[quote]BulletproofTiger wrote:
As I stated, poverty has a detrimental impact on society. For economic efficiency to be realized, the efficiency of the citizens must also be optimized.[/quote]
What is an “efficient citizen”?
[quote]BulletproofTiger wrote:
Very interesting Orion. I like the points you make in this post. The system you propose seems to be fair, but as you acknowledge, a government has to be financed somehow. Without funding, a government cannot operate and thus cannot be legitimate. Have ran the numbers you have proposed and concluded that what you propose would be sufficient to finance the government? Are you basing this system off some country’s successful implementation of a similar plan?
You acknowledge it has flaws. What cons do you see to your system? (f.e. carousel fraud and other VAT tax aversion)
What “indirect taxes” would you see to support any necessary programs like the police department, army, etc. How would welfare fit into this plan if at all?[/quote]
Many of the problems with taxation are at the federal level. I think that’s what most are talking about here. there are clear constitutional and natural rights issues with involentary taxation. A sales tax or tarrif is at least volentary.
It’s not that all gov’t programs are bad and should only be allowed if they can be funded directly by those that use them. That would be relatively impossible. It’s the fact that they are allowed to grow to astronomical proportions and have no accountability for efficiency. This is possible becuase a large portion of the voting public don’t actually pay for them in any obvious fasion.
If 40% of the voting public doesn’t actually pay for any of the programs directly, but might use them quite often, we can pretty accurately predict the political outcome.
Even those that don’t pay federal income tax are certainly effected by overspending, they just don’t realize it. This is the beauty of a flat tax or a sales tax. Everybody has a horse in the race. If every american sees the cost of expanding gov’t everytime they make a purchase, there is a much better chance gov’t will be kept in check.
When is the last time we saw a politician successfully run on reigning in spending as a major part of their campaign? Better yet, when is the last time we’ve seen any action? The current tax system isn’t an accident. It has tremendous political value.
You mention some programs that should be funded by state and local gov’t. This a similar but different discussion. I really don’t give a shit what states, counties, or cities do. If we can straighted out the fed, competition for business and citizens will lead local gov’t in the right direction. If not, I can move to a different town, county, or state.
[quote]BulletproofTiger wrote:
I recognize that poverty rate is only one part of the puzzle, but I feel that it tends to be overlooked as having a detrimental impact on a nation’s economy.
I’m quoting this from a another study called “Child wellbeing and inequalities in rich countries”:
“A recent Unicef report ranked the wellbeing of children in 21 rich countries. The report aggregated national data on more than 40 indicators from credible sources in six dimensions?material wellbeing (related to income, poverty, material goods), health and safety, educational wellbeing, family and peer relationships, behaviours and risks, and subjective wellbeing (how the child sees his or her self). The press had a field day when the report was published, because the United States and the United Kingdom were in the bottom five countries for five of the dimensions. The UK ranked 12th in health and the US ranked 12th in education; questions were rightly asked about how this could happen and what the government was going to do about it.”
As I stated, poverty has a detrimental impact on society. For economic efficiency to be realized, the efficiency of the citizens must also be optimized.[/quote]
If you look closely, you’ll see that the top third consists almost entirely of scandinavian countries (and Spain… for some reason). When you look at the Scandinavian countries, you see a startling level of cultural homogenaity. I know the US and UK are startling in the opposite direction. I can’t entirely speak for the middle countries.
I’m not saying cultural heterogenaity decreases a child’s well-being. I do think it contribute’s significantly though.
One thing though is certain- A child’s well-being does not correlate at all with government spending on it.
[quote]orion wrote:
So basically what I would propose is this: As much indirect taxes as possible, for a specific purpose. Meaning, f.e., a gasoline tax for roads and bridges and for roads and bridges only.
[/quote]
Orion - Just to clarify your definition of ‘indirect tax’-- is that to say ‘indirect consumption tax’? In the case of gasoline, using those monies for transportation infrastructure (as opposed to a toll, a direct consumption tax)?
Also, when we talk about these types of taxes, that opens up the age old debate about “what is government’s function”? I’m not a smoker, but I feel there are excessive “sin” taxes on cigarettes and tobacco, which supposedly go to fund education and other things related to the evils of the product.
Does that fit into your indirect tax model?
I tend to subscribe to the ‘anti-federalist’ argument in that I think the Federal role should be minimized to taxes (in the form you describe) for essential infrastructure, and let the states compete (ie the way they tax sales, goods, services, etc)
[quote]Otep wrote:
BulletproofTiger wrote