CreateDebate


Debate Info

9
7
Only rights Other functions
Debate Score:16
Arguments:23
Total Votes:16
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Only rights (6)
 
 Other functions (4)

Debate Creator

WinstonC(1225) pic



Government's only purpose should be to protect individuals' rights

In "The Nature of Government" Ayn Rand puts forth the case that the only proper function of government is the protection of individuals' rights. Can all the proper purposes of government be framed this way or should government perform other functions?

https://fee.org/articles/the-nature-of-government-by-ayn-rand/

Only rights

Side Score: 9
VS.

Other functions

Side Score: 7
2 points

I wonder if we can take it even further than that and say even rights can be handled privately. In the context of the debate I gather that the role of government is to be a mediator between disputes and as an unbiased upholder of justice in a given community. Is that really all there is to it or did I miss something? Citizens subscribe to those rules/laws if they want to be recognized as citizens/members of that community. This grants them the capability of dealing with other citizens/members in that community as a matter of trust.

So then I start to question why we need government at all? In a completely free Capitalist society (If such a thing were to exist) proponents in that system would ideally not benefit from nefarious or unfair activities anyway. I mean, who wants to support or trust their money with a crook? And a justice system in a given community could also in theory be upheld by legal representatives who don't answer to any government but to the overall support of the public instead. A bill of rights is ultimately upheld by the public, not by the government. Don't believe me? Try bring slavery back and see who exactly complains first.

Even when it comes to overseeing elections and policing services - The committee who runs that can also in theory garner public support to do so based on trust and financial support.

I'm speaking from an "ideal" perspective though. People who have no desire to make a community work under a completely free system can ruin it for everyone.

Side: Only rights
jeffreyone(1383) Clarified
1 point

Citizens subscribe to those rules/laws if they want to be recognized as citizens/members of that community.

Laws are made men not men made for laws.

Citizens make the laws. No citizens no laws.

So is another citizen better than the other to make laws that are disliking to the other?

Laws need approval of all citizens and cannot be easily changed or 'modified' without the consent of the citizens. In this case, what happened was/is, a group of people accepted to interpret laws to offsprings decided alone to make changes they knew would not have been agreed upon had it been laid before the citizens to decide for their lives and children's.

Had Americans been slaves, it would have been completely acceptable but since all are equal and none is a master of none or slave to none, the interpreter has no exclusive superior rights to solely make modifications.

Even a child born today has equal rights over the law

Unless, you can say, Generals can command the American Army to stop protecting American boarders, solely.

One head doctor can say hospitals are only opened 3days in a week no matter what, solely.

NASA just decides to disable all satelites for one month, solely

.....

No.

From, law, science & Technology, to Security...everyone has a say.

So if one without asking just takes a decision for all, it is not democracy but autocracy.

Side: Only rights
jeffreyone(1383) Clarified
1 point

sorry wrong reply....similar debate topic................n.nn..........................

Side: Only rights
1 point

Hello H:

Yeah... Wouldn't it be wonderful??? But, that just isn't our nature..

excon

Side: Only rights
3 points

It's profoundly naive to believe the "only purpose" is individuals' rights.

1) Governments have existed through the entirety of modern human civilization yet the civil rights concept is relatively late and recent on the human time line. Your argument basically means no government needed or should have existed before the days of civil rights.

2) The umbrella of government allows individuals to thrive and many parts of those umbrellas have nothing at all to do with individual rights. Military protections, infrastructure, public health, even basic schooling, do not necessarily tie to individuals' rights.

3) Even in those cases where government DOES protect individuals' rights the way that they do it may in turn violate some other group's individuals' rights. Such as if they uphold withholding service based on your religious beliefs but that in turn causes gays or Muslims or whomever to be discriminated against. Which sets up as scenario where one group would argue government was legitimate and the other group would say it violates its only purposes, and both would be correct.

Side: Other functions
WinstonC(1225) Disputed
2 points

1) That's simply irrelevant. If I were to argue that wooden shields are obsolete in warfare that doesn't mean I think they should never have been used.

2) Military protection is necessary to uphold the rights of citizens from foreign threats. The right to basic education is also internationally recognized as a human right. Currently there is much debate as to whether healthcare is a human right and it's possible to define it as one. The only thing that cannot be tied to individuals' rights in your list is infrastructure. This would need to be financed by those who need it; the citizens and corporations that use it. One could quite simply use toll points to finance roads for example.

