The purpose of government

Quote:

---

not willingly. if i could elect a gov't that wasn't as big and bloated, you can best your last nickel i'm go out and stump for them. nowadays the only "choice" i get is to pick a lot of meaningless physical features of the socialist weasel who steals my money to increase the marketshare of the "company" he or she works for.

---

But you DO have another choice. A few actually. You could run for office. Start smsll, finish big. Run the place. Show 'em how it's done.

Or you could opt out of the state altogether. Forget taxes, forget everyone else. Take to the hills and live a truly free life. Free from the corruption and abuse of state government, but also free from everyone else who buys into and is part of the state (the restaurants, stores, manufacturing, products, services, etc.)

Or you could research and find yourself a state which much more closely resembles the model you want. Emigrate. Leave the losers behind. Start somewhere where the streets are paved with gold (sound fmailiar?).

When I look at the choices I realise that, much that I hate dodgy politicians and corrupt officials and the general waste of the state, it's still the most humane, fair, and supportive system for populations. So I'll continue to exercise my vote and hope it helps lead to improvement.

Or I'll emigrate to Australia.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by majurey

I do understand your view, I just don't share it. ;)

In terms of screwing the healthy by healing the sick at their expense, well... I guess if you subscribe to the view that everyone has the same capability or same opportunity to succeed financially, then they can look after themselves. I'll look after me, you look after you, and things'll work out just fine.
sounds like paradise, honestly.
But I just don't believe that everyone does have the same opportunities. I don't see myself as being screwed when my neighbour goes for major invasive surgery which results in his being able to continue to support his family whereas I only got a few antibitotics from my GP last time I had something wrong. Me and my neighbour paid roughly the same in tax, so he's got one up on me, right? Nah. The guy deserves all the treatment he needs as far as I'm concerned why? why do you think that he deserves it? what is the source of his entitlement? , and I'm proud to be part of a state system that does this. After all, tomorrow it might be me or mine.

But no system is perfect. There's always gonna be some a$$hole(s) who want to screw the system. And yes, that is something I don't like but am willing to put up with for the greater good. What I CAN do about it is vote --for the party who I think is going to be able to minimise the abuse of state aid and therefore maximise the value to honest taxpayers.

I do get what you're saying. I work hard for what I earn, and if I want to spend it on healthcare or on another custom Livi, it should be up to me to decide where the funds go. I do think it's quite a hard view of life, and life is hard enough without us making it even more so for each other. I just naively believe that the state (and I'm not talking US, UK, Chinese or whatever, just the state as a concept), I believe the state is the most efficient way of distributing help to those who need it.

In the same way, I think it's why many people also give to charity. After all, the money you give charity isn't really controlled by you -- you don't decide whether it's this family or that family that gets a goat, damn they probably aren't even getting a goat. Or a well. Or medicines. The charity collects and distributes on our behalf. yes, but when i give money to charity, i can CHOOSE which one. i cna evaluate which charities i think are best run, and even choose what sort of charity i think is a good investment of my money. when it's the state charity (welfare, medicaid, medicare, ss) i have no choice at all.

---

I'm not saying that there should be no gov't run healthcare. it would be ok with me as long as buy in was purely optional, and non-participants would not be taxed even one cent to help run the program. of course that will never happen, when the gov't decides to screw the citizens, they either do it en masse or not at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by majurey

[/color]

But you DO have another choice. A few actually. You could run for office. Start smsll, finish big. Run the place. Show 'em how it's done.
i actually tried to run for mayor in the small town i lived in before i moved to dfw, but was not allowed to as i was not old enough. most state and federal posts have a minimum age, and i am quite young. someday... :tu
Or you could opt out of the state altogether. Forget taxes, forget everyone else. Take to the hills and live a truly free life. Free from the corruption and abuse of state government, but also free from everyone else who buys into and is part of the state (the restaurants, stores, manufacturing, products, services, etc.) this is kind of extreme... it would prevent me from being gainfully employed in any way shape or form. surely gov't shouldn't be so oppressive that this is your only option? although, quite honestly, if i thought i could eke out a living that way, i would be very tempted to do so. the missus might not care for it, tho :w
Or you could research and find yourself a state which much more closely resembles the model you want. Emigrate. Leave the losers behind. Start somewhere where the streets are paved with gold (sound fmailiar?).
as awful as america is, everywhere else seems to be worst. to paraphrase old Winnie, "Indeed, it has been said that America is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."
When I look at the choices I realise that, much that I hate dodgy politicians and corrupt officials and the general waste of the state, it's still the most humane, fair, and supportive system for populations. So I'll continue to exercise my vote and hope it helps lead to improvement.

