The main topic of discussion around here outside of guns is about the moonbats, I generally do not pay much attention to them. But with them in mind I would like to pose all a question here trolls/visitors included a question.

When is Government intrusion into your and others lives acceptable to you?

OK so many here myself included bash the libtards on thier ideaology of big Gov and dependency/entitlement systems. Government intrusion and reach until GWB 43 tended only too grow unfettered under Dim administrations and as the grew/grow they have more effect on the day-to-day lives of thier citiczens. I myself do not like this and feel I can assume most of the Conservatives and Libertarians here do not either.

I do not have to point out Dim hypocrisy to any here but I wish to in a civil manner ask your thoughts on various conservative hypocrisies.

Lets start with one of personal favorites censorship and the FCC and Gov. regulations their-in. The Federal Communications Commision was/is not voted on by the people nor established by them yet they have unfettered power and are for the most part beyond challenge. In my view they should not exists nor should censorship beyond the parental/family level, your thoughts?
Also I do not believe our government should regulate flow or have involvement in ratings systems, businesses and parents are capable of that and it would not waste our tax money. Businesses should have ethical guidlines pertaining to minors that those in the market would consentually conform to without mandate of Government. Let the market regulate itself and keep government bereaucrasy out of it. You as the consumer have choice in who you buy from if businesses do the unethical. Another part of this that urks me to no end is the "Right to be offended" groups on both sides who lobby politicians and generally want to mandate what is in their opinion acceptable and proper for all of us. You have the right to change the channel or station or to not deal with advertisers associated with what offends you. If you don't want debauchery or anything in contrasts to your views do not seek it out, and leave the rest of us to our own devices and entertainment. Why shold religious and affiliated groups be able to dictate agenda under the guise of conservative values?

Drugs other than alcohol. I am not a user of illegal drugs by choice, not because thier illegal or hard to access either, it is my choice. That said I really feel hypocrisy is rampant on both sides of the aisle here. Why is another persons of whom you are not related too's self destruction or indulgences of concern to you barring them being a threat? Alcohol is a cause of far more damage socially than any illegal drug yet it is legal and most of you do not care, and many partake. Short of drinking and driving someone elses alcoholism is not a threat to you, so why should drugs be for any reason other than DUI? Believe it or not most drug users will never commit a crime other than consumption and I dare say most who consume alcohol are never hooked for DWI. Why not legalize then? Safer drugs, associated crime rate other than DUI will no doubt drop and ultimately should a person want to screw thier life up it is thier choice as is alcoholism and if they are a fuckup on drugs they were likely a fuckup before drugs.


So why is Gov intrusion on other issues acceptable to you?

NEVER


ets: reading glasses on now,thought it said when not why......



Roy

Quoted: NEVER ets: reading glasses on now,thought it said when not why...... Roy

They do run together, so ultimately in expressing your beliefs you will answer both.


To the rest of you nothing to say?  I have not been called a troll yet you guys are slacking.

This is an interesting issue on arfcom.  First, you got the vote from the rooftop molon labe types, the 87th Chairborne who are all Never!  From my sticky, warm fingers!  Then you have the craven bootlickers that want the government to track every last goddamn thing from the cradle to the grave 'cause they're pissing in their drawers about terrorism.  "Yes, master.  Anything you say."

Is there anyone on arfcom in the middle?  Hell if I know.  Try a poll.

Quoted: This is an interesting issue on arfcom.  First, you got the vote from the rooftop molon labe types, the 87th Chairborne who are all Never!  From my sticky, warm fingers!  Then you have the craven bootlickers that want the government to track every last goddamn thing from the cradle to the grave 'cause they're pissing in their drawers about terrorism.  "Yes, master.  Anything you say." Is there anyone on arfcom in the middle?  Hell if I know.  Try a poll.

I don't know if I would say I'm middle of the road....but the goverment does need to be in somethings like law enforcement, civil rights and of course national defense. The problem though is once they get a taste for running thing it just keeps expanding its intrusions.

I don't think most people would mind governmental intrusion like taxes if the money were spent for worthwhile projects.

Quoted: I don't think most people would mind governmental intrusion like taxes if the money were spent for worthwhile projects.

A national sales tax could be more non-invasive but GWB or Hillary will not unemploy the IRS we need a real Republican to move it.

Back on topic though please.

Quoted: I don't think most people would mind governmental intrusion like taxes if the money were spent for worthwhile projects.

The problem comes in defining "worthwhile projects" which largely depends on the point of view.

