Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
NZT48

Government exists to protect liberty, not to provide services or redistribute wealth.

Recommended Posts

35 minutes ago, NZT48 said:

Change my mind.

 

What if government has to provide services and redistribute wealth to protect your liberty?

 

Actually, make that, how can government protect your liberty without providing services and redistributing wealth?

 

eg, should police be a thing? How do you pay them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, eveln said:

LOL ...g'day NZT48 ... been a while 🙂

sup

31 minutes ago, fliptopia said:

Does all human life have value NZT48? 

I think so but maybe it depends on when a person is damned. Anyway that is not for us mortals to judge. I think each human life needs to be treated equally by the law.

8 minutes ago, Kimmo said:

 

What if government has to provide services and redistribute wealth to protect your liberty?

 

Actually, make that, how can government protect your liberty without providing services and redistributing wealth?

 

eg, should police be a thing? How do you pay them?

Police (and other services that protect liberty) should exist and be paid for by fines/rates/tariffs. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Governments be it local, state or federal set fines, collect rates and determine tariffs.

 

Cheers

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personal liberty is greatly hindered by poverty. For some people, personal habits may lead them down the path of poverty, but for the working poor, the conditions they work under are controlled by the company. Without industrial laws and unions, more people will be taken advantage of.  In other countries we see people working extended hours who still don't make enough to feed their children, and they have no social structures to help them to liberate themselves from lives of hunger, illness and drudgery.  Do we want to be one of those countries?

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When *is* a person damned? 

Also, how can every person be truly free without the chance to access things like education, roads, health care etc in today's society? How can you guarantee an equal base level for these things without a central system that isn't there to make a profit from it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, NZT48 said:

sup

well gravity sucks, so not a lot really :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lack of content and poster = why the hell would you want to engage in this thread?

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Rybags said:

Lack of content and poster = why the hell would you want to engage in this thread?

 

Why do people watch indy cars race? 

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, NZT48 said:

Change my mind.

I think you're wrong.  Change my mind.

Also, if you want a protection racket, pay for it yourself, don't go expecting it as a govt service.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, NZT48 said:

Police (and other services that protect liberty) should exist and be paid for by fines/rates/tariffs. 

 

So some services and wealth redistribution is necessary, therefore providing services and redistributing wealth isn't necessarily a bad thing.

 

Okay, where do you draw the line, and why?

Edited by Kimmo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 " Government exists to protect liberty, not to provide services or redistribute wealth."

 

A governing body chosen to organise structures of help and services requested by and for the benefit of the community / country.

if the governing body does the job properly then it is also looking after the liberty of the community / country that voted for it. 

It's only when the Government decides it's a stand alone group, apart, and above the community / country that it should be voted out quick-fucking-smartly

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, NZT48 said:

Change my mind.

 

It's refreshing to see someone so readily admitting they need a lobotomy.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it possible, NZT48, that you want services but object to paying taxes and want a new or refined funding model? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, SacrificialNewt said:

Personal liberty is greatly hindered by poverty. For some people, personal habits may lead them down the path of poverty, but for the working poor, the conditions they work under are controlled by the company. Without industrial laws and unions, more people will be taken advantage of.  In other countries we see people working extended hours who still don't make enough to feed their children, and they have no social structures to help them to liberate themselves from lives of hunger, illness and drudgery.  Do we want to be one of those countries?

Free market capitalism is great. There should be no laws regarding business and if people are getting treated poorly they can find another job or start their own business.

 

I think there should be no laws about unions; I think people should be free to join them and take collective action and I also think people should be free to fire employees for belonging to a union, etc.

20 hours ago, fliptopia said:

When *is* a person damned?

I don't know.

20 hours ago, fliptopia said:

Also, how can every person be truly free without the chance to access things like education, roads, health care etc in today's society? How can you guarantee an equal base level for these things without a central system that isn't there to make a profit from it?

Why does one's freedom depend on education or the majority of health care services?

