What Should we Legislate?

Seeing as how America is supposedly the "Land of the Free", the question I pose to all of you is "What should we legislate?"

Frankly, I think the government should not do much more then regulate the army and the police force, support certain programs, and regulate the highways.

From what I can see, government should:

Fund the military
Fund the police force
Fund the highways and roads
Fund the schools, and make sure that all schools are funded equally
Fund the medical system
Set down basic laws (anti-theft, anti-murder, etc. etc.)

Pretty much everything else I don't think the government has any business in. The issue of marriage? Give a Civil Union to consenting adults that want it. The issue of abortion? So long as the concept exists there will be abortions, be it legally or illegally. Stay out.

We live in a free country. While I may intensely dislike abortion, for example, I am pragmatic enough to realize that it will happen anyways and I have no right to push what seems to be my particular moral attitude on another. I may see it as murder, but many do not and so long as such a view-point is common, it will always be there. Thus, I say, don't bother legislating. I don't believe the government should really have much of a say in most of if not all of these matters.

What do you think?

America is a strange exception to many rules as I've heard it argued that we're both a Democracy and a Republic, which to me would leaves a very interesting situation:

Democracy - Rule of the majority
Republic- Rights of the minority

I think, first and foremost, America HAS to get Religion out of politics. All Churches who told their people to vote for a certain Candidate, in either case, should get some form of punishment to prevent this from happening again.

Ironically, when JFK was running for office, a big issue was raised about how much the Pope would influence him and now, 40+ years later another Catholic runs and this time has the Vatican turn against him.

America also needs to reform the healthcare system. Something closer to what Canada, England and most of Europe has would be a good direction.

Finally, I thought Bush was against nation-building and I agreed with him on that count because that puts way too much on the shoulders of one country. If America wants to help a nation get on its feet along with the help and support of other nations, besides Poland, that's fine, but this go it alone tactic is not going to benefit the country.

Take care all.

I think government should legislate Bussiness rules, military, government civil projects, and the states it controls.

I probably left something out but thats it for now.

Property rights and contracts should be enforced by the government. Marriage should be enforced as an extension of those two, nothing more than that.

[qq=Behold the Void]So long as the concept exists there will be abortions, be it legally or illegally. Stay out. [/qq]

Same with murder, rape, theft, etc.

Frankly, if I had my way, abortion would not exist, but I do recongize that many regard it as a right that they should have. I don't personally have a uterus, so I don't think I should be getting involved. The way I see it, the government should not outlaw it, but should not fund it either.

funny thing. I haven't a uterus either, but I seem to remember hearing someplace that a guy also plays a pivotal role in pregnancies. seems more like abortion gets a guy off the hook for irresponsibility. but that's really neither here nor there.

the US government has no business whatsoever regulating better than half the things it regulates. why, do you ask? because it's a buncha greedy mostly rich business people sitting in nice comfy chairs in DC, not somebody who is actually acquainted with and qualified to make opinions and decisions in the field.

case in point: Federal regulation of Alaska's fish and game. I'll bet a gajillion-bamillion-fajibillion-shmillion-shabba dabba dillion- dollars (and win) that not a single Alaskan would be consulted about how to run our own state. it'd be a buncha environmentalists in DC telling a buncha paper pushers how best we should go about our lives, placing restrictions upon us to the point that people cannot bring in the income to feed their families.

to sum up, Big Government = Big Brother = bad. (big brother is from the book 1984. weird book. read it if you want a headache)

Quote:

---

funny thing. I haven't a uterus either, but I seem to remember hearing someplace that a guy also plays a pivotal role in pregnancies. seems more like abortion gets a guy off the hook for irresponsibility. but that's really neither here nor there.

