how can we strike a balance between individual liberty and government intervention?
493303
Darn good question, I have lately become concerned that this whole country is just getting to a point where there is no more self responsibility.  The govt told me to wear a seatbelt, therefore if I still got hurt cuz I was drunk driving, clearly it is the govt's fault.\n\nI am sorry I am not going to be much help, because I don't know where that line should be drawn...\nI think I read someone's answer the other day that said when our freedom infringes on another's - that's when they should definitely step in.  But then some people also need extra help to keep from killing themselves.\n\nI look forward to someone having the right answer.
285528
People... We enter into a social contract and make government to protect our rights.  We're willing to give up some rights to protect others. - John Locke in a nutshell.
974708
Liberty.  Because that's the whole foundation of our society.  If you have liberty, you have the ability to provide your own security.  If you rely on the state for security, what do you do when they fail?
742951
None.  I don't want BIG government controlling my life - or my kid's lives - laying claim on them for any period of time.  "Mandatory" and "Freedom" do not generally mesh well together.
247680
you need to set other people to have more rights
166938
While some type of created control is neccessary to prevent\nwholesale moral decay, the American government has overstepped its constitutional boundries many times in the last century by legislating morality.\nIn my opinion, better legal solutions would be laws that are constitutional.\nFor example, all the drunk driving laws...no one will argue that hundreds of people dying from drunken driving is good, but why is the law tied to the blood-alchohol level? If what is in your blood is not private, than nothing is. An alternative law with the same effect is needed because policing the peoples bloodstreams is not acceptable in a free society. Perhaps a law tied to responsible driving behavior would be more appropriate.\nWe accept all these laws because we grew up with them and some law is neccessary. It is too bad that we have to live with all the unconstitutional restrictions on our liberty.
664177
the government and people.
1001919
There ia an abyssal difference between liberty (freedom) and license (anarchy).\n\nThe former is highly desirable because it allows an individual to make their own choices in life according to their own free will and the dictates of their (hopefully) well-formed consciences.\n\nThe latter is an excuse for trampling over everything and everyone in order to prove to oneself that one is a powerful being indeed. Sad, really.\n\nFreedom without responsiblity is anarchy. Period! Human nature being what it is, ie fallen, it could hardly be otherwise.
1104216
It is the age-old question of liberty versus security.  A totalitarian society, with no freedoms, is very safe and secure; in contrast, a society with no laws would provide the maximum of individual freedom, but no security.  Our country is a balance, and it is a balance that shifts depending on the external situation.  War time tends to make people anxious, and people become more willing to sacrifice their rights.  The argument basically goes, what's the point in having rights when you are dead?  However, the courts are supposed to be insulated from political pressures, and are supposed to merely interpret the Constitution and all laws passed under it.  Courts tend to do this because judges are often able to look at a bigger picture, and because the questions that judges are supposed to answer are narrow legal questions involving legal interpretations.  As soon as the American people believe that the country is secure, those fears will be assauged and people will once again be more concerned about their own liberties.  Of course, there are always distinct groups of people, such as conservatives, liberals, and libertarians (those who basically believe in a minimum of restrictive laws).  That, however, is a topic for another time.
221469
Liberty is the essential heart of freedom.  Liberty means being able to choose one's own actions, without intrusion by government.  Every law that restricts your movement, your actions or your words is one that restricts your liberty.\n\nPrivacy is the notion that the government will not intrude upon actions that you intend to be private.  For instance, intercepting someones mail violates their privacy, as it is expected that only the recipient of the mail will read it.\n\nEvery infringement upon privacy can therefore potentially result in a infringement of liberty.  For example, a wiretap could lead to an arrest.\n\nPeople have a right to privacy, that is, they have a right to expect that the government will do as little as necessary to intrude upon their rights.  This right is expressly provided for in the bill of rights.  These rules govern due process.  This is why the police must obtain a warrant to do a search.
