You know, about all this "Europe is weak" stuff...

Brother None

Brother None

This ghoul has seen it all
Orderite
You all seem to think of Europe as some economical death-trap that has to work hard just to prevent themselves of becoming a 3rd world country...

This is very, very, very extremely wrong...Well, maybe not for the whole of Europe, but let me tell you about the Netherlands boy-howdy...

We're at the moment at a peak of economical wealth like we haven't seen since the Golden Age, back in the 17th century. We have a 12 billion guilders extra (which, I must note, is quite a lot for a tiny country like ours). There's a big discussion now if we're going to spend it on health-care and schools or one paying debts. If you ask me, we should just split it down the middle and spend on both.

Anyway, like I was saying, instead of asuming the entire of Europe is about to go through a huge collapse, I'd compare with the USA. Our country's debts are infinitely smaller than the USA's (even if you consider the countries' respective sizes), our health-care and levels of education are infinitely better. Unemployement is at an all-time low.

Quite frankly, I'm starting to doubt we need the USA for anything, really. I'd almost advise you people to start looking at your own country, with that redicilously bad state of living and generally idiotic politics...just look at these elections...A travesty, I tell you, a travesty of original democracy that you stole of us (remember, us Europeans thought up democracy, the Americans just changed it into the rediculous not-working system they have now)
 
Things like unemployment, health care, standard of living, etc. have, or at least ought to have, nothing to do with the State. The purpose of government is to prevent people from violating one another's rights by protecting them against invasion and crime, and by running a court system with which disputes can be settled in an orderly manner.

When you start thinking of "the people" as a singlular entity rahter than a collection of individuals who have differing needs, desires, and worldviews, and claim thet it's government's responsivility to "serve" this monolothic collective in every way imaginable, you dilute individuality, and by doing so, humanity.

There's a phrase to describe the combination of socialistic bureacracy and collective identity supplanting individual identity that's so prevalent in Europe today. That phrase is "National Socialism."

And democracy only makes it worse. It fosters a relationship between a mass of "people" and the government in which both are seen as monolithic corporate entities. The sense of government as being run for and by individuals is lost.

I think it's time to go back to constitutional monarchy.
 
WHAT!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

>Things like unemployment, health care, standard
>of living, etc. have, or
>at least ought to have,
>nothing to do with the
>State. The purpose of government
>is to prevent people from
>violating one another's rights by
>protecting them against invasion and
>crime,

Just what the hell are you saying? That the purpose of the government isn't to make the country into as good a living place as possible, but solely to create and enforce civilian laws and military might? Maybe that's how Americans think.

>and by running a
>court system with which disputes
>can be settled in an
>orderly manner.

I'm not sure if you're American, but if you are, I don't think you have much to say in this matter :)

>When you start thinking of "the
>people" as a singlular entity
>rahter than a collection of
>individuals who have differing needs,
>desires, and worldviews, and claim
>thet it's government's responsivility to
>"serve" this monolothic collective in
>every way imaginable, you dilute
>individuality, and by doing so,
>humanity.

I don't think any European country thinks of "the people" that way. And individualism just for the sake of individualism, like we see in the US, where it seems like the whole country is built on that thought (Okay, it is, but I think it's severely overdone) is not good. It becomes a gimmick.

>There's a phrase to describe the
>combination of socialistic bureacracy and
>collective identity supplanting individual identity
>that's so prevalent in Europe
>today. That phrase is "National
>Socialism."

By saying this, you prove that you yourself "dilute individualism". Europe isn't just one big cohesive whole. The people aren't all the same. The countries aren't all the same.

And what is wrong with this "National Socialism"? It's not extreme. It's not like Nazi-Germany or anything. And I at least don't want a government like in the US, where people can't agree about anything.

>And democracy only makes it worse.
>It fosters a relationship between
>a mass of "people" and
>the government in which both
>are seen as monolithic corporate
>entities.

