Snoink wrote:I think the government should represent the people, lol. All the people. So, ideally the people and the government would be pretty close to each other, and there shouldn't be this huge gap between the government and the people. I realize that this is an idealistic case, but hey!
Attolia wrote:So, you may as well believe in big government, because that's what you're going to live under.
Then there's the side who says, "well, yeah, but who's going to make sure the rich don't keep getting richer while the poor cannot afford college, get a good job, and therefore remain poor?"
skwmusic wrote: I for one believe the purpose of government is to serve the people and do everything in it's power to do that. I also believe that the government shouldn't tell people what to do as long as it's not hurting anyone else. This is the hypocrisy of the republicans. While they want low regulations and low taxes and low spending, they want to pass laws to prohibit drug usage, certain orientation marriages, to propagate "family values", creationism, in fact the only thing they won't regulate in people's personal lives in guns.
Well, the question is, what isn't hurting anyone else? The conservative defense against gay marriage is that it undermines the traditional family, which is such a fundamental part of our society. The conservative defense against abortion is that it is hurting someone else. It is taking the life of a human. I am strongly against abortion for this reason, but that's a different debate. (I know this offends some as taking away a woman's rights... so it's a very controversial issue). And drugs... I'm honestly not sure what the conservative defense is for that. But my point is, social conservatives probably agree with you on that, only they think that allowing people to do these things actually hurts people other than themselves in the overall picture.
This brings me back to my proposal. Why not let the states handle abortion, drugs, and gay marriage? We can keep the government small, but social conservatives can still fight to protect their values. And likewise liberals can fight for social freedom.
Now I'm going to go study the Constitution. I probably should before I propose any more of my "ideas," so I at least know if they are Constitutional.
skwmusic wrote:One thing I don't like about people who call themselves constitutionalists is that they don't realize that the constitution is supposed to be a living document, bending and stretching to meet the current societies needs and concerns. I'm not saying you are a constitutionalists but I thought I'd let you know.
skwmusic wrote:Perhaps "hurting" wasn't a good way to put it. So let's choose a random topic like gay marriage, a current controversial topic. Gay marriage is the act in which two people of the same sex choose to get married consensually. Obvious right? Here's my next question. How is that imposing on the freedom of anyone else? How is that hurting anyone? We can make the argument that "oh their parents will be ashamed" and blah blah blah but that is the parent's OPINION. Their right to their opinion is not harmed. None of their rights are harmed in fact, except the right to live in a society where gay marriage doesn't exist.
skwmusic wrote:Like I said I believe the role of the government is to protect the people. It shouldn't be able to dictate who gets what rights and who doesn't. So I think the concept of having states choose is bad. Honestly that just gives redneck bible bolsters rights to impose their beliefs on others. So instead of becoming a unified state we become a fragmented state where parts of the country are socially conservative and others are socially liberal. And I'm not saying that it's not like that right now, but the divide will be even worse. It will be like night and day. I don't think that's healthy for a country as large as ours.
© 2004 - 2013, Young Writers Society is proudly powered by phpBB • YWS logo created by Jordan Bobo • Header images © Vlad Studio