Or I'll emigrate to Australia.

---

well, i certainly feel you there. i will certainly keep voting for the lesser of two evils and doing what i can to raise awareness, and maybe someday run myself. but in the meantime i suppose all i can do is goto online forums and do a lot of incoherent griping, eh? :hmmm:

My eyes burn from all the words of Jesus....

Ok, let me ask this question - since that's explicit in the constitution why do you guys think the federal government should maintain an army to provide security for the state. The way I look at it is because that's more efficient than letting individuals, or groups do it on their own. The defense is a huge sink of money and most of the time the army doesn't do anything, but prepare for drills. All the wars US has been involved for the last well over 100 years have been in a way 'preemtive', there have not been direct attacks on the Union.

On some level it is just taking my money and forcing me whatever protection somebody else thinks is best for me. I may prefer to keep my money and guard my property against any invaders on my own. Or I can shop around and find somebody who will do it for me. If free market solves everything it surely will be more efficient to let security providers compete for my money and let me pick the best service that fits me. How is that not a nanny state empowered by the constitution to take my freedom of choice.

And most other countries to the same. I can certainly imagine a system where the defense is run by every person purchasing their security insurance on a free market.
As far as I know the state of Vatican still buys it's protection from the swiss.

The moment you make a choice to live in a community/society you surrender a lot of your freedoms. It's then up to the collective how much freedom the individual members should have.

I somehow fail to see how the constitution of the united states establishes a libertarian state let alone one that ought to be preserved. My impression is that it establishes certain rules and mechanisms for development of a government which represents the citizens and is fairly robust to abberations. The idea is that such government improves the lives of the people it serves and if it doesn't the mechanisms set in place are going to correct it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by majurey

Well, in that case nothing in life is free right? So what are we saying here?

What I meant was to draw a comparison between the excellent state healthcare I get which I get irrespective of whether it's a cold or triple bypass surgery (and I don't pay more tax depending on treatment) and medical insurance which varies depending on how much of a risk I pose to the insurers. There's no concept of risk with the NHS unlike a commercial business like an insurer which will always try to wriggle out of any claim you make. It has to make a profit after all. With state healthcare the driving force is not profit, the driving force is your individual welfare.

But I digress. My own personal opinion is those very valid points above (namely I'll choose what services I want, government keep their beaks out of it) is a very individualistic stance. You see, I might not be in a position to help friends and family financially if they require some big medical outlay. They'll just die I guess. But I'm OK Jack, because I choose what to spend my money on. With a state healthcare system funded through taxes my kith and kin are also looked after equally well.

I guess that's why I believe in the state.

---

This passage I find interesting as I had just recently heard it reported that A larger percentage of people do not survive such operation in Canada and the UK than in the USA! and that was based on the patients who actually made it to the front of the line before keeling over!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JMS

This passage I find interesting as I had just recently heard it reported that A larger percentage of people do not survive such operation in Canada and the UK than in the USA! and that was based on the patients who actually made it to the front of the line before keeling over!

---

Hey, all I wrote was "excellent healthcare", not "the best healthcare in the world" or "healthcare that's better than in America". I'm sure the US has a good record for triple bypass. Excellent news for those who can afford the procedure, for sure! Of course, I don't have to 'afford' my healthcare -- it's there if I'm coining it in and paying taxes, and it's there if I happen to be jobless and therefore paying no taxes. Whatever life throws at me in my career/work does not affect my right to treatment. I find that very comforting and worth some taxes.

