Thread: Where Do We Draw The Line?

I've been reading the thread on "Nanny State" and it got me thinking.

Other than what I think most of us would agree on, i.e. Stealing, killing and willfully doing something to hurt others, where do we draw the line on government mandates?

Should the government be allowed to dictate education? health care? wages? The list goes on and on. What do you think?

AS THE STARTER OF THIS THREAD I'M IMPOSING MY OWN THEOCRACY......CIVIL, POLITE AND RESPECTFUL COMMENTS ONLY PLEASE

If the Govt is paying subsidies to fund the above services,thay can make the rules.

As long as the US is a Republic and not a Democracy, it doesn't really matter what I think in regards to big government vs. small government. The people in office will continue to do what is in their best interest which is not always in the best interest of their constituants.

In your country you have elections to congress every two years, right? Here in Canada, we have a parliamentary system with no fixed election dates, but generally, terms run about 4 years.

Either way, whether its every two or every four years we have the option of kicking out the incumbent and making it clear to candidates that we will do the same to them if they don't do as we ask.

I think there are many cases where a government has backtracked on a decision due to public dissent.

You want a can of worms here?

it's easy to say the Govt should butt out of our lives until you wake up at 3AM with a crushing pain in your chest and you are rushed to the Hospital and you have no insurance. Should the hospital demand up front payment or say go out and die on the street? Why should the hospital be required by law to treat you if you can't pay ain't that Govt intrusion on free enterprise? I mean while you're laying outside the hospital your wife could go begging on the street.

What happens when the economy tanks and there is a run on the banks like in 1929 (no regulations then) and people are homeless and starving on the streets?

Or when the Tornado comes through your town and destroys everything and the folks are complaining cause the Govt doesn't act fast enough or not at all.

Or maybe when the sludge pond the coal company has been accumulating for 100 years breaks and sends a torrent of poisonous fluid down the valley killing hundreds and causing hundreds of millions in damage?

We could go on and on here.

Like all things in life - there is a balance.
For me the balance is on the side of as little government as possible - though, as pointed out above, some government is needed for some things.

Well isn't that the whole point of Government? I have never understood why people insist on thinking it is "us" vs "them". The Government is us. We are them. We elect a Government to rule in our stead. If you think the Government has grown unwieldy and overreaching it is because you, the people, allowed it to be that way. If you want it to become streamlined and smaller all you, the people, have to do is vote in a majority for that to happen. If it doesn't happen then you are not in the majority: sorry, better luck next time.

There's nowhere to hide in a true democracy.

Now if you are prepared to accept that any system based on Capitalism cannot by definition be a true democracy, you may go some way to explaining why it never seems as though the people get to decide anything at elections. But I guess that is another story.

James.

Originally Posted by thebigspendur

You want a can of worms here?

it's easy to say the Govt should butt out of our lives until you wake up at 3AM with a crushing pain in your chest and you are rushed to the Hospital and you have no insurance. Should the hospital demand up front payment or say go out and die on the street? Why should the hospital be required by law to treat you if you can't pay ain't that Govt intrusion on free enterprise? I mean while you're laying outside the hospital your wife could go begging on the street.

What happens when the economy tanks and there is a run on the banks like in 1929 (no regulations then) and people are homeless and starving on the streets?

Or when the Tornado comes through your town and destroys everything and the folks are complaining cause the Govt doesn't act fast enough or not at all.

Or maybe when the sludge pond the coal company has been accumulating for 100 years breaks and sends a torrent of poisonous fluid down the valley killing hundreds and causing hundreds of millions in damage?

We could go on and on here.

I think maybe you misunderstood me...

Here in Canada, we pay higher taxes, but we do have a health care system that I'm happy to pay for. I've been at that hospital entrance at 3 AM, been admitted, gone through 3 major surgeries and probably have logged a lot more hospital and intensive care days than most. If I had to pay for that out of pocket, I would be living in a cardboard box right now, if I would even be alive.

The point of my OP was to just have a discussion. Personally, I believe government should, nay, has an obligation to administer health care for its citizens. I know, there's room for abuse, but overall its better than the alternative.

The tornado issue is a bit different. yes, I would expect that in cases of emergency our government would help so that I don't have to sleep on the street through no fault of my own, but after that, its up to me to rebuild.

Draw the line just shy of financial collapse and full tilt spending of your children's, grand children's and great grandchildrens financial hopes and future.

Joe,

IMO the term "nanny state" is severely overused, mostly by those who feel that the gub'ment has no place in telling us what to do. But in truth ANY law restricts freedoms of some sort, so like you say where do we draw the line? After core services opinions will diverge wildly. I'm not sure you'll get any definitive answers from this thread....