Yes, but this relationship would be much worse if the government was run by individuals. You can't completely unite the government with the people unless you have anarchy, and anarchy doesn't work.

>The sense of government
>as being run for and
>by individuals is lost.

Government shouldn't be run by individuals! That's dictatorship. Or monarchy, if you want. And that would enlarge that relationship, like i said.

>I think it's time to go
>back to constitutional monarchy.

Monarchy's bad sides outweigh the good ones, don't you think?
 
You sound American...

But understand, the Netherlands is not what the Socialist would describe as a "tiranny of capitalism". Liberalism (which is what us Dutch call the American type of political thinking) is quite small and our country is very socialistic. Social health care, government instances, the lot of it.

And in a small country like this, it works a lot better than anything else.

It wouldn't work in bigger countries, but it works great here.
 
Ahem !

What a load.
Unless I'm mistaken, you're saying the only responsability has is crime and war prevention.
Of course a government's duty includes stuff like education, health care and that sort of things. It's the duty of a government to look after the voters. That's what the people are paying them for, that's why they were elected. And people aren't served as a "monolothic collective". All those forms of social security and health care weren't created because all people are the same. That would make things a lot easier. Besides, a lot of services can be used by citicens, they don't have to use 'em.

>There's a phrase to describe the combination of socialistic bureacracy and collective identity supplanting individual identity that's so prevalent in Europe today. That phrase is "National Socialism."

What ? You mean Haider ? That guy was elected in a fair election. Technically, the EU had no right to impose sanctions on that country.
And if you're meaning fascism, there is a phrase to descibe that kind of error. That phrase is "nonsense".

>And democracy only makes it worse. It fosters a relationship between a mass of "people" and the government in which both are seen as monolithic corporate entities. The sense of government as being run for and by individuals is lost.

I was thinking about something like this some time ago, and I came to the conclusion that a country can be idealy run if it consists of no more that 25 people (that's an estimate). If you're serving the mass, you make sacrifices. There will always be people getting hurt in the process, it doesn't matter if you have fascists, communists, democrats, republikans or zen-guru's running the country.

>I think it's time to go back to constitutional monarchy.

I believe Holland uses that kind of democracy.

[div align=left]

http://www.poseidonet.f2s.com/files/nostupid.gif
[/div]

"Don't worry men, they can't hit us here"
 
RE: WHAT!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

<<That the purpose of the government isn't to make the country into as good a living place as possible, but solely to create and enforce civilian laws and military might?>>

Whose idea of what is "as good a living place as possible" should be used? The government's? 51% of the people? What if 51% thought making the other 49% slaves would be to the greatest good for the greatest number? Each individual should have the freedom to make his/her life as good as he/she thinks, as long as they don't muck up someone else's life. And yes, that freedom should allow each person the liberty of mucking up their own life. The government's function should be merely to facilitate an individual's ability to do that by protecting them against other people.

<<I'm not sure if you're American, but if you are, I don't think you have much to say in this matter.>>

Unfortuately, the legislative branch of the US government has gradually been delegating its functions to both the executive and the judicial branch. It makes compromises in legislation by passing laws with vague language. Agencies of the executive branch are then able to pass regulations based on what it thinks the legislature meant, and the judical branch is expected to clean up and clarify the fuzzy thinking, often extending the laws into unexpected directions. That's precisely the problem of depending upon the government to do everything.

<<Yes, but this relationship would be much worse if the government was run by individuals. You can't completely unite the government with the people unless you have anarchy, and anarchy doesn't work.>>

Agreed. Government cannot provide for the needs and dreams of each individual person. It should, as far as possible, concern itself solely with providing and maintaining an environment to allow each person to do that on their own, and then get out of the way.

<<Government shouldn't be run by individuals! That's dictatorship. Or monarchy, if you want. And that would enlarge that relationship, like i said.>>

Yes. Government cannot be run by individuals. It is always run by a group, whether Democrats, Republicans, Labor, Greens, the rich, the intelligent, the military, etc. The trick for a free country is to make sure that the group in power cannot damage the liberty of the people.