As an aside, I'm sure the stats did not include those who were uninsured or without means to even discover they needed bypass surgery? With a national health system, I can call on the full resource of the hospitals whether it turns out to be angina, heartburn, or a dodgy ticker, even if I were jobless with no med insurance. Give me a queue (and for conditions like bypass it's pretty short over here) any day over the hopeless situation I'd be in if I found myself without the NHS or insurance.

Whichever way you dice it, I'd rather live in a governed state than the wild west. But I do appreciate that's not for everyone.:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by majurey

Hey, all I wrote was "excellent healthcare", not "the best healthcare in the world" or "healthcare that's better than in America". I'm sure the US has a good record for triple bypass. Excellent news for those who can afford the procedure, for sure! Of course, I don't have to 'afford' my healthcare -- it's there if I'm coining it in and paying taxes, and it's there if I happen to be jobless and therefore paying no taxes. Whatever life throws at me in my career/work does not affect my right to treatment. I find that very comforting and worth some taxes.

As an aside, I'm sure the stats did not include those who were uninsured or without means to even discover they needed bypass surgery? With a national health system, I can call on the full resource of the hospitals whether it turns out to be angina, heartburn, or a dodgy ticker, even if I were jobless with no med insurance. Give me a queue (and for conditions like bypass it's pretty short over here) any day over the hopeless situation I'd be in if I found myself without the NHS or insurance.

Whichever way you dice it, I'd rather live in a governed state than the wild west. But I do appreciate that's not for everyone.:rolleyes:

---

That's the funniest thing I've heard so far ---- I guess I like the wild west.

Justin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by majurey

Hey, all I wrote was "excellent healthcare", not "the best healthcare in the world" or "healthcare that's better than in America". I'm sure the US has a good record for triple bypass. Excellent news for those who can afford the procedure, for sure! Of course, I don't have to 'afford' my healthcare -- it's there if I'm coining it in and paying taxes, and it's there if I happen to be jobless and therefore paying no taxes. Whatever life throws at me in my career/work does not affect my right to treatment. I find that very comforting and worth some taxes.

As an aside, I'm sure the stats did not include those who were uninsured or without means to even discover they needed bypass surgery? With a national health system, I can call on the full resource of the hospitals whether it turns out to be angina, heartburn, or a dodgy ticker, even if I were jobless with no med insurance. Give me a queue (and for conditions like bypass it's pretty short over here) any day over the hopeless situation I'd be in if I found myself without the NHS or insurance.

Whichever way you dice it, I'd rather live in a governed state than the wild west. But I do appreciate that's not for everyone.:rolleyes:

---

If I didn't know better, based on your post I would think people were dying all over America in the streets and back alleys because they couldn't afford health care! Nothing could be further from the truth!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gugi

...why do you guys think the federal government should maintain an army to provide security for the state. It's called for in the constitution. It is not called to provide security all around the globe.

The way I look at it is because that's more The idea is that such government improves the lives of the people it serves and if it doesn't the mechanisms set in place are going to correct it.

---

Then why did we have a war against the king? Surely the king wanted only the best for his subjects. And more to the point, you're right, the Constitution does provide for changes to be made. Again, the Washington crowd just works outside of Constitutional Law all the time.

Lastly, earlier you said that there isn't a Libertarian with a chance to win. That is obvious. The comment about twisting the Constitution to say that it does is silly. If you hadn't noticed, I am saying that we should have principled government; Not government that does what they FEEL at the moment because the people FEEL like something. The fact is that the Founders very much feared Mob Rule and wrote the Constitution to provide lawful recognition of the things the Federal government can and cannot do. Believing otherwise is factually incorrect. Also, to both of our points, most Americans don't even know this and the politicians don't care to remind us because it gives them great power to be a Nanny state.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JMS

If I didn't know better, based on your post I would think people were dying all over America in the streets and back alleys because they couldn't afford health care! Nothing could be further from the truth!

---

Nahh, that's not what I meant. Let me put it another way... in a state where there's a national health system, the number of people who can't afford life-saving treatment is zero.