Thread: The purpose of government

Originally Posted by norman931

Both parties are guilty of that. Don't listen to what they say; look at what they do. A case in point is "No Child Left Behind."
When politicians say they're for small government, what they mean is "You can pollute all you want, but we're still going to wiretap your phone."

Norm

Hi Norm,
I think if you read the entire post, you'll see that I truly believe BOTH parties have failed to stick to their properly constrained roles. They cite different reasons for doing it - but both are very guilty.

Another point of the Repubs is using government money and favors to benefit certain businesses, while they say that they are keeping govenment unintrusive. It's not unintrusive to favor some companies over others with tax incentives and outright cash. There is a frightening trend for local municipalities to enthusiastically engage in this kind of behavior. Example: The Dallas Cowboys stadium in Arlington where I live. Tax money going to a billionaire.
The real question is: Is my labor (and its compensation) my own or does the state have unlimited access to take it as its own to do with as they please? If its not my own - I must actually be a slave of the state.
How could you argue otherwise? It's not as if you have a choice in the matter (except to vote for those who recognize your personal liberty and who will curtail the creeping hand of government into everything we do).

Originally Posted by DEwey

Hi Norm,
I think if you read the entire post, you'll see that I truly believe BOTH parties have failed to stick to their properly constrained roles. They cite different reasons for doing it - but both are very guilty.

Another point of the Repubs is using government money and favors to benefit certain businesses, while they say that they are keeping govenment unintrusive. It's not unintrusive to favor some companies over others with tax incentives and outright cash. There is a frightening trend for local municipalities to enthusiastically engage in this kind of behavior. Example: The Dallas Cowboys stadium in Arlington where I live. Tax money going to a billionaire.
The real question is: Is my labor (and its compensation) my own or does the state have unlimited access to take it as its own to do with as they please? If its not my own - I must actually be a slave of the state.
How could you argue otherwise? It's not as if you have a choice in the matter (except to vote for those who recognize your personal liberty and who will curtail the creeping hand of government into everything we do).

Well said I am in complete agreement!

Originally Posted by DEwey

The real question is: Is my labor (and its compensation) my own or does the state have unlimited access to take it as its own to do with as they please? If its not my own - I must actually be a slave of the state.

Only if you lived in a state with closed borders which forbad you from emigrating, then yes, the state truly owns you and you have no choice but to toil for it.

I take your general point. But how about looking at it another way? The state works for you, not the other way around. By voting the way you see fit, and by being free to chose whether you stick around or not (or go somewhere that fits your life philosophy better), you authorise the state to act in the interest of the state members.

So yes, I pay a lot of tax. More than my American brothers. But then, I get free healthcare, as do any of my friends and family who range from being hard up to comfortably well off. My garbage is recycled and cleared weekly. My streets and roads are maintained. My kids go to a decent state school. And the little punk down the road who has been smashing car windows gets his ass arrested and hauled into court. Man, I'm actually happy to let the state take MORE of my hard-earned cash to take on the big issues in life.

Call me naive, but I believe the purpose of government is to take care of us. And when they start abusing that trust, well... long live the revolution, bro.

You know, I've always fancied living in Australia.

Originally Posted by majurey

Only if you lived in a state with closed borders which forbad you from emigrating, then yes, the state truly owns you and you have no choice but to toil for it.

I take your general point. But how about looking at it another way? The state works for you, not the other way around. By voting the way you see fit, and by being free to chose whether you stick around or not (or go somewhere that fits your life philosophy better), you authorise the state to act in the interest of the state members.

So yes, I pay a lot of tax. More than my American brothers. But then, I get free healthcare, as do any of my friends and family who range from being hard up to comfortably well off. My garbage is recycled and cleared weekly. My streets and roads are maintained. My kids go to a decent state school. And the little punk down the road who has been smashing car windows gets his ass arrested and hauled into court. Man, I'm actually happy to let the state take MORE of my hard-earned cash to take on the big issues in life.

