Governmental Intrusions: Do we Want Less or More?
As I am watching the senate confirmation hearings for John Roberts, there is no doubt in my mind that he will be confirmed. Armed with an impressive resume and good legal mind, he seems to be quite fit for this job, at least on the surface. Moreover, I do not assume that he will be anything other than a conservative, since he was selected by Bush, and that he will echo many of his ideas when he rules on cases as well. Whether he will be an ideologue or truly look at cases on a case by case basis is to be seen. Political factions are lining up, as one watches the Republicans all take to the lectern on one side, and the Democrats on the other. Political division is sadly a fact of life in today's America.
All of us rely on our local, state and federal government, to a large extent and not all governmental regulation is intrusive. For example, most people would agree that it is prudent to send children to school, to fight against crime, regulate corporations, etc. Governmental intrusion and regulation to a large degree make for a smooth, non-archaic society. But when does government go too far, and under what circumstances?
I am too sad to write about my Astro, so here is the question of the day: Do you believe in more government or less government intrusion? Do you think the government, at both the state and federal levels should involve themselves in privacy issues as they pertain to individuals? For example, the right to chose, the right to marry, the right to die, the right to live? When and under what circumstances is governmental intrusion necessary? When do they go too far?
Do you think we have too much or not enough government intrusion in our laws today?
Thank you for your minds.
All of us rely on our local, state and federal government, to a large extent and not all governmental regulation is intrusive. For example, most people would agree that it is prudent to send children to school, to fight against crime, regulate corporations, etc. Governmental intrusion and regulation to a large degree make for a smooth, non-archaic society. But when does government go too far, and under what circumstances?
I am too sad to write about my Astro, so here is the question of the day: Do you believe in more government or less government intrusion? Do you think the government, at both the state and federal levels should involve themselves in privacy issues as they pertain to individuals? For example, the right to chose, the right to marry, the right to die, the right to live? When and under what circumstances is governmental intrusion necessary? When do they go too far?
Do you think we have too much or not enough government intrusion in our laws today?
Thank you for your minds.
15 Comments:
When it comes to those ultra personal decisions, I want only enough government involvement to keep procedures safe. I don't want pimps performing abortions or crazy gunmen shooting old folks in the heads and calling it assisted suicide.
I was taught that marriage is a religious sacrament. It is for this reason I think the government should keep their noses out of who marries whom. No man should stand between another man and his right to fulfill a sacrament. If gay marriage pisses off God, I'm sure He's fully capable of dealing with that himself. Committment... monogamy... and intimate bond between two people... what's not to like? We let children marry. We turn the other way when one older man marries lots of little girls. We let crazy ladies marry their death row penpals. I really don't undertand the big deal about gay marriage.
My dad, who's actually pretty smart despite this ignorant observation... says that the sanctity of marriage should be preserved (but by the governemtn??), and that if gay marriage is allowed, people will soon be marrying their siblings and their pets.
I doubt that would happen... but if some guy really wants to screw chickens... then I would at least be glad he's married and monogomous, lest he catch a weirdo chicken disease and spread it around!
I don't even like being told to wear my seatbelt! It's my life to risk and I'm short... so the belt cuts into my neck and drives me nuts. I do not wear my seatbelt... and I have health and life (death) insurance. Leave me alone!
I think government has become to overpowering on us (im a democrat hmmm) and it happened under a republican president(?).
I fall pathetically short on making comments about politics. Just wanted you to know that I've been reading you, even though I haven't much to offer.
ps...When it comes to politics, I don't feel too badly admitting my ignorance.
The government shouldn't rule us from cradle to grave.
I find it funny that the people in the Republican party who claim to be for LESS government, have given us MORE government. I am really ticked off about the eminent domain ruling. Some things should be left to the individual, but the eminent domain ruling was for the BIG CORPS. I too agree with Rachael that the seat belt thing, Smart as it is, should be left to us,, I mean where are the seat belts for the motorcycles?? Crimes against Nature laws still on the books make me retch. Use this term for environmental issues against big corporations who have destroyed our land. If I want to smoke pot, do mushrooms in the privacy of my own home,, leave me alone. The Police state actions at the big concert in Utah is a prime example of government gone mad. I don't like the Fear of Government that is pervasive now. I should be able to trust my government,, but don't. I do not trust them to do the right thing, there I said it. Do you? I know locally the People here voted on Bond issues for a new arena,, it was voted down. What do our officials do,, they instate it ANYWAY.. Big Daddy Government, does not always know best,, so leave me alone,, I want to be a Non Participate most of the time now because of this situation.
We need to gut the government.
Thinking of you and Astro,
Scott
We have too much government all the way around.
I generally think the government intrudes quite a bit, and it does seem like they intrude more and more. I'm generally in favor of freedom of choice -- when it comes to same sex marriage, abortion, you name it. I think each should decide for him/herself. The government already decides what to do with my tax dollars, and that's enough.
I heard that John Roberts gives to pro GLBT organizations... I wonder if that's true. It's endearing, if so!
Scott makes a good point about the issue of governmental intervention and party lines.
It seems as if in the area of privacy, the Republicans do not mind governmental controls. In the same vain, in the area of tax and corporations, the Democrats are more for governmental regulations.
But it is true that Republicans do say that they want the government out of our lives. How do we reconcile this statement with what is going on in the country today?
It should be noted that the liberals on the court that made the eminent domain claims of local government,legal.
I too, believe in less government. That we have more government now is in no small measure due to terror. If you count the TSA as 'more government,' for example, that is in effect, more policemen- not necessarily a bad thing.
Yes, we have Homeland Security- but that was the result of events from the outside.
Virtually all the 'more government' is terror related and pointed in that direction.
sigmund,
love the name of your blog..
You conclude that virtually all government is terror related, but is it not the case, that in instances involving privacy and marriage that the current administration is in fact in favor of more government?
barb check out the photo on my blog
I am confused -- if we need less government, then what was all the complaining about Federal Aid to the Hurricane Relief effort? Why weren't the local and state efforts enough? Just as you all say Repubs can't have it both ways...
Please note that no where have I said that we need more government -- we could do without so much. But when the Feds are blamed for natural disasters for pete's sake, it kinda flies in the face of the claims that there is too much. In order to lessen government, there has to be a call to personal responsibility as the balance to that lessening...I haven't yet seen anyone here indicating that people take responsibility. Yes, I hear that everyone should get to do what they WANT to do, but I don't hear anyone saying that individuals do what they NEED to do.
This is a great question and great thoughts. I'll try to keep this short, but will fail.
Federal gov't ought to intervene when human rights issues aren't being addressed locally. They ought not to intervene in human decisions that have no negative impact upon others.
Does this mean a bigger or smaller gov't? I tend to think it'd be smaller than what we currently have. If they used the above measures, gov't would likely increase in some areas and greatly decrease in others.
I think gov't could stay out of the drug department (and I say that as someone quite opposed to recreational drugs), except to ensure that drugs are sold and administered safely and responsibly.
Gov't could stay out of the marriage business. If I were to be doing it now, I'd not bother getting a license and just get married with my church and family's blessing. I don't need no gov't blessing.
Gov't should stay out of the bombing business - we have WAYYY too huge a military. Our military budget is larger than the next 23 nations combined! We should be out of the nuclear weapon business and arms trading business as well.
Gov't ought to get involved when people's lives are at risk, when rights are being abused and when people's health is at risk. But even with these, definite parameters ought to be drawn as to how gov't should intervene.
seems like we'll take government "intrusion" when we get something out of it... welfare, social security, disability...
if you have nothing to hide, what difference does it make...
anyone?
LESS!!!!!
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home