The Power of the Government

[zenithSmil3]

There are a lot of people here with liberal views.

However, to what extent should a government well... govern? Or will it be better if there twere no government at all?

An example I would see is Singapore. Virtually no crime rates... Extraordinarily clean... with a lack of chewing gum anywhere (chewing gum is outlawed.)

However, free speech is an issue there. And a dispute Singapore had with America would be this American boy who vandalized a car and got six strokes of the cane as a result also leading to other issues... Caning is used as a common punishment there and Singapore is effectively a one party democracy.

[Heath Winchester]

I wouldn't say I'm Liberal. Liberals have good intentions but many of them are for more government power as far as I am concerned. And conservatives are just sneakier. They have no good intentions it seems but would love to dominate the lower classes. Their economic views are also all based on the fact that businesses will somehow remain ethical and that people will do the right thing. Anyway, I went off topic.

No, I must say I'm pretty close to being your typical Anarchist or possibly Libertarian. The government should have as little power as possible to keep things from being chaotic. Things like Socialized healthcare sounds great, but to me it just means more control over the people. I guess the phrase"Everyman for himself" describes how I think. I am quite capable of fending for myself but half the human race does not feel the same way so I'm a rather low minority and have to accept the government trying to dictate my life. But laws are meant to be broken.

[zenithSmil3]

No, I must say I'm pretty close to being your typical Anarchist or possibly Libertarian.

Sometimes I'm scared if I call somebody an Anarchist, they'll get mad at me ^^ But if there was no government... people could just go out and murder each other? (Forgive my lack of knowledge) I just think a lot of the times, laws don't get broken just because people fear the consequences, not because they have actual respect for the law. My position probably changes depending on what others think... Just follow like a sheep or fear getting singled out and ridiculed even more...

[Heath Winchester]

The original idea for Anarchism stemmed from economic issues. People wanted to own land without the government having anything to do with it. And they wanted equal pay for the amount of work they put out. But over the decades it's morphed into separate political ideologies. I just adhere to less government control over the people. I'm not going to say that people can do everything they want. Example: I am against child prostitution. Therefore there would be a few laws in place to prevent that from happening. There would also be laws in place for murder. Very strict laws I will tell you. If the government didn't have a whole lot of power, then when serious crimes happen the punishments would be severe. I also think local police forces would be better well equipped and much stronger. They wouldn't be wasting time with potheads, or people speeding etc. They would be looking for rapists, murders and and all that. So basically, the government wouldn't have as much power, but would have a more prominent role in taking care of actual criminals. Fewer laws but more severe consequences for the serious ones.

So basically I am against as much government control as possible. It can play a role in keeping the peace, but it should stay away from trying to take care of people and tell them what to do. A lot of people say this is what they want, but then go and support socialized health care.

I also adhere to the belief that if people had more power over themselves they would become more intelligent. This world is slowly getting more and more dumbed down and people are more and more willing to let big brother take care of them. But if people were forced to shut up and live life then we could continue to "evolve" basically. But right now were coming up short.

[qwertypoliku]

I'm not going to say that people can do everything they want. Example: I am against child prostitution. Therefore there would be a few laws in place to prevent that from happening. There would also be laws in place for murder. Very strict laws I will tell you. If the government didn't have a whole lot of power, then when serious crimes happen the punishments would be severe. I also think local police forces would be better well equipped and much stronger. They wouldn't be wasting time with potheads, or people speeding etc. They would be looking for rapists, murders and and all that.

This tells me your vision of government is that of a punisher. You need to understand that punishment is the least effective way of dealing with a problem because it depends on the act being discovered and the wrong-doer being caught. There is a hierarchy of techniques for dealing with wrong behavior.
1. Ethical Education. If you convince people that bad things are bad, not because one can get punished for doing them but because they truly are inherently bad. You will most effectively prevent the bad behavior.
2. Removal of Desire. If you make it so people simply have no reason to do bad behavior then they are less likely to behave badly. This is the second most effective.
3. Removal of Opportunity. If you make it so people do even have the ability to behave badly then they will not behave badly. This could be seen as most effective except that people will find ways to fight this obvious form of oppression.
4. Positive Reinforcement. If you reward people for doing the opposite of the bad behavior then people will be less likely to do the bad behavior, assuming the reward outweighs any costs or the possible rewards of the bad behavior. This only work until the bad behavior becomes more rewarding then the good behavior.
5. Punishment. If you hurt or take away the property or freedom of those who do bad behavior should convince people not to repeat the bad behavior and hopefully will set an example for others so they will not behave badly either. This do not work if the loss of the reward from the bad behavior outweighs the punishment. For instance, if you were being paid 10,000 dollars to drive 150 MPH down the highway, and the punishment for speeding down that highway was 100 dollars most people would be inclined to continue the bad behavior because it one would still net 9,900 dollars even if they got caught. If the punishment is made bad enough to make the bad behavior no longer rewarding if one gets caught, there is still the issue of catching the people who behave badly. It is much harder to successful implement this method of behavior control then for the other kinds.

Things like socialized medicine, public education, welfare, and public work relief programs are methods of preventing bad behavior that employ some of the more effective methods. They are less expensive and less oppressive then the efforts of a "punisher state" that seeks only to punish those who have already committed the bad behavior.

No, I must say I'm pretty close to being your typical Anarchist or possibly Libertarian.

I can not see how you could call yourself an anarchist. You do not want a weakened government you want a police state that set up laws based on your own ethical views.