Call me naive, but I believe the purpose of government is to take care of us. And when they start abusing that trust, well... long live the revolution, bro.

You know, I've always fancied living in Australia.

Yes, let momma and pappa take care of us, wipe our butts for us and so on, but that means that they have the power, not the people! those who have the responsibility have the power! I am not willing to give up my responsibility for a little imagined security!

Originally Posted by JMS

Yes, let momma and pappa take care of us, wipe our butts for us and so on, but that means that they have the power, not the people! those who have the responsibility have the power! I am not willing to give up my responsibility for a little imagined security!

I like the way you put things, Mark!

My mum stopped wiping my arse when I was 4, but even at 16 she still took care of me. It's not about extremes... the state derives its power through its structure, and that enables it to look after us in ways much more effective and efficient than each man acting on his own. In an invasion, we'd expect to see a state deploy an army to repel an attack. Without the state, it would just be a bunch of farmers with pitchforks trying defend their own land. Game over for Farmland in minutes.

And when we authorise the state to act in our interests, we're not absolving ourselves of any responsibility. That remains firmly in our control when we turn up and vote.

Unless they start cheating by counting hanging chads. (I'm kidding! )

Originally Posted by majurey

So yes, I pay a lot of tax. More than my American brothers. But then, I get free healthcare, as do any of my friends and family who range from being hard up to comfortably well off. My garbage is recycled and cleared weekly. My streets and roads are maintained. My kids go to a decent state school. And the little punk down the road who has been smashing car windows gets his ass arrested and hauled into court. Man, I'm actually happy to let the state take MORE of my hard-earned cash to take on the big issues in life.

Call me naive, but I believe the purpose of government is to take care of us. And when they start abusing that trust, well... long live the revolution, bro.

1) if you are paying more taxes, your healthcare isn't free, now is it?
2) i have all of those things you mentioned (minus the kids part, don't have any) the only difference is i get billed for them. i really don't have a problem paying for services i use. the difference is i CHOOSE to buy them, rather than having the gov't force me to
3) if you want to pay the gov't to hold your hand and nanny you, fine, but does that mean EVERYONE should get that choice chosen for them? i'd rather take care of myself when i can, pay someone else to when i can't, and have the gov't stay the heck away.

in summary, i think folks ought to be able to have a level of government they are comfortable with, rather than the "one size fits all" mentality, ESPECIALLY if that one size is a nanny state that thinks it knows what i need better than i do.

Originally Posted by jockeys

1) if you are paying more taxes, your healthcare isn't free, now is it?
2) i have all of those things you mentioned (minus the kids part, don't have any) the only difference is i get billed for them. i really don't have a problem paying for services i use. the difference is i CHOOSE to buy them, rather than having the gov't force me to
3) if you want to pay the gov't to hold your hand and nanny you, fine, but does that mean EVERYONE should get that choice chosen for them? i'd rather take care of myself when i can, pay someone else to when i can't, and have the gov't stay the heck away.

in summary, i think folks ought to be able to have a level of government they are comfortable with, rather than the "one size fits all" mentality, ESPECIALLY if that one size is a nanny state that thinks it knows what i need better than i do.

Apparently your my kind of thinker after all!

Originally Posted by JMS

Apparently your my kind of thinker after all!

heh, as long as we're not talking about anger management

Originally Posted by jockeys

heh, as long as we're not talking about anger management

My thoughts exactly!

Originally Posted by jockeys

1) if you are paying more taxes, your healthcare isn't free, now is it?
2) i have all of those things you mentioned (minus the kids part, don't have any) the only difference is i get billed for them. i really don't have a problem paying for services i use. the difference is i CHOOSE to buy them, rather than having the gov't force me to
3) if you want to pay the gov't to hold your hand and nanny you, fine, but does that mean EVERYONE should get that choice chosen for them? i'd rather take care of myself when i can, pay someone else to when i can't, and have the gov't stay the heck away.

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.