decency without total freedom or freedom without total decency...

[Mental Dribble]

A friend of mine said we need government to insure common decency. That people on their own will walk past the car accident victim and that we need government to dictate certain aspects of our lives to insure the treatment of those less fortunate.

I countered that while their may be short comings with complete freedom we must accept both the good and the bad and that if we want to live life free we must accept it for better and for worse. I also went on to say that more people are good rather than evil and we don't need to restrict the masses for the actions of the few.

So on the cusp of this amazing day, what say you... Do you prefer freedom without complete decency or decency without complete freedom....?

[Goldwater Conservative]

"Decency is popular!"

...nah, doesn't have the same ring to it. :)

[murrayrothbard]

Umm, the "government" is just a group of people. They are the same as everyone else. So if everyone would just walk by the car accident, so would the people that are the "government". Having the "government" gains nothing.

[kotetu]

I have pulled bus stop benches out of the street, pushed cars off to the side, and even climbed down a 40 foot embankment and carried 3 young ladies back up from their wrecked car.

We don't need government to tell us to help others when they need it.

[Dave Pedersen]

What do we need government for? This is the constant question we have to ask ourselves and each other. What is the role of government? To protect our LIBERTY. Nothing else. no other form of protection. No other reason at all.

What threatens our liberty other than government? Only that question answered can define the role of government.