<<Monarchy's bad sides outweigh the good ones, don't you think?>>

Whether the leader of a government is a monarch, or a dictator, or a small clique, or a political party, or even 51% of the people, that leader always has the potential to do great damage to the liberty of a people unless limited by the laws of the land. A monarch limited by a constitution which guarantees the people's rights and liberty is preferable to any system which allows the government free reign to "do good".
 
RE: WHAT!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

I agree with everything you've said, except for the part about government being run by groups.

How can we purport to have a society rooted in individualism when our government is a massive bureaucracy? Bureacracies are incompetent and wastfeul simply because they are bureaucracies; there's no leadership, there's no individual initiative, and every decision is a product of committe planning rather than a single cohesive vision.

The more democratic governments become, the more socialistic they become. It makes perfect sense: the more input everyone has into the way the government is run, the more likely they'll simply use is as a personal tool to fulfill their needs at the expense of others.

I'm not supporting dictatorship; a dictator is no leader. But in order to keep the government on the right track -- that is, protecting our liberties, and mediating the settlement of disputes -- democracy is impotent. Monarchy, with a single individual leading the government, is the system most conducive to preserving freedom.

Note that I'm specifically in favor of constitutional Monarhcy. That is, rule of man within the context of law. This is superior to both pure rule of law, which creates nothing but bureacracy and technicalis pedantry in all areas, and pure rule of man, which can lead to tyranny.

Basically what I'm saying is this: A collectivist form of government such as democracy fits perfectly in a collectivist society. An individualist society must have a government run by individuals.

(BTW, one other note: The problem is not legislative authority being ceded to the judiciary, but rather the reverse. Congress has been passing law after law dealing with issues for which each case ought rightly be considered individually by the courts. Statutory law is a one-size-fits all solution, and one-size-fits-all fits none.)
 
RE: You sound American...

Whether or not something "works" depends entirely on what it is you're trying to do.

If your goal is to have a society in which certian ways of thinking are institutionalised, and individual ambitions are subjugated to the needs of everyone else, socialism certainly works.

If you'd rather live in a society where each man can live his own life for his own purpose, without others butting in and telling him what to do and how to think, socialism doesn't work at all.
 
RE: Ahem !

<<Unless I'm mistaken, you're saying the only responsability has is crime and war prevention>>

And the enforcement of legal contracts between citizens. Sounds good to me.

<<Of course a government's duty includes stuff like education, health care and that sort of things.>>

With the money saved by eliminating those programs people would be able to send their kids to private schools and go to the doctor of their choice.

<<It's the duty of a government to look after the voters.>>

The US government is racking up a huge deficit to look after today's voters by giving them all sorts of goodies. The debt will have to be paid by future generations who'll probably have to get by without social security and health care as well as paying for the party thrown by today's politicians who keep themselves in power by catering to the voter's every whim.


<<That's what the people are paying them for, that's why they were elected.>>

Fire 90% of them and save beaucoups money. Make them do honest, productive work that helps society.

<<Besides, a lot of services can be used by citicens, they don't have to use 'em.>>

Why should I have to pay for something I don't use?


<<I was thinking about something like this some time ago, and I came to the conclusion that a country can be idealy run if it consists of no more that 25 people (that's an estimate).>>

Who determines what is ideal?

<< If you're serving the mass, you make sacrifices.>>

The people "serving" the masses expect the masses to make the sacrifices. I'm an old farm boy, I know what "serving" means. That's what the bull does to the cow.

<<There will always be people getting hurt in the process, it doesn't matter if you have fascists, communists, democrats, republikans or zen-guru's running the country.>>

And you minimize the hurt by minimizing the government. I'd rather live uncomfortably in an inefficient society where I have the maximum freedom, than in an efficient society where I am a comfortable slave. But then, that's just me. Most people are willing to sell their freedom to the politician who makes the highest bid.


The government that governs best governs least.
 