Quoted: This is an interesting issue on arfcom.  First, you got the vote from the rooftop molon labe types, the 87th Chairborne who are all Never!  From my sticky, warm fingers!  Then you have the craven bootlickers that want the government to track every last goddamn thing from the cradle to the grave 'cause they're pissing in their drawers about terrorism.  "Yes, master.  Anything you say." Is there anyone on arfcom in the middle?  Hell if I know.  Try a poll.

I figured I would be called a druggy and a pervert I am suprised at the neutral and supportive responses.

I am sure there is some situation where I would accept it, but I really cant think of one right now.

I agree with what you said. I just want the .gov to leave me the hell alone.

Never!!!

Especially when the beaurocratic tally-wacker comes out and is diamond hard in several different shades of purple.

If there is suspicion then it should be scrutinized, otherwise leave it alone.

Government should exist to do things that we as citizens cannot do for ourselvs, such as national defence. It shoukd also serve as the independant umpire.

For example, big company X hires goons to kick my off my property to build a car park. I shoot and kill several goons, some of whom shoot me. A government would make a law saying that big company X cannot  disposess me, so that I don't have to shoot their goons. If they do, then the government provides a means of redress that is, in theory, independant and impartial, and therefore prevents oppression, blood fueds, rampant goon-killing, etc.

Its a lovely theroy, and work mostly in practise. Where the system breaks down is when government starts doing things that we CAN do for ourselves, like provide an income. It also oversteps the mark when it limits the freedoms that is says that it is trying to protect. It also beomes intrusive when it takes the position that it owns they country and its citizens, rather than the other way round. A good example is here, in Australia, with regards to gun laws. our firearms legislation confirms that the ownership and use of a firearm is a privilage, not a right. Aside from the intrinsic rights and wrongs of this specific issue, who is the government that it can grant privilages? It takes the position that it owns the country and its citizens, not the other way around. Our rights here exist in common law only, and as such, can be nullified when the Crown, working though the agency of the elected government, decides to limit those rights.

Where the actual line is drawn depends on who is doing the drawing. Personally, I think that government should be minimalist in appliction, and therefore in intrusion, providing for things like defence, certain infrastructure, the administration of the law, etc. but always bound by a strong constitution that specifically defines its powers, and is difficult to change. If that means paying tax, then so be it. If that means needing an (external) passport, then so be it. If that means needing to register births, deaths and marriages, ok. But it does not mean that I should be tracked, wiretapped, searched, questioned, etc. when going about my daily business with no hint of suspicion. If it is reasonably  suspected that I am going to commit a crime, then have evidence of that and arrest me, charge me, and put me before a court. If not, then let my go about me business. If I actually commit a crime, then the same applies. Otherwise LEAVE ME ALONE!

Sorry for the rant, but our laws with regard to terrorism and rioting are becoming very draconian, and IM NOT HAPPY!

When I can fall asleep at night.

As to when and why.


I’d be happy if the US Government would just stick to the Constitution.

Bump for dat crowd viewing.

Government represents the monopolhy of force in a society.   While necessary, the smaller it is, the better.
Our current government is an insult to the founders and based upon the ruins of the constitution.  The nation was never intended to become an empire--yet that is exactly what it has become; a giant empire with its hands in every god forsaken place on the globe;  remember Washington's farewell address and his warning against foreign entanglements?  Our government would make Washington bow his head in shame.  We now live towards the close of the American Empire---it will not last too much longer but its exestence signals the death of our republic.

Quoted: As to when and why. I’d be happy if the US Government would just stick to the Constitution.

+1

When is Government intrusion into your and others lives acceptable to you?

intrusion NEVER

As said above government is a necessary evil but should only be evoked when all other options have been exhausted.

The common law is designed to work locally within communities, federal law should only be used in federal cases.

I like the .gov intrusion everytime my postman walks in the door, everytime I am able to get in my truck and drive ANY fucking place I want on decent roads, and get there by following GPS signals.

On the other hand.......it pisses my off when I get stopped for driving 75 in a 70.....(spend those resources on stopping murderers and rapists)

I get pissed when I hear about the .gov confiscating cash or a vehicle because there is a presumtion that wrongdoing occured, with no real proof.

I get pissed when I see the 2nd Amendment violated when liberals hold ALL other rights sacred.

I get pissed when I read about porkbarrel spending coming from Congress just to repay some special interest group.

I get pissed about a 2 party system of government that is so stuck in a quagmire of red tape and politics that NOTHING meaningful is ever accomplished.


I guess overall I'm glad to be an American and feel DAMNED lucky that I have the life I have.

But I wish A LOT of the BS political correctness would go away.

Whenever they tell me it's for my own good. I appreciate their concern.

Quoted: Whenever they tell me it's for my own good. I appreciate their concern.

God I love sarcasm.