---

Oh trust me if I ever got someone pregnant I'd fight tooth-and-nail to prevent abortion. I'm just saying government shouldn't be outlawing or funding it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DeBlayde

funny thing. I haven't a uterus either, but I seem to remember hearing someplace that a guy also plays a pivotal role in pregnancies. seems more like abortion gets a guy off the hook for irresponsibility. but that's really neither here nor there.

the US government has no business whatsoever regulating better than half the things it regulates. why, do you ask? because it's a buncha greedy mostly rich business people sitting in nice comfy chairs in DC, not somebody who is actually acquainted with and qualified to make opinions and decisions in the field.

case in point: Federal regulation of Alaska's fish and game. I'll bet a gajillion-bamillion-fajibillion-shmillion-shabba dabba dillion- dollars (and win) that not a single Alaskan would be consulted about how to run our own state. it'd be a buncha environmentalists in DC telling a buncha paper pushers how best we should go about our lives, placing restrictions upon us to the point that people cannot bring in the income to feed their families.

to sum up, Big Government = Big Brother = bad. (big brother is from the book 1984. weird book. read it if you want a headache)

---

Hah. You think companies will just decide on their own to protect the environment? Look at Mexico, where US companies openly dump toxic waste into water supplies because the laws against it aren't enforced.

However, I tend to not trust a white, rich, middle-aged man who's inhereted everything he owns including his political position to know how to run, for example, a school.

i too believe the government should stay out abortion completely, dont outlaw it, but don't support it either. It's the woman's right to control her own body. I also beleive that drugs should not be illegal partially for the same reason. Basically I believe that our government should be using the Constitution as a road map to running the country not the Bible. I want full freedom, but we need a much better army and police force if that were to ever happen, because true freedom + lack of protection and order = anarchy

No matter how enfeebled we make the government, there will always be people crying oppression. If the government relinquishes control over one issue, we'll just find some other line to draw. Frankly, some people won't be content untill there's no authority at all. We need a powerful government because many people are idiots individually, and all people are idiots in large angry mobs. If we didn't have a government to enforce the morals of the people, and that's all laws are, then we'd have large angry lynch mobs doing it. And what differentiates a "basic law" that governments should enforce, from a moral issue they should stay away from? Is it just a majority oppinion? Is abortion not a basic law just because of the number of people on both sides? How many people would have to support for example, murder, before it stopped being a basic law, and became a moral issue?

The thing with abortion (which for the record I despise) is that it will happen no matter what and enough people think it a right that we cannot justify outlawing it. Murder is obviously less of a gray area for some people (again, I do find it difficult to believe that abortion is considered to be a gray area for anyone, but that is just my personal opinion) and thus would be prevented, as would theft, assault, etc.. There are things we should all (or almost all) be able to agree are unacceptable, and legislate against. Basic rule of thumb is it should be acceptable so long as it does not infringe upon the rights of another in any way. I think going under that basic line of thought a government should be able to operate and grant optimal freedom but still have enough laws in place to keep order.

Quote:

---

does not infringe upon the rights of another in any way

---

The problem is, that a lot of people (including myself) think that abortion does infringe upon the rights of another, (namely the child) that is where we get into disagreements with "pro-choice" people.

Thing with abortion is, what defines life? Is it the instant the sperm and egg join? Or does it take time for the life to develop? How you answer this question probably helps explain your views on the issue.

Take care all.

Personally, I feel that life DOES begin at the moment of conception, i.e. when the sperm and the egg join, but the fact that so many people seem to disagree is why I believe the government should stay out of the issue, since its such a contested one. As I said earlier, neither forbid it nor fund it.

Indeed. Abortion is that tricky issue where science and religion clash yet look to each other to find an answer.

Take care all.

Quote:

---

The problem is, that a lot of people (including myself) think that abortion does infringe upon the rights of another, (namely the child) that is where we get into disagreements with "pro-choice" people.

---

I too, despise abortion, but a baby does not have rights because a baby does not legally exist. If you are not yet in any data base than you do not exist legally, and therefore cannot be proctected by any legal rights.

