Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Do you believe that the government in your country should be more involved or less involved in the way things are done in your country? Or, are you happy with the current state of government?

At 8/15/01 05:10 PM, GameboyCC wrote: Do you believe that the government in your country should be more involved or less involved in the way things are done in your country? Or, are you happy with the current state of government?

Ah... the government. I believe there should be less government. I don't need someone to tell me what to do or how to do it. I'm a big boy, I think that I (and most other people) are responisble enough to act in a civilized manner. Sure, we need the government. Just not that much. And don't start with that anarchy bullshit. The only way Anarchy could work is if everyone was peaceful and there was no conflict whatsoever.

If the proper changes were made to the government, then I believe things would be better. Like I said before, I don't see the need for some conglomorate to run my life for me.

At 8/15/01 05:10 PM, GameboyCC wrote: Do you believe that the government in your country should be more involved or less involved in the way things are done in your country? Or, are you happy with the current state of government?

I consider myself a humanitarian Libertarian. Which may sound a bit odd, but my views are that on the public view, there should be next to no social structure. No censorship (except opt-in), little spending, no foregin aid, little military. However on a coorperate scale, a large amount of laws, whether it be enviromental or other. Here's my thought on this, coperatations have the rights of our corperate (Wanna-be Lassie faire) economy however the public also has rights that shall not be infrigned, being that it is the corperations that are using their rights to infringe upon the publics, then I belive that the corperations should be capped not the publics. An example of this is the sherman anti-trust act.

At 8/15/01 07:24 PM, Anti-You wrote:

At 8/15/01 05:10 PM, GameboyCC wrote: Do you believe that the government in your country should be more involved or less involved in the way things are done in your country? Or, are you happy with the current state of government?

Ah... the government. I believe there should be less government. I don't need someone to tell me what to do or how to do it.

I think you know my answer penguin...since I work for the government. But being a civilian you have way more rights than I do. anti-me...can you reiterate what the government tells you to do? They don't make you vote. They don't pick what channels you are to watch. They don't tell you what time to go to sleep. All they ask of you is to pay your taxes and abide by the laws. Shit...you don't even have to work if you can live off the land (but make sure its not private property ;).

At 8/15/01 11:58 PM, anhnonymous wrote:

At 8/15/01 07:24 PM, Anti-You wrote:

At 8/15/01 05:10 PM, GameboyCC wrote: Do you believe that the government in your country should be more involved or less involved in the way things are done in your country? Or, are you happy with the current state of government?

Ah... the government. I believe there should be less government. I don't need someone to tell me what to do or how to do it.

I think you know my answer penguin...since I work for the government. But being a civilian you have way more rights than I do. anti-me...can you reiterate what the government tells you to do? They don't make you vote. They don't pick what channels you are to watch. They don't tell you what time to go to sleep. All they ask of you is to pay your taxes and abide by the laws. Shit...you don't even have to work if you can live off the land (but make sure its not private property ;).

Acually if you live off private land for 8 years, and no one tells you that it's their land then it becomes yours. potters or sitters law something like that.

I think wwe should have less government, actually no government at all.(My big post coming soon!)

At 8/16/01 06:24 AM, Slizor wrote: I think wwe should have less government, actually no government at all.(My big post coming soon!)

Actually I belive less government, and a change in the justice system I have been charged and arrested for stuff I did'nt even do, actually the police are looking for me to ask some questions, they seem to think that they can break me....

Less government; I'm a conservative.

At 8/15/01 11:58 PM, anhnonymous wrote: They don't make you vote.

No, but if your a Black citizen Florida they didn't let you vote in the last election...

They don't pick what channels you are to watch.

No, but don't think they didn't try... ever here of government censorship?

They don't tell you what time to go to sleep.

They tell you how long you can stay out at night.

All they ask of you is to pay your taxes and abide by the laws.

And they used to force you into joining the service if we would get in a war. Thank God they stopped that...

