits on campaign donations, Carter said the ruling “violates the essence of what made America a great country in its political system.”
So conflating objections to the the imposition on individual rights with the allowance of corporations to control everyday life and all of our politics is, at best, disingenuous.
Next, I don’t understand your comment about “government needs to be redistributed”. Perhaps term limits would apply here.
I think there is an obvious answer to how we can begin to implement positive changes. The first step is to remove MONEY from the equation. Overturn Citizens United, etc. implement strict term limits. Prohibit private sector employment of retired politicians other than in strictly unpaid advisory positions with oversight.Punish political criminals with the same measure as any other criminal. Etc, etc…Stop giving cover to corporations by citing “job creation” , etc.
Lastly, stop wringing our hands and whining, and be as politically engaged as your personal situation will allow. That may only translate to the encouragement of others through example or education.
Granting even more power to the government over the individual is a seriously flawed approach to what is an inherent problem with capitalism facilitated, encouraged, and even engineered by government. The individual cannot be viewed through the same lens as are corporations and businesses. I ran a business of my own for a time and my responsibilities to the public were on a different scale than as an individual….as it should be.
Thanks @SatanicMechanic

Edit for slapping

2 Likes
74

I really hope this was entirely rhetorical, although you are from Canada.

75

O Illinois! Terre de nos aïeux,
Ton front est ceint de fleurons glorieux!

Is it possible that the assessment of my living in the Great White North is as accurate as the notion that a description of a mental impulse equates to a lack of awareness of the likely end result of that impulse in actuality?

Possible, I do admit.

1 Like
76

Well, I suppose that is all one can hope for…

Edit for French speakers

77

It seems to me that this is heading toward a terminus of “we need federalism here in the U.S. to prevent Big .gov from stepping too much on the rights of Little.govs…”

1 Like
78

Shrugging my shoulders here, what do you want?

You ask a question and didn’t get the response you wanted, now you’re complaining, would you like to write my response for me next time?

1 Like
79

Nope. I don’t like or dislike your response. I had no “want” concerning your position other than clarification. People have different views of the role of government in our lives and I am genuinely interested in the range of positions people take. I cannot expect to understand issues without considering other’s viewpoints. So I appreciate any responses I get to my question(s), even if I happen to disagree. Since you seem to have an issue with my response to your response, then perhaps we should trade positions and respond for each other…? or, we could both post various positions and then we could choose the one we “like”? Thanks in advance for your response to my response… btw, sorry if I came across as complaining as I do appreciate you responding.

2 Likes
80

Maybe. The balance is precarious and difficult to maintain, especially when many involved are mostly or entirely self-serving.