525528
The general idea is that liberty is a good thing, whether we're talking about economic policies or social issues.  The core values include opposition to the initiation of the use of force or fraud.\n\nThey're not really 'in bed' with any particular industry.  They do get backhanded support from some businesses once in a while, but the key has been that they aren't willing to compromise principle for donations. A key principle is that regulation is a harmful thing for the economy, and in general actually helps big business resist new competition.  And, I suppose regulation punishes the innocent with the guilty, and thus seems unfair at its core.  Instead, libertarians would prefer a more simple and straightforward ban of fraudulent behavior (with strict enforcement) rather than a big-brother government staring over the shoulder of all businesses at every point on the way.\n\nBy the same token, they recognize that big government is the problem.  This is true whether the issue is economics, war, or morality.  Governments are notoriously bad at managing human life.  They oppose collectivization and respect individual freedom.\n\nOf course, trying to organize a group of individualists like this is challenging, to say the least.  The Libertarian Party has been around for decades, but has failed to become a major force, partly because of an unwillingness to compromise, and partly because of an innate aversion to teamwork among some of its key members.  That doesn't mean that it can't be a force in the future, but it won't be easy.  Bringing together a group like this for any kind of united venture is a lot like herding cats.
489643
How much order do you want? We are not in an Anarchic society, in fact we are probably more controlled than any population in the past. Have you tried having a ciggareete in an airport, parking your car where you need to park or try to affect any government policy (National or local). You will soon realise that we are far, far away from Anarchy.Let the Individual do what he wants unless it hurts others.
1134669
Damn man, you are almost right on target with me. You have to prioritize what is most important to you.  Unlike the lamo who brought up the power plant,  look at real everyday situations.  I found myself closest to Libertarian, since personal freedoms and a small central government is most important to me.  Since you balance your budget you are definitely NOT GOP or DNC.  I think you need to define in you own views what "general welfare" entails.  I believe the gov should provide a safety net far too many have become addicted and dependent on the "free" money.  Plus I dislike the fact that it costs the feds $12 to deliver $1 in welfare.  So, I rationalize MY social welfare as only non-ablebodied people can get it for more than one year at a time. If you can not get a job then you have a choice to enter the military or civil service.\n\nGood luck...and thank you for all your good posts\n\n\nThen you are right with me  or I with you
291273
The best way to govern is to have an altruistic dictatorship.  Someone who decides what is best for the people with the people's well-being the only deciding factor in his or her mind.  Since it is a dictatorship, there would be no beauracracy to get in the way, either.
774313
Have the government provide goods and services that benefit the community that cannot be efficiently/effectively be provided for by the private sector.\n\nExamples:\nnational defense--who wants to have a private army?\nrule of law--enforce contracts, provide rules for orderly economic exchange\ninfrastructure--roads, bridges, dams\n\nand many more!\n\nThe important distinction in my mind is that the public policy implementation must be less expensive than an equivalent service provided for by the private sector.\n\nPeople disagree on how to evaluate public goods and the relative capabilities of government and the private sector.\n\nAnother problem is the statesman/politician distinction.  A statesman will try to influence public policy to do what he/she believes is best for the community.  A  politician merely seeks to gain and exercise power through partisanship and the trading of favors, which inevitably hurts the community.
648071
I'm not sure of the laws your talking about, I don't need someone who is elite to decide for me wether or not my neighbor can just come over my house kill me and take my posessions without penalty.\n\nThe laws your probably talking about are the ones where the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one, and we have no control and have to keep paying car insurance and stuff like that.\n\nOne day we may have politicians elected that do represent the people.  I suggest you check out the Libertarian party.
808238
We the people define the government through elected officials, unfortunately too many don't take advantage of the privilege.  Something more people should be aware of is that our Bill of Rights are not guaranteed to us by our government, they are ours no matter what and are a reminder that the government will be held accountable if THEY violate those rights.  The moment we let governments define us, take too much care of us, get too much control is the moment We The People lose our freedoms, our motivation, our incentives, our imagination, because then we are not working for the American Dream.