Anarchy: That's not a Libertarian belief. Socially, Libertarians believe in freedom, which is fairly well what you stated. They also believe in economic freedom, notably the free market economy. They don't believe in restrictions on companies, except where those companies infringe the rights of individuals. This is also what you stated. Libertarians, however, don't believe in a large number or laws for companies, including environmental laws. Essentially, there is no distinction made between companies and individuals. They have the same rights and responsibilities.

anhnonymous: It's not so much what the government tells you that you must do, but what you mustn't do. There's a great book called "Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do." It's by Peter McWilliams, and is published by Prelude Press.

There are a whole range of laws in place against gambling, drugs, prostitution, pornography and obscenity (there's your bit about them not telling you what you must watch on TV), adultery, fornication, cohabitation, bigamy, polygamy, homosexuality, unconventional religious practices, unpopular political views (such as communism), suicide and assisted suicide, public drunkenness, loitering, vagrancy, seat belts, motorcycle helmets, public nudity and transvestism.

All of these crimes of consent or "victimless crimes" are discussed in his book. Presently, there are more than 750,000 people in jail for such non-crimes. It's not looking so much as though the government doesn't tell people what to do now.

Then there is tax. That's another issue entirely.

There's no government like no government.

shorbe

There are a whole range of laws in place against gambling, drugs, prostitution, pornography and obscenity (there's your bit about them not telling you what you must watch on TV), adultery, fornication, cohabitation, bigamy, polygamy, homosexuality, unconventional religious practices, unpopular political views (such as communism), suicide and assisted suicide, public drunkenness, loitering, vagrancy, seat belts, motorcycle helmets, public nudity and transvestism.

What's the laws on communism?

At 8/15/01 05:10 PM, GameboyCC wrote: Do you believe that the government in your country should be more involved or less involved in the way things are done in your country? Or, are you happy with the current state of government?

I believe there should be less. I think we are capable of making decisions ourselves instead of the government making decisions for us.

To me, it's not about more or less government, it's about the quality of government. Let's face it, the human race isn't evolved enough to be able to live with complete freedom. There will always be the asshole who claims it is his right to drive down the wrong side of the I-95 drunk. The idea of Anarchy (you can do whatever you want, as long as it doesn't infringe on other's same rights) is tempting, but who is going to give up all their ideals so they can be equal to people who wait on them hand and foot.

No government can be perfect, and I think the United States has done an acceptable job, with a few notable exceptions. So yeah, I guess I'm happy with it.

At 8/16/01 06:24 AM, Slizor wrote: I think wwe should have less government, actually no government at all.(My big post coming soon!)

How could a country function without a government? Too many people would be fighting and killing each other over how they think the country should be run.

At 8/18/01 07:58 AM, shorbe wrote:

anhnonymous: It's not so much what the government tells you that you must do, but what you mustn't do. There's a great book called "Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do." It's by Peter McWilliams, and is published by Prelude Press.

There are a whole range of laws in place against gambling, drugs, prostitution, pornography and obscenity (there's your bit about them not telling you what you must watch on TV), adultery, fornication, cohabitation, bigamy, polygamy, homosexuality, unconventional religious practices, unpopular political views (such as communism), suicide and assisted suicide, public drunkenness, loitering, vagrancy, seat belts, motorcycle helmets, public nudity and transvestism.

All of these crimes of consent or "victimless crimes" are discussed in his book. Presently, there are more than 750,000 people in jail for such non-crimes. It's not looking so much as though the government doesn't tell people what to do now.

Then there is tax. That's another issue entirely.

There's no government like no government.

shorbe

No shit taxes...that's what I said in the first place. Now how many of these laws apply to you? Why is it so hard to follow simple rules like seatbelts, helmets...etc? Those are there to protect us and keep healthcare down along with taxes...one of the things you bitch about. Its simple but yet some of you always seem to rebel until that day that the seatbelt or helmet saves your ass from becoming a vegetable. This applies to everything!

No shit taxes...that's what I said in the first place. Now how many of these laws apply to you? Why is it so hard to follow simple rules like seatbelts, helmets...etc? Those are there to protect us and keep healthcare down along with taxes...one of the things you bitch about. Its simple but yet some of you always seem to rebel until that day that the seatbelt or helmet saves your ass from becoming a vegetable. This applies to everything!