3) In the case of withholding services on religious (or any other) grounds this is within an individual's rights.You cannot force me to serve you, we must come to mutual agreement. You don't have a right to whatever service I am offering. Please note I don't agree with refusing to serve people based on religion, sexuality etc. but it is within that persons right to do so.

Side: Only rights
Grenache(6053) Disputed
1 point

If the heading hadn't claimed it was the "only purpose" then my history reference would be irrelevant. But the reason it's not is using the word "only" makes any example at all of government for some other purposes besides individual rights a successful rejection of the debate premise.

In the second point your argument sums up as every other government purpose I list ultimatley impacts the individual and so that makes it about individual rights. Not at all. Just impacting individuals doesn't mean the motivation behind it is that. Plus when governments exercise these other functions it often requires directly stompin on individual rights, like when they impose a draft on citizens who don't want to go to war.

And the third point instead of proving government is about individual rights does the opposite. Because you're saying each individual gets to decide and work these things out. Which makes that not a government's only purpose at all. Ironically, that's almost telling the government to butt the heck out of these things, not to exist solely for these things.

Side: Other functions
2 points

Hello W:

Government's ONLY purpose is to follow the rules specified in the Constitution.. That includes protecting individual rights AND housekeeping duties too.

excon

Side: Other functions
WinstonC(1225) Clarified
1 point

What housekeeping duties should government have that can't be framed in terms of protecting the rights of the individual?

Side: Only rights
excon(18260) Clarified
1 point

Hello again, W:

Maybe..... But, what mechanism is going to DECIDE what our individual rights are? Where is that mechanism going to be housed, and who's going to pay for it? And, no matter WHO you decide is going to pay for that mechanism, WHO is gonna PAY for the mechanism to ENFORCE the first mechanism??

excon

Side: Only rights
Amarel(5669) Clarified
1 point

I believe the topic is not referring specifically to the US government but rather to government as such. It's a theory of government that protecting individual rights is its only proper goal, thus a constitution should be formed to that end, and government adherence to that kind of constitution would also serve that end. In that case, the government would have a criminal justice system to enforce laws you would typically think of, such as theft or assault. But the government would not fund roads, or welfare or any pet project of a special interest.

Side: Only rights
Somebody(46) Clarified
1 point

What housekeeping duties are there? Stopping aggression? Ensure national safety? I think all of that is included in protecting individual rights.

Side: Only rights
outlaw60(15368) Clarified
-1 points

FRAUD can you quote for all of us the housekeeping duties that are in the Constitution ?

Come on Basement Boy you can do it !

Side: Only rights
excon(18260) Clarified
1 point

Here, boy:

Fetch..............................................

excon

Side: Only rights
1 point

They also have the DUTY to protect the country. Protecting the country takes MONEY, meaning they have to control the countries taxes, investments, infrastructure AND HEALTH. They have to protect our relationship to our allies ... which isn't going so well lately unless you count our relationship to the country most responsible for bringing down the Twin Towers. They have to protect our environment ... we've seen what happens when that's left up to capitalists and states. They have to protect our food supply, I don't consider it an "individuals right" to infuse our foods with pesticides just to be able to make more money! I could go on and on with this subject but, I'm sure the anti-government folks wont listen anyway.

I just left a sight where most of those "individual rights" people were ranting against gay marriage. They seem to think that the government should only protect the rights-rights, forget other races, other religions, other beliefs and customs, just protect white, Christian, (mostly male) ... individuals... and America will be GREAT again! (Except that it will NOT be "America")!

Side: Other functions
WinstonC(1225) Disputed
1 point

I believe I have addressed most of your concerns in my reply to Grenache above. In terms of the environment I feel this comes under individuals' rights also. If someone poisons a lake they have ruined it for everyone else. Interestingly there is a group of climate change activists suing the government over their "constitutional right to a safe climate" and it has passed in the district courts and is now at the federal level. As for pesticide ridden food one can simply buy organic (though they still use some natural pesticides).

I believe in the right to homosexual secular marriage and the right to religious freedom. I'm also not making a case for no government but for a different style of government. This is more moderate libertarianism, not anarchism.

Side: Only rights
AlofRI(3294) Clarified
1 point

I wholly agree with you. I was not commenting to you, but to the original post. I wish the comments could be a bit more clear as to what they are referring to. I often have to add a name to direct a comment to whom it was made.

Side: Only rights