 

Milton Friedman was right when he said “A society that puts equality before freedom will get neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both.”

 

I think roads should be done by government, health care partially (with contagious diseases), and education not at all. I think the government is big and powerful enough without getting to determine what our children are taught and I don't see why a man who works hard and struggles to provide for his family should be forced to pay for the education of bludgers or those who do not value it.

18 hours ago, Kimmo said:

So some services and wealth redistribution is necessary, therefore providing services and redistributing wealth isn't necessarily a bad thing.

 

Okay, where do you draw the line, and why?

Yeah.

 

I draw the line between what is necessary for the protection of liberty and what isn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, NZT48 said:

Free market capitalism is great. There should be no laws regarding business and if people are getting treated poorly they can find another job or start their own business.

 

I think there should be no laws about unions; I think people should be free to join them and take collective action and I also think people should be free to fire employees for belonging to a union, etc.

I don't know.

Why does one's freedom depend on education or the majority of health care services?

 

Milton Friedman was right when he said “A society that puts equality before freedom will get neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both.”

 

I think roads should be done by government, health care partially (with contagious diseases), and education not at all. I think the government is big and powerful enough without getting to determine what our children are taught and I don't see why a man who works hard and struggles to provide for his family should be forced to pay for the education of bludgers or those who do not value it.

Yeah.

 

I draw the line between what is necessary for the protection of liberty and what isn't.

 

1. Are you saying companies should just be able to do what they want? No consumer or environmental protections? Maybe you need to look at why these laws exist. They aren't there to just stymie businesses. Sure some could be fixed but to just throw them all out??? 

 

2. If you come from parents who are "bludgers" then how do you get an education without free compulsory education. I would prefer to live in a world where basic numeracy and literacy at the very least is wide spread. I doubt Milton Friedman made that quote in a world that has such a reduced number of unskilled jobs. Your position seems to be one that would create deeper divides between those that can afford services and those that can't. That is not real freedom. 

 

I think your idea of liberty is skewed. Being free in your world isn't freedom because, unless your are born middle class or wealthier, you are going to be more behind the 8 ball than is currently the case in terms of being able to do things like get the job you want. 

 

You don't need full equality and indeed full equality systems such as full on communism really don't properly reward effort but a minimum base line from which you can achieve anything with enough effort (even if others can do it more easily) allows for what I'd see as a much truer liberty. 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, NZT48 said:

I draw the line between what is necessary for the protection of liberty and what isn't.

 

We got that, and guess what - almost anyone can say the same thing. Your incredibly simplistic prescription does have that simplicity going for it, but you seem to think simplicity is an end in itself that magically provides the most freedom, merely because you've avoided investing in justice. Others have more complex prescriptions based on more sophisticated models of reality, and some of them are trying to tell you that you can't have freedom without justice.

 

Trotting out ideological claptrap from a discredited crackpot stooge like Friedman isn't going to cut it.

 

You know what most strongly correlates with justice, which demands a high minimum standard of living? Low wealth inequality.

 

How about heeding an economist who bases his work on reality? R>G.

 

 

Edited by Kimmo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, fliptopia said:

1. Are you saying companies should just be able to do what they want? No consumer or environmental protections? Maybe you need to look at why these laws exist. They aren't there to just stymie businesses. Sure some could be fixed but to just throw them all out??? 

 

2. If you come from parents who are "bludgers" then how do you get an education without free compulsory education. I would prefer to live in a world where basic numeracy and literacy at the very least is wide spread. I doubt Milton Friedman made that quote in a world that has such a reduced number of unskilled jobs. Your position seems to be one that would create deeper divides between those that can afford services and those that can't. That is not real freedom. 

 

I think your idea of liberty is skewed. Being free in your world isn't freedom because, unless your are born middle class or wealthier, you are going to be more behind the 8 ball than is currently the case in terms of being able to do things like get the job you want. 

 

You don't need full equality and indeed full equality systems such as full on communism really don't properly reward effort but a minimum base line from which you can achieve anything with enough effort (even if others can do it more easily) allows for what I'd see as a much truer liberty. 