Well now I personally can vouch against this. I was in a motorcycle accident where I being the passenger was thrown off and broke my back. I had to get a cast for 9 months and would have get metal rods in my back if It were not for a new technique... regardless... the doctor said i would have been killed if it were not for me wearing the helmet. Yet I still see it as my right to chose whether I wear it or not. Though I chose too wear it, as it saved my live. It's not your descsion or anyone elses to chose for me.

At 8/18/01 05:55 PM, Anarchypenguin wrote:

No shit taxes...that's what I said in the first place. Now how many of these laws apply to you? Why is it so hard to follow simple rules like seatbelts, helmets...etc? Those are there to protect us and keep healthcare down along with taxes...one of the things you bitch about. Its simple but yet some of you always seem to rebel until that day that the seatbelt or helmet saves your ass from becoming a vegetable. This applies to everything!

Well now I personally can vouch against this. I was in a motorcycle accident where I being the passenger was thrown off and broke my back. I had to get a cast for 9 months and would have get metal rods in my back if It were not for a new technique... regardless... the doctor said i would have been killed if it were not for me wearing the helmet. Yet I still see it as my right to chose whether I wear it or not. Though I chose too wear it, as it saved my live. It's not your descsion or anyone elses to chose for me.

Once again you missed my point entirely. I could care less if you choose to wear your seatbelt or not, that's entirely up to you...I agree. But the fact that you wore your seatbelt that day saved you, and all of us alot of money, even though we don't see that saving. But on a large scale it does add up to millions. Prevention is the key to the law man. Why do you think we made that law in the first place...to nip expensive healthcare in the bud. Once again...this applies to everything!

At 8/18/01 05:55 PM, Anarchypenguin wrote: Well now I personally can vouch against this. I was in a motorcycle accident where I being the passenger was thrown off and broke my back.

Oh my God! It's good that you're okay, but if your not in a wheelchair, you're lucky!

I had to get a cast for 9 months and would have get metal rods in my back if It were not for a new technique... regardless... the doctor said i would have been killed if it were not for me wearing the helmet. Yet I still see it as my right to chose whether I wear it or not. Though I chose too wear it, as it saved my life. It's not your descsion or anyone elses to chose for me.

You know what, I agree with you! I shouldn't have the right to force you to live your life as I see fit. That's facism! I could possibly suggest you on somethings, but I can't force you to think my way. If you want to wear your helmet/seatbelt/etc., that's cool with me! If you want to be an idiot and not, that's cool with me too! I'm not the one who's gonna get my head caved in, so enjoy!

Once again you missed my point entirely. I could care less if you choose to wear your seatbelt or not, that's entirely up to you...I agree. But the fact that you wore your seatbelt that day saved you, and all of us alot of money, even though we don't see that saving. But on a large scale it does add up to millions. Prevention is the key to the law man. Why do you think we made that law in the first place...to nip expensive healthcare in the bud. Once again...this applies to everything!

In the united states Law is established to protect the rights of citizens not to lower medical expenses. I won't sell my rights for a less expensive healthcare plan.

At 8/19/01 04:28 AM, Anarchypenguin wrote:

In the united states Law is established to protect the rights of citizens not to lower medical expenses. I won't sell my rights for a less expensive healthcare plan.

And no one is asking you to, just don't bitch about taxes when you decide not to wear a helmet or seatbelt. Because if you're not part of the solution...shit happens. But the law is there for all the ignoramuses who would not do so otherwise. Law is established to protect the welfare of the citizens and in some cases like in courts, to protect their rights. But the topic is about if there should be more or less government and people are bitchin about laws that would never apply to them. What is wrong with following the rules and regulations. If there was no point in those laws they would have never been passed. And in some cases the laws are a bit outdated, but any reasonable person can tell you that. The public drunkeness law was brought up earlier and I can tell you that I've been drunk in public before numerous a times and was never cited for it. But that's the difference between me and the person who would act all rowdy and violent and be arrested. The law was there as a consequence of not behaving orderly. If the shoe fits you, the law will make you wear it. People will always ruin shit for other people that's just a fact of life. But bitchin and moanin about something that perfectly makes sense to the majority of the people will only make you seem like a fool.