RE: Ahem !

> Unless I'm mistaken, you're saying the only responsability has
> is crime and war prevention.

Amongst other symbolic duties, yes. This is the purpose for government.

> Of course a government's duty includes stuff like education,
> health care and that sort of things.

This is your opinion, and I disagree with it. The fact that we disagree is the root of the problem. Neither of us has the right to impose our views on the other. But your wolrdview would of necessity force me to live my life in a certain way. My worldview says that each individual has the right to live as he chooses. If you want to form a socialist collective, you're free to do so as long as you don't force anyone to join. But you insist on forcing people to join.

> It's the duty of a government to look after the voters. That's
> what the people are paying them for, that's why they were
> elected.

You can only speak for yorself. If this is why *you* voted for the politicians, fine. The fact thet you're willing to speak for the electorate as a whole just proves my point.

> Besides, a lot of services can be used by citicens, they don't
> have to use 'em.

But they sure have to pay for them, right?

> What ? You mean Haider ? That guy was elected in a fair
> election. Technically, the EU had no right to impose sanctions
> on that country. And if you're meaning fascism, there is a
> phrase to descibe that kind of error. That phrase is
> "nonsense".

No, I'm talking about Haider's opponents. I actually don't mind Haider. Haider's enemies are the ones who are the ones who are acting like nazis.
 
RE: WHAT!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

<<I agree with everything you've said, except for the part about government being run by groups>>

Not quite sure what you mean. Every government is going to be run by a group, whether it's the upper echelons of the ruling party, the Prime Minister's cabinet, the King's drinking buddies (or the Queen's lovers), or a dictator's co-conspirators.

<<How can we purport to have a society rooted in individualism when our government is a massive bureaucracy? Bureacracies are incompetent and wastfeul simply because they are bureaucracies; there's no leadership, there's no individual initiative, and every decision is a product of committe planning rather than a single cohesive vision.>>

Any government of a country larger than a couple of square miles is going to be a bureaucracy. The trick is to keep the bureaucracy so small and overworked that it doesn't have time and energy to get into mischief. So it actually begs not to have any more regulations passed or committees formed.

<<The more democratic governments become, the more socialistic they become. It makes perfect sense: the more input everyone has into the way the government is run, the more likely they'll simply use is as a personal tool to fulfill their needs at the expense of others.>>

The unfortunate aspect of modern democracy is the concept that if 51% of the people think something is a good idea then it should be implemented. Can something that 49% of the people disagree with really be beneficial for society? 90% of the people (Well, okay, maybe 85%. Er, how about 80%?), can agree that murder and theft are bad things and that there oughta be laws. The problem is when you get laws that only a slim majority of the people, or worse, a slim majority of people that bother to vote, think are great ideas. And usually those laws make a small minority of the people do something they don't want. Why not say that something can become law only with the approval of 90% of the people? You'll not get many laws passed (I think that's a good thing), but the ones that do get passed are those people really think are necessary.


<<I'm not supporting dictatorship; a dictator is no leader. But in order to keep the government on the right track -- that is, protecting our liberties, and mediating the settlement of disputes -- democracy is impotent. Monarchy, with a single individual leading the government, is the system most conducive to preserving freedom.>>

Okay, so who selects the monarch? Is he/she elected? By whom? Hereditary? (Not a good idea. You'll eventually get a feeble-minded bleeder with no chin who drools a lot. Bad for the upholstery.) What are the qualifications? I can see the point that the executive officer of the government is able to do what he/she feels is right instead of worrying about getting elected for their next term, but how does he/she get there in the first place? Choose the smartest person? The richest person? Someone entirely at random?


<<Basically what I'm saying is this: A collectivist form of government such as democracy fits perfectly in a collectivist society. An individualist society must have a government run by individuals.>>

Democracy becomes collectivist when people start voting on every little thing, deciding how everyone will live, including what citizens do in private, and whether they should be able to indulge in self-destructive behavior. I wake up in a sweat at the thought that there's people somewhere in the world conspiring with the express intent of doing something to me for my own good.


