Choice vs Command
Should a Government enforce moral conduct upon it's citizens or should it trust them to make the right decisions?
Can a person truly be commanded to do something, or is it really their choice?
Which one would be more effective in practice?
Choice
Side Score: 11
|
 |
Command
Side Score: 8
|
|
|
|
|
The only legitimate function of Government is to serve the people. The primary service of government is to protect the rights of it's citizens. The Government can and should only act in restriction of actions that result in the violation of rights of others. In all other cases where the government restricts actions which infringe upon no rights, such restrictions should be deemed as an act of tyranny and an unnecessary limitation of liberty. Side: Choice
I don't understand what you mean because you tagged choice, but you are saying that the Government should command in times of personal infringement? So are you a mix of the two? And if you believe that it should be allowed to act when it affects other people, how do they enforce it? You seem to believe that command must fit in there somewhere. Side: Command
Absolute choice would be anarchy, and absolute command would be totalitarianism, so certainly I believe in something that falls in between these two extremes. I lean more on the side of choice, which is why I posted on this side. You wouldn't be trying to set up some kind of false Dichotomy would you? 'How do you enforce it?' The same way we currently enforce laws. Side: Choice
It could be argued that one can only operate through pure choice. Take, for example, American Prohibition: not only did it NOT get rid of the people's habits but it actually encouraged them. Another example is the legalization of soft drugs - command simply is impractical as it leads to rebellion and self-righteous views of those being attacked. It could also be applied to a religion as those who have the choice often see far more benefit from it and often truly believe it, rather than having it forced upon them (if, philosophically speaking, religion can be forced upon oneself) Side: Choice
1
point
1
point
Well, it depends. There should be two categories for "choices" 1) There are decisions we make that affect only ourselves (smoking in private, eating unhealthy foods, etc.). 2) There are decisions we make that affect OTHER PEOPLE (murder, drunk driving, etc.) Government should command us to not do the latter if it is harmful to others. However, when government attempts to protect people from themselves, that is unacceptable. Side: Choice
2
points
Would you not agree that giving them ultimate choice could be harmful? For example, some corporations can be 'evil' and only look out for their interests - smoking earlier on was seen to be healthy and it is only after countless numbers of people had become addicted and years later that the supposed truth was revealed. Also, what is your opinion on hard drugs? Should children be given the freedom to try them (as many can kill first users)? Side: Command
|
In a Government situation are people really able to control themselves? Without Governments enforcing a moral code it could be argued that chaos would break out and people could do whatever they feel like. Command is needed as many people having different personalities as one may feel that murder for revenge is OK, whilst another may feel murder is not OK in any sense. Furthermore, without command it could be argued there could be no conduct as humans are greedy and can often not see the immediate benefit in helping others. Side: Command
1
point
We advocate without reservation a system in which an unelected Monarch (God save the Queen) presides with limited powers over an elected Parliament, whose legislative power is in turn checked by the Monarch. We suppose this to be the best distillation of the Choice versus Command false dichotomy. We post on this side to make our position more apparent, and because a system in which there is any unelected component cannot be filed under Choice. Side: A judicious mix
|