At 8/19/01 02:04 PM, anhnonymous wrote:

At 8/19/01 04:28 AM, Anarchypenguin wrote:

In the united states Law is established to protect the rights of citizens not to lower medical expenses. I won't sell my rights for a less expensive healthcare plan.

And no one is asking you to, just don't bitch about taxes when you decide not to wear a helmet or seatbelt.

Bitch about taxes? LOL I'm a liberal, we don't do that ( that's right shore I've come to admit it. )

::Because if you're not part of the solution...shit happens. But the law is there for all the ignoramuses who would not do so otherwise.

So let the bastards hurt themselves, it's their right and not our obligation to infringe their rights to make up for their lack of intellect.

:: Law is established to protect the welfare of the citizens and in some cases like in courts, to protect their rights.

Well this I disagree with you on, Law should be established only to protect the rights of citizens. We just have two trains of thought.

::But the topic is about if there should be more or less government and people are bitchin about laws that would never apply to them. What is wrong with following the rules and regulations.

In my opinon and your nothing, but that's just that. Our opinons. not everyones, if someone doesn't want to conform, thats their right, and not our obligation to make them do so.

::If there was no point in those laws they would have never been passed.

Tottally false, that has nothing to do with anything really. There are insanely irroneous laws.

here are some examples.

http://www.stupidlaws.com/general/con_backwards.html
http://www.stupidlaws.com/general/col_vacuum.html
http://www.stupidlaws.com/romance/ida_candy.html

We've made mistakes, and theres no reason to turn a blind eye to it.

::If the shoe fits you, the law will make you wear it.

Well, maybe in a stalinst russia, but here we have freedoms.

::People will always ruin shit for other people that's just a fact of life. But bitchin and moanin about something that perfectly makes sense to the majority of the people will only make you seem like a fool.

Americas principles are strength through Diversity and Inclusion!!! NOT the Tyrany popularity!

At 8/18/01 07:58 AM, shorbe wrote: Anarchy: That's not a Libertarian belief. Socially, Libertarians believe in freedom, which is fairly well what you stated. They also believe in economic freedom, notably the free market economy. They don't believe in restrictions on companies, except where those companies infringe the rights of individuals. This is also what you stated. Libertarians, however, don't believe in a large number or laws for companies, including environmental laws. Essentially, there is no distinction made between companies and individuals. They have the same rights and responsibilities.

I agree with the libertarian mindset, and support libertarian candidates when the republican one is weak. I mainly stick republican for the larger power base, although they are, in general, more moderate than the libertarians. For example, in a prez race, I'm probably voting Republican. However, in local districts, or even close Rep/Sen races, I'd vote Libertarian.

At 8/19/01 02:32 PM, Anarchypenguin wrote:

If there was no point in those laws they would have never been passed.

Tottally false, that has nothing to do with anything really. There are insanely irroneous laws.

here are some examples.

Over here I agree with anarchy guy somewhat. For example, there was this law during this festival to celebrate the 50th year of something that required all men to grow a beard or spend a night in jail and pay a fine. This guy refused to grow a beard and he kept going to jail and paying fines until the festival was over. In another place it is against the law to wear high heeled shoes while on the sidewalk because a woman sued the goverment because she triped while wearing high heeled shoes on the sidewalk on a crack and twisted her foot. She won and instead of the goverment repairing the sidewalk they passed a law against using high heeled shoes while on the side walk. Also in some place they say that it is against the law to buy both toothpaste and a toothbrush on Sunday and this is because of a religious reason. A reason that some of (some of them are pratical, for example, in California it is against the law to molest butterflies during certain months of the year; the reason for this is because there is a species of butterflies that is found no where else that migrates to California durin certain months if the year) these dumb laws aren't taken off the book is becauseit thakes money to take these laws off from the books, so quite often these laws are left. Well about the goverment, I think that sometimes that the goverment gets to involved in private life but I think that the goverment is doing a pretty good job. This is now changing though because of the bitch George Bush. Fuck you George Bush for overriding President Clinton's decision on stem cell research, yeah right, your decision has no political agenda. Nice compermise to get good on both sides of the arguement. Now for Anarchypenguin, they don't teach about forign nations, especially asian nations in 6th grade so stop fucking

At 8/22/01 04:40 PM, LaserBeamBandit wrote:

At 8/19/01 02:32 PM, Anarchypenguin wrote:

If there was no point in those laws they would have never been passed.