<<(BTW, one other note: The problem is not legislative authority being ceded to the judiciary, but rather the reverse. Congress has been passing law after law dealing with issues for which each case ought rightly be considered individually by the courts. Statutory law is a one-size-fits all solution, and one-size-fits-all fits none.)>>

There's a whole lot of truth to that. But I was thinking of those cases where voters want politicians to "get something done". The two parties can't agree on what, so rather than nail down specifics, they'll pass something for the courts to sort out. Then they all go home and tell the voters that they "got something done".

Thanks for the discussion.
 
>This is very, very, very extremely
>wrong...Well, maybe not for the
>whole of Europe, but let
>me tell you about the
>Netherlands boy-howdy...

Yes, the Netherlands, Germany and England (to an extent) are doing quite well for themselves. The Netherlands because of less government control and a lot of mechanical automation. It was also a stabilizing country in the recent trouble with the Euro due to its economy.

>We're at the moment at a
>peak of economical wealth like
>we haven't seen since the
>Golden Age, back in the
>17th century. We have a
>12 billion guilders extra (which,
>I must note, is quite
>a lot for a tiny
>country like ours).

For those who don't know, the exchange rate is $1(USD) to 1.9(G), so that surplus equates to roughly $22.8 billion(USD).

>Anyway, like I was saying, instead
>of asuming the entire of
>Europe is about to go
>through a huge collapse, I'd
>compare with the USA. Our
>country's debts are infinitely smaller
>than the USA's (even if
>you consider the countries' respective
>sizes), our health-care and levels
>of education are infinitely better.
>Unemployement is at an all-time
>low.

European nations (I don't know about the Netherlands, they're doing pretty well) should beware that the generous healthcare and benefits system may start slipping in the advent of the Euro and the formation of the EA.

>Quite frankly, I'm starting to doubt
>we need the USA for
>anything, really.

I doubt the Netherlands needs us too. It's certainly not going to be invaded anytime soon, and it's a crutch for Europe.

>I'd almost advise
>you people to start looking
>at your own country, with
>that redicilously bad state of
>living

Just so you know, you spell it "ridiculously." This isn't meant to be anything anally retentive, it's just so you know.

Bad state of living? Care to explain?

>and generally idiotic politics...just
>look at these elections...

It is not the system or the country, it is the people. While I can understand fighting for the initial recounts, I don't think Al Gore should have dragged this election on this long.

However what would your government do if someone took elections to the courts and the election model allowed for manual recounts? Please don't use the excuse "oh our people wouldn't dream of doing it" because we thought the same of our candiates.

Even the United States would scoff at a country that had such an election problems, however it is one thing to be watching on the side-lines, and another to be dealing with such a problem.

The United States is a relatively new country to the world, but probably the oldest lasting republic/democracy. Many of the newer democratic nations have never even been around long enough to experience something like this. In fact, it has only occured once after over two hundred years.

And hell, maybe an election like this *has* happened in the past. The only reason this election is raising so many eyebrows is that everyone is watching the United States. Do you think the USA would get so much coverage in the earlier part of this century? It's like the election of the Prime Minister of Canada, nobody would really care, why would they? The nation would have no real influence on the world. It's just that the United States happens to have an effect on practically every other western nation that it has received so much publicity.

>A travesty,
>I tell you, a travesty
>of original democracy that you
>stole of us (remember, us
>Europeans thought up democracy, the
>Americans just changed it into
>the rediculous not-working system they
>have now)

The Greeks/Romans thought up the republic/democratic government, and it was probably devised on every other continent to an extent. The United States was the first nation to actually make it work on a large scale. Just like inventions, it is one thing to think it up, it is another to build it.

And I wouldn't think we "stole" the governing system from Europe. European nations never even *had* a republic/democratic system put into gear until the 20th century, Europe was stuck in the old monarchy system since the middle ages. Europe probably would've never moved towards a more democratic government if the USA hadn't shown it could work, and work well.

