Quote:
Originally Posted by Shiva_TD
I have never endorsed the infringement of the rights of others. I don't believe people should get loaded or drunk and drive their cars but if they want to sit at home, not bothering anyone, and get drunk, loaded or whacked out on heroin I don't believe the government has the right to intervene.
I am totally opposed to the government dictating what the people may or may not do so long as they aren't endangering others. The last thing I will agree to is government mandated social engineering.
|
Sorry, Shiva, but government requires a balance. You say that, but heroin users experiences side-effects that
do endanger others. So do people who get drunk. So do marijuana users, even on occasion. Enough so to raise question. If the government doesn't have any authority than there's nothing to stop people from "endangering" each other anyway... That's what so many people seem to not understand. Without government, the people would have no way to solve disputes, and there would be nothing to prevent chaos. So it's fine and good that you don't think the government has the right to intervene in people's lives unless they're endangering each other, but ironically, intervening in their lives is the only thing that will allow the government to exert its
necessary image of authority so that it can then
enforce your "so long as the people don't endanger each other" ideal. You can't have one without the other, and you can't have one heaped up
over the other either...
That's not how it works. If the government were to lose its authority, there would be nothing to prevent chaos and your whole "so long as the people don't endanger each other" theory wouldn't mean anything anyway, because there would be no consequences for
anything people would do to each other, take from each other, etc. Continually demanding more for selfish reasons will not make things better for this nation, it will not create a better environment for the collective, it only inspires an anarchical and chaotic mindset. I've thought about these words a lot recently, and I'm certain this great man was thinking along these same lines when he spoke them:
"Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country."
So what'll it be? Continuing demands of this nation? Or final acceptance of the reality that so many people around the world have to live by daily: "you can't always get what you want." There must be a compromise and without that compromise, people would not hesitate before recklessly or even purposefully endangering the lives of others.