Tottally false, that has nothing to do with anything really. There are insanely irroneous laws.

here are some examples.

Over here I agree with anarchy guy somewhat. For example, there was this law during this festival to celebrate the 50th year of something that required all men to grow a beard or spend a night in jail and pay a fine. This guy refused to grow a beard and he kept going to jail and paying fines until the festival was over. In another place it is against the law to wear high heeled shoes while on the sidewalk because a woman sued the goverment because she triped while wearing high heeled shoes on the sidewalk on a crack and twisted her foot. She won and instead of the goverment repairing the sidewalk they passed a law against using high heeled shoes while on the side walk. Also in some place they say that it is against the law to buy both toothpaste and a toothbrush on Sunday and this is because of a religious reason. A reason that some of (some of them are pratical, for example, in California it is against the law to molest butterflies during certain months of the year; the reason for this is because there is a species of butterflies that is found no where else that migrates to California durin certain months if the year) these dumb laws aren't taken off the book is becauseit thakes money to take these laws off from the books, so quite often these laws are left.

Dude, I sited acual examples rather than just telling a story that I heard one time over the radio like you did, so I don't need you backing my arguement. Use some proof to go with examples.

Now for Anarchypenguin, they don't teach about forign nations, especially asian nations in 6th grade so stop fucking

What the fuck are you talking about? First try to respond to the part of the arguement that you're talking about, next say something that bears relivance on the debate rather than some crap that makes no sense.

At 8/15/01 05:10 PM, GameboyCC wrote: Do you believe that the government in your country should be more involved or less involved in the way things are done in your country? Or, are you happy with the current state of government?

I'm all for government; just not much of it. Government is there to fend off those problems that make anarchy unworkable; not to penalize citizens for electing not to wear a seat belt or other such trivial crap.

I believe we could sacrifice about ninety percent of laws on the books to no major detriment. Several of them either are unenforced or help to criminalize everyone, anyway.

Slizor: I'm not sure what happens if you admit to being a communist, but on the immigration documentation that everyone completes for entry to the US (even as a visitor), there are two questions. One asks if you are or have been a communist, and one asks if you are or have been a terrorist.

I assume answering yes to either means you don't get let in.

anhonymous: If people want to kill themselves, whether it's by some machine that gives them a lethal injection, or by flying off a motor bike and landing on their heads, then that's their choice.

I also don't believe in publicly funded healthcare, so your point becomes redundant.

As for the other laws affecting me. Some do, most don't.

The whole point of them is that if I'm not interfering in your life, you shouldn't interfere in mine. If I want to fuck up my life or whatever, that should be my choice, and no one else's.

There's too much preaching of "morality" in the legal system.

Anarchy: Likewise. I've had a number of accidents with bicycles, and I've always worn my helmet. When I see people without helmets, I think they're stupid, but that should be their choice, not mine.

anhonymous: No, the simple solution is to make people face the (financial) consequences of their actions. This applies to everything.

If we're going to go this far like stop people from harming themselves because the rest of us foot the bill, then let's force everyone to stop drinking alcohol, smoking tobacco, and eating fatty foods and red meat.

The major causes of death are all related to those, but McDonald's isn't illegal!

It's not just about laws making sense. Laws are there to exercise power by one group over another.

If you think the law is about justice, then you're naive. It's about power- who has it, and who doesn't.

The laws regarding drug use and sex are of particular note. If someone wants to sit around at home, pull a few bongs, then suck his boyfriend's dick, that affects no one but the two concerned. Yet all these moral do-gooders want to pass judgement on that.

shorbe

At 8/31/01 11:16 AM, shorbe wrote

anhonymous: If people want to kill themselves, whether it's by some machine that gives them a lethal injection, or by flying off a motor bike and landing on their heads, then that's their choice.

Okay but what if he survives who will be paying for his hospital bill when he has no insurance?

I also don't believe in publicly funded healthcare, so your point becomes redundant.

You must have insurance...that's one down...millions to go.

As for the other laws affecting me. Some do, most don't.

But the majority do...don't they and it there for the ones that fuck up.

