What the people want vs. what the people should have

To some extent this is what the legislative branch is for, isn't it? Although saying that it is an imperfect mechanism may be an understatement, it is the best system that mankind has devised for making laws that represent what "people want," or, in any case, what can be "sold" to people. Not all that bad.

 

Do you want to sit on the bus to work and have guys all around you fellated?
Aren't you part of the "people"?
Don't your wishes count for anything?

Here, the concept of "wanting" is wanting in relevant distinctions.

Do you want to step into other people's vomit?

Do you want to be run down by a guy who is more interested yelling at his wife through the cell phone than minding where he's driving?

 

Well, since any rational government ought to pay heed to possible consequences of various actions when evaluating whethet these should be allowed or banned, I cannot disagree with you on principle that on occasion that which should be allowed might be in conflict with direct, thoughtless wish-fulfilment.

 

That depends on your definition of "right", doesn't it?

 

I think there should a balance.
I haven't read this book (I saw a book talk), but you may be interested in his arguments. The Wisdom of Crowds - "While our culture generally trusts experts and distrusts the wisdom of the masses, New Yorker business columnist Surowiecki argues that "under the right circumstances, groups are remarkably intelligent, and are often smarter than the smartest people in them." To support this almost counterintuitive proposition, Surowiecki explores..."

 

And what is the particular view of "right" which is precisely situated "somewhere in the middle"?

 

Okay, so you want a discussion which treats rights on a formal, abstract level, rather than getting bogged down in concretizing the actual content and quarrel about what specific right should or should not be included?

If that's the case, go ahead:
But I warn you, I'll bite if you try to sneak in some particular type of right unseen into the discussion ..

 

The government should protect people's rights from violation through threat or use physical force and then get out of the way.
Period.

There is NO need for the government to act like a bunch of elitists pretending that it knows what is better for us than ourselves.
Nor does it need to sell out the individual to the majority (since that is what will happen if it starts obeying the people).

PS. By rights I mean the fundamental rights like freedom of speech, right to own firearms, to protest peacefully, freedom of choice, basically right to one's own life.

 

Thus guaranteeing that most other species will go the way of the bison, to give but one counterexample. Unless the definition of "people" somehow includes other species, which is rather unlikely.

 

You mean animals?

1. Animals do not have the capability or potential to think, therefore they cannot have the same rights as humans do.
2. The whole world will not start killing each and every animal for no reason if the government steps out.

 

The government should be there to generally give people what they want (put in very simple terms). It is there to improve our lives. However, this doesn't mean giving in to our every demand. In general, the public may not know how to get what they want. Right now, they may think hard drug use would be great, but they may regret that decision later on. On the other hand, there will be some people who will enjoy hard drug use, and if possible, do it their whole lives enjoyably, or else just enjoy it for a shorter period of time. A young person may not know whether he'll end up regretting using drugs or not. The government can't know for sure either, but ideally they should be able to find out enough to decide what would likely be in the young man's best interest (maybe study current drug users and see if they regret it or not) and then legislate accordingly.

Generally, I think the right approach should be to let people do what they want. I think most people would rather learn from their own mistakes then to never have experienced anything at all. However, when the government has good reason to believe something will be a problem for an individual, or whether permitting an individual to do something will create real problems for others, then they should step in. I think it's obvious that gay marriage won't hurt anyone, so although many people may complain that they don't like it, the government should be able to objectively see that this is just whining stemming from ideology, and there is no real problem that will result from it, so they can permit it. On the other hand, Mothers Against Drunk Driving are justifiably complaining about a real problem, so governments have to recognize that this is a real problem and make policy accordingly.

 

Let's say.

How do you know?

I hear you.

How do you know? And, why should I trust that you wouldn't?

 

Because their actions demonstrate that. Otherwise they would have become equal to humans long ago.

Because people are not inherently evil bloodthirsty savages wanting to kill and destroy everything they see. If they were, this world would have ended long ago.

No one except a raving lunatic would destroy objects for no reason at all. And human beings are not raving lunatics.

 

You need to have a reason to destroy the car. It is pretty much crazy to just randomly shoot at old car/cars.