And my personal opinion on abortion is that the government should stay out of it to a certain extent. However, I won't complain too much if they make it illegal to perform an abortion after the baby has functioning nerve cells. If it can't feel what you're doing to it than fine, go ahead, it's not my business. However, I know neither you nor I would particularily enjoy being dismembered, and I think anyone thinking about getting an abortion should think about just that one concept before going through with it.

I think our goverment is generally fair and just, however there is a few tweaks I would make to the system. Okay, many tweaks..

1:
Taxes would be 20% of items purchased OR an annual fee, not both. There is no reason our goverment needs THAT much of our hard earned money.

2:
We as a compassionate conservatives would encourage holy union not by insiting homosexuals be disallowed marriage but by putting stricter penalties on divorce and allow fines for infedelity. Love is Love is Love.

3:
Being a free nation, marijuanna would be legal. However it is to be distrubeted and sold as if alchahol, have a surgeon general's warning as ciggerates, and all the same rules apply while under the influece.

4:
We as a state focus less on "scientific theories" and more on scientific realities. IE: Getting car companies to work on a more adequite hybrid so as to destroy our growing energy crisis problem and put less of a burden on our eco-system.

And 5:
Stop doing buisness with all non-friendly nations. They don't like us, we don't like them. I don't care if it's a little more expensive, I don't want Jihad's dirty money knowing he sold cocaine and suicide bombed a library inorder to get it and I most ceartainly don't want to do buisness with fascist scum that has thier own people working like slaves in sweat shops simply so they can have houses of gold. If we're to "not negotiate with terrorists" then both the U.S and the U.N needs to take that statment seriously or everyone in the world needs to shut the hell up.

Oh, and deffinitly fix the postal service. Yeah, I'm ceartain four out of every five mailmen does some sort of narcotic..

First off, the abortion thing? it's absolutely sick, and absolutely unnessecary. read up on yoru abortion procedures and see what it sounds like to you. I'm not going to get into the specifics, it's gruesome enough i actually worry about being banned for detailing, so yeah. IMO there are enough contraceptives, both before and after the fact that abortion is completely unnessecary. if you haven't made a rational choice three days after sex (the usual time limit to prevent conception, it's an ongoing process for a pregnancy to actually begin. up until 72 hours, the Morning after pill -NOT RU-486!!!! NOT RU-486!!! THERE IS A DIFFERENCE- is still effective to prevent conception. this, combined with condoms, birth control, and any of the more drastic medical means and pulling out, there is no excuse to say "well NOW i don't think i want this developing child to have the right to live." at this point, a woman should be expected and required to tough it out for her kids sake. After you've signed the loan papers the banks aren't gonna just let you change your mind and give you your interest back, are they?

Onto the rest of it (sorry, abortion really really drives me up the wall. its recockulous.) I think the govt. doesn't need to change it's position so much as refine it's means. They need someone to just fine tune things. its the little things that add up, ya know? I work at a foodlion, and i can't tell you how many people still get foodstamps through technicalities, and they come in driving BMW's chromed out, with huge platinum chains and complete Fubu sweatsuits. it's ridiculous, the way our govt. hands out cash to people who don't need it. i'm all for foodstamps, no one should starve, but if you get foodstamps you better be shopping at walmart or the thrift store. same with welfare and anything else, or useless military or diplomatic spending. that stuff needs to stop. fine tune the economics, that finetunes the policy, and that makes everything run smooth enough to start looking at the issues instead of the budget.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Captain

America is a strange exception to many rules as I've heard it argued that we're both a Democracy and a Republic, which to me would leaves a very interesting situation:

Democracy - Rule of the majority
Republic- Rights of the minority

I think, first and foremost, America HAS to get Religion out of politics. All Churches who told their people to vote for a certain Candidate, in either case, should get some form of punishment to prevent this from happening again.

Ironically, when JFK was running for office, a big issue was raised about how much the Pope would influence him and now, 40+ years later another Catholic runs and this time has the Vatican turn against him.