The whole point of them is that if I'm not interfering in your life, you shouldn't interfere in mine. If I want to fuck up my life or whatever, that should be my choice, and no one else's.

I totally agree, but if I get involved involuntarily... that is something else.

There's too much preaching of "morality" in the legal system.

Yes, but you are looking in the wrong direction. What about kids with crackhead parents?

anhonymous: No, the simple solution is to make people face the (financial) consequences of their actions. This applies to everything.

That's what speeding tickets are for, but what if that person does not learn financially...i.e. he is rich? Then what do you do ...nothing.

If we're going to go this far like stop people from harming themselves because the rest of us foot the bill, then let's force everyone to stop drinking alcohol, smoking tobacco, and eating fatty foods and red meat.

I do all those things you just mentioned but I buckle my seatbelt every time I get in the car.

The major causes of death are all related to those, but McDonald's isn't illegal!

It's not just about laws making sense. Laws are there to exercise power by one group over another.

Yea I agree, the ones that watch over everyone else because common sense dicates.

If you think the law is about justice, then you're naive. It's about power- who has it, and who doesn't.

No, the legal system is about justice the law is about prevention.

The laws regarding drug use and sex are of particular note. If someone wants to sit around at home, pull a few bongs tokes and Smoke on a couple of fat Blunts they can

You are arguing to the wrong person about this.

I also don't believe in publicly funded healthcare, so your point becomes redundant.

So you think the rich only should be allowed to be healthy?

The whole point of them is that if I'm not interfering in your life, you shouldn't interfere in mine. If I want to fuck up my life or whatever, that should be my choice, and no one else's.

Mostof the people are trying to help, the people who send you to jail for doing something are just bastards.

anhonymous: No, the simple solution is to make people face the (financial) consequences of their actions. This applies to everything.

Yes, the simple but totally un-compassionate one.

If we're going to go this far like stop people from harming themselves because the rest of us foot the bill, then let's force everyone to stop drinking alcohol, smoking tobacco, and eating fatty foods and red meat.

Do you do any of those things?

The major causes of death are all related to those, but McDonald's isn't illegal!

It bloody well should.

The laws regarding drug use and sex are of particular note. If someone wants to sit around at home, pull a few bongs, then suck his boyfriend's dick, that affects no one but the two concerned. Yet all these moral do-gooders want to pass judgement on that.

I could bet they aren't even moral, just christian.

At 8/15/01 07:24 PM, Anti-You wrote:

At 8/15/01 05:10 PM, GameboyCC wrote: Do you believe that the government in your country should be more involved or less involved in the way things are done in your country? Or, are you happy with the current state of government?

Ah... the government. I believe there should be less government. I don't need someone to tell me what to do or how to do it. I'm a big boy, I think that I (and most other people) are responisble enough to act in a civilized manner. Sure, we need the government. Just not that much. And don't start with that anarchy bullshit. The only way Anarchy could work is if everyone was peaceful and there was no conflict whatsoever.

If the proper changes were made to the government, then I believe things would be better. Like I said before, I don't see the need for some conglomorate to run my life for me.

I agree, Whole-heartly.

Anhnonymous: I probably am.

Slizor: I think anyone should be allowed to be anything they want, so long as they do it themselves and don't affect others. That includes using my money.

If people were responsible with their money, they could do it. People aren't though. They waste their money drinking, smoking, gambling, etc. What pisses me off the most are people who self-inflict their illeness, such as by smoking, and then want me to foot the bill.

See, when you say it's not compassionate, I question to whom is it compassionate then to bleed the hard-working people for the losers and sponges out there who don't want to work, or are irresponsible with their money.

Everything is framed in terms of the loser in society. There's certainly no compassion for anyone who wants to make something of themselves and not be a burden upon anyone. If you're a complete loser though, then there's all the encouragement in the world!

Actually, I don't do any of those things, which is why I mentioned them. I haven't had any alcohol in almost three years. I have never smoked. I have been a vegetarian for five years and a vegan for three. I also get a lot of exercise. Unless something really freaky happens, I won't be a burden on the health system. I take care of myself and exercise some responsibility, which is a rare thing indeed.

shorbe