Take the Netherlands for example, it's following the open marketting standards set by the United States. Less government intervention means a better economy (except in the case of monopolies). This is why a lot of countries in Europe are suffering economically. They've got lots of government intervention and their market economy is still based on their old systems.

And you say we've warped the republic/democracy? Please, Kharn, give me one example where Europe has done it "right." You may go so far as the Roman era. The truth is the the United States was the first and *only* nation to ever get it "right," and probably the reason Europe started moving towards this style of government. Even with the industrial revolution, Europe never changed. It was only when the United States started becoming prosperous, the most powerful nation in all known history, that European nations began to rethink their governing strategy. It has been those who were slow to think like France, who has been slow to decentralize the markets, that have suffered, and those who have embraced American-like economic systems like the Netherlands and Germany who have prospered.

Note also that the Netherlands has a very small military expenditure, around $6 billion, only a fraction of a percent of their GDP. The USA spends roughly 3.2% of its GDP on the military, which is more than two thirds your entire country's GDP.

-Xotor-

[div align=center]

http://www.poseidonet.f2s.com/files/nostupid.gif
[/div]
 
>Things like unemployment, health care, standard
>of living, etc. have, or
>at least ought to have,
>nothing to do with the
>State. The purpose of government
>is to prevent people from
>violating one another's rights by
>protecting them against invasion and
>crime, and by running a
>court system with which disputes
>can be settled in an
>orderly manner.

I would not say that. I would maintain Aristotle's definition of a country, that it is not just a cluster of people living near each other, causing no harms to each other, and doing business, the purpose of a state is to "live well" and for citizens to take part in their state, whereby the state improves the quality of life for the citizen. If you aren't trying to improve the quality of life, you are basically describing how nations work: They exist on this planet, they trade, and they're usually at peace.

>I think it's time to go
>back to constitutional monarchy.

A constitutional monarchy in today's terms is more of a figurehead "king" or "emperor" and a parliment who makes the real decisions, with the Prime Minister as the real king-like authority.

In the USA government, which is not a democracy, but rather a republic which borrows some aspects from democracy, the President actually has a *say* in what goes on in the country.

Do you think the Queen of England has any real power? She's just mooching off the kingdom and paying no taxes.

No, I don't think a constitutional monarchy does anything extra.

-Xotor-

[div align=center]

http://www.poseidonet.f2s.com/files/nostupid.gif
[/div]
 
RE: You sound American...

>But understand, the Netherlands is not
>what the Socialist would describe
>as a "tiranny of capitalism".
>Liberalism (which is what us
>Dutch call the American type
>of political thinking) is quite
>small and our country is
>very socialistic. Social health care,
>government instances, the lot of
>it.
>
>And in a small country like
>this, it works a lot
>better than anything else.
>
>It wouldn't work in bigger countries,
>but it works great here.

And that is a defining factor in comparing European nations, or any nation, to the USA. Yeah, nationalized healthcare is great for a small nation, but how do you pay for 270 million people who will average $3000 a year in health care? That's $810 billion dollars per year. And we're concerned about social security!

It is another reason why democracy has flopped in Russia. You just can't move from a hard-line Socialist government to a Democracy in under a years time. The USA was fortunate enough to already have a market economy from Great Britain which did not leave it in the dust. China, maybe, because it is decentralizing and using its socialist structure to basically just maintain order.

-Xotor-

[div align=center]

http://www.poseidonet.f2s.com/files/nostupid.gif
[/div]
 
RE: Ahem !

>And you minimize the hurt by
>minimizing the government. I'd
>rather live uncomfortably in an
>inefficient society where I have
>the maximum freedom, than in
>an efficient society where I
>am a comfortable slave.
>But then, that's just me.
> Most people are willing
>to sell their freedom to
>the politician who makes the
>highest bid.

But who will be there when some entity wishes to impose *their* law upon you? Who will defend you?

