Results 71 to 80 of 103
Thread: The purpose of government
-
02-02-2008, 12:48 PM #71not 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.
-
02-02-2008, 01:15 PM #72
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.
-
02-02-2008, 01:22 PM #73
-
02-02-2008, 01:53 PM #74
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.
-
02-02-2008, 04:28 PM #75
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!
-
02-02-2008, 05:05 PM #76
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.
-
02-02-2008, 05:11 PM #77
-
02-02-2008, 05:23 PM #78
-
02-02-2008, 05:41 PM #79
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.
-
02-02-2008, 06:11 PM #80