America also needs to reform the healthcare system. Something closer to what Canada, England and most of Europe has would be a good direction.

Finally, I thought Bush was against nation-building and I agreed with him on that count because that puts way too much on the shoulders of one country. If America wants to help a nation get on its feet along with the help and support of other nations, besides Poland, that's fine, but this go it alone tactic is not going to benefit the country.

Take care all.

---

so your saying my uncle John should get some kind of punishment for saying get out there and vote .He also stated he didnt care who you voted for but vote.Then he goes and all you young people get out there and vote.Then he goes "I didn't march and get teared gassed and beaten by police and attacked during church services during hte civil rights movement for you guys to take your freedom for grant!"Yeah alot of people in my church feel strongly about it mainly because they were in the civil rights movement and dealt with a lot of hardships.I mean you can't make it illegal for a church to say that.Yeah so wat if a black REv. says vote democratic. So what if a White Rev. says vote republican. I mean so what people actually and surprisingly have there mind made up and i guess your from europe and you guys are more secular aobut things anyway..Like I notice how its not even religion in government that bothers you guys but religion period.
I mean the USA can't make a law that contradicts the constitution dude.and I mean your making it sound like the REv. is saying "Hey if oyu dont vote for bush the you'll burn in hell forever."Thats like saying Rev.Jessie JAckson shouldn't have ran for president int he 1980s.I mean get over it because thats not the biggest problem.Its politicians making matter of moral into a poltical issue when it relaly isn't.Because a Rev. isn't an influence on politics at all.

edit- responding to the bush part.I relaly personally and my hwole family.doesn't like the bush family.Heck they never did.They knew them for the dirty oil people they were.Also with the health care issue.Well you know if it has to move towards the direction of Canada.Then that means higher taxes.Now come on the only reason why we became a country is because people wanted to BS about it.Also a few states have tried to pass laws like this.Most of them were progressive states which actually vote on rather they want to have higher tax rates on something or not.Kinda ironic uh?Anyway theres a lot more to american poltics.Like Americans really need to start distrusting politicians.I mean most of them are all the same.They have hidden agendas and in the end its about the money.No matter who they screw over. Now the out sourcing needs to stop .but this is a free enterprise country.I love it but sometimes I hate it.Like Europeans are with keeping religion out of the government.the USA government really doesn't want to get too much involved with the free market.But regulation really is needed.A lot of factories were I live are just abandoned because they found out they can out abunch of Thai kids into a sweaty work-shop and pay them 1 cent a week.Yeah they use to do this in america with everyone until the government intervened and put a stop to it.But more regulation is needed with these corporations.Also do what progressive party member T.R. did.And get back to the conservationist goals.Heck there wouldn't even be national parks int eh USA or even trees at that if it wasn't for T.R.Anyway long story short there is a lot of tweaking to be done.

Perhaps you misread my statement. My point, though this is now old news, is that Catholic churches were saying that voting John Kerry is a sin, thus by default you MUST vote for Bush to be a good Catholic. I have no problem if any person says go vote, but to push your specific agenda as fact and to call the other guy a sinner, crosses the line in my book.

Take care all.

lol I typed more into the edit if you care to read it dude i just updated at the same time you ironicly replied.

edit- i said that in my last edit lmao.but even though they say this a lot of people with common sense in the chuch.Knows that "hey the bible didn't say it so heck I'm not gonna belive it and I'll vote for whoever I want to vote for!"

It really was jus t politicians who was using it for there agenda to win.This is why the republicans ar ethe ruling parrty.This sucks.

Funny how that happens? No harm done.

I'm not against religion, I think it helps a lot of people, but I feel that this country has made religion into a political tool for the masses instead of something more personal. I've always thought religion, in the best way, is a kind of personal moral code and guide, but in our country, it's becoming more the social and political code that everyone must follow, which doesn't fly with me.

Glad we cleared that up. No disrespect meant or intended.

Take care all.