It is a reason why people who are so-called "Anarchists" have no clue as to what they're talking about. You cannot have people existing in perfect harmony with each other, it's like FOOL, you can't assume a system will work based on perfect conditions.

Your "freedoms" are privileges enforced by the government. The government *protects* your rights, and the only way it can do that is by being strong. Therefore your government would take a great part in your daily life.

-Xotor-

[div align=center]

http://www.poseidonet.f2s.com/files/nostupid.gif
[/div]
 
RE: har har har

>If you're going to start talking
>all smart like again then
>I want no part of
>it.

Then kindly don't. If it appears to you that I am talking "smart," obviously you're thinking "stupid," and if that isn't the case, prove me wrong.

>Spotted in a chat room: EVANCHR:
>you are a little homosexual
>who thinks you are much
>more superior than you by
>using big words

Big words? Hmm.. let me see.. maybe "automation?" Or how about "prosperous?" They're only big words if you don't understand them. I don't see anything in that reply which would constitute "big words."

Why would I dumb-down a reply? Am I to expect that I will be talking to incompetents that don't understand the language well? I expect most of the people here understand "big words" like "expenditure" and "intervention." Is that the case for you?

Maybe you're thinking I'm spouting rhetoric? Then prove me wrong! Don't just sit on your fat ass and wave your finger saying "ah you're just wrong," that shows me/us that you're just a side-liner with nothing worth hearing.

So please do keep out of the argument if you think the words are too big and you can't understand the topic.

Far Side Comic: "Excuse me, may I leave? My brain is full."

-Xotor-

[div align=center]

http://www.poseidonet.f2s.com/files/nostupid.gif
[/div]
 
RE: Ahem !

>This is your opinion, and I
>disagree with it. The fact
>that we disagree is the
>root of the problem. Neither
>of us has the right
>to impose our views on
>the other. But your wolrdview
>would of necessity force me
>to live my life in
>a certain way. My worldview
>says that each individual has
>the right to live as
>he chooses.

Let me ask you something: What if someone way of living goes against yours? What if someone thinks it is within his rights to rape your wife? What then?

And then you'll say that everyone has their right to live as they choose as long as it doesn't violate someone else's right, correct? But what if my right to live the way I choose involves nobody living within ten thousand square miles? What if I want my homestead to be the middle of New York City? What then?

The fact is that you *need* government, and if your way of life is imposed upon, well that's just too bad isn't it? Humans don't have fundamental rights, they're granted by the people in charge. If you're forced to live in a certain way, that's just too bad.

>> It's the duty of a government to look after the voters. That's
>> what the people are paying them for, that's why they were
>> elected.
>
>You can only speak for yorself.
>If this is why *you*
>voted for the politicians, fine.
>The fact thet you're willing
>to speak for the electorate
>as a whole just proves
>my point.

I believe he's speaking of the ideal. I doubt many politicians even think about preserving the voting process, it is more second hand thinking than anything.

>> Besides, a lot of services can be used by citicens, they don't
>> have to use 'em.
>
>But they sure have to pay
>for them, right?

Yes, but when you do have to use them you're grateful for them. It spreads their usage out among the populace and that is the whole purpose of taxes.

And there are some things that must be paid for by the individual. The utilities for example. But basic society needs like education, road service and sewers (though we do pay some for this) are better suited towards tax-based payment.

>No, I'm talking about Haider's opponents.
>I actually don't mind Haider.
>Haider's enemies are the ones
>who are the ones who
>are acting like nazis.

The Nazis, not thinking about their attrocities, actually did a bang-up job on the nation. A police state is actually a very efficient governing system. Musolini also made Italy work really well, so well that even the trains were said to arrive on time.

If you're catering to everyone and their dog's conception of an ideal life, you're going to have a very defective society, and a society that will do even a worse job of bringing up everyone's standard of living.

-Xotor-

[div align=center]

http://www.poseidonet.f2s.com/files/nostupid.gif
[/div]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top