I am for individual freedom and responsibility. If a business harms the environment then police can investigate and the individuals who are at fault should be held responsible.

 

It is no business of government to control people's education or to tell parents how to parent. Once an individual is an adult it is up to them.

 

You are mistaking equality for freedom.

13 minutes ago, Kimmo said:

 

We got that, and guess what - almost anyone can say the same thing. Your incredibly simplistic prescription does have that simplicity going for it, but you seem to think simplicity is an end in itself that magically provides the most freedom, merely because you've avoided investing in justice. Others have more complex prescriptions based on more sophisticated models of reality, and some of them are trying to tell you that you can't have freedom without justice.

 

Trotting out ideological claptrap from a discredited crackpot stooge like Friedman isn't going to cut it.

 

You know what most strongly correlates with justice, which demands a high minimum standard of living? Low wealth inequality.

 

How about heeding an economist who bases his work on reality? R>G.

 

 

What is this "justice" you talk of?

 

Crony capitalism (which is big business and big government in bed doing favours for each other) is problematic. Leading big businesses love the government regulations because it hinders competition.

 

Free market capitalism is a great thing. Look at all the inventions the rise in living standards that have come from freer societies.

 

If you want to help the poor then support free market capitalism and give them money and encourage others to do the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe you don't understand how freedom would work for me and what I would consider liberty in my way of thinking. I think you seek to enforce your freedom on me. Ironic huh... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, NZT48 said:

I am for individual freedom and responsibility. If a business harms the environment then police can investigate and the individuals who are at fault should be held responsible.

 

It is no business of government to control people's education or to tell parents how to parent. Once an individual is an adult it is up to them.

 

You are mistaking equality for freedom.

What is this "justice" you talk of?

 

Crony capitalism (which is big business and big government in bed doing favours for each other) is problematic. Leading big businesses love the government regulations because it hinders competition.

 

Free market capitalism is a great thing. Look at all the inventions the rise in living standards that have come from freer societies.

 

If you want to help the poor then support free market capitalism and give them money and encourage others to do the same.

 

What about people who abuse others, particularly children? Who will protect the children? 

 

From the past we know that nobody protects the children if the law isn't there to back them up. People pretend it's not their business because it will only bring trouble for them.

 

We also know that the poor slide further into poverty. Some 'Christian' charities might feed of clothe them, but that's where it ends. The recipients are doomed to a life of begging. 

 

However, I doubt you will ever side with that POV.  I've noted that people who believe in a laissez-faire economy really don't see the humanitarian issues with it. You ask us to change your mind, and we put forward all the reasons that would change ours if we didn't see the other side of the fence for ourselves, but I'm sure you have seen all these points put forward before, and it didn't sway you then so why should it now?

 

Edited by SacrificialNewt
Typo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, NZT48 said:

Free market capitalism is great. There should be no laws regarding business and if people are getting treated poorly they can find another job or start their own business.

 

I think there should be no laws about unions; I think people should be free to join them and take collective action and I also think people should be free to fire employees for belonging to a union, etc.

 

I think roads should be done by government. I think the government is big and powerful enough without getting to determine what our children are taught and I don't see why a man who works hard and struggles to provide for his family should be forced to pay for the education of bludgers or those who do not value it.

So your religious liberty is not impinged if Australians decide to not employ people of minor sects spouting radicalism?
You can just go and live somewhere else, right?  And you're ok with not spending your tax dollars on making sure someone else's kids are well educated workers and customers, but you're ok with making me pay for the roads you use and I don't?

 

Govt funded roads aren't essential to liberty.  Change my mind.

4 hours ago, NZT48 said:

Free market capitalism is a great thing. Look at all the inventions the rise in living standards that have come from freer societies.

 

If you want to help the poor then support free market capitalism and give them money and encourage others to do the same.

Have you ever visited Hong Kong?  I'm guessing not, but if you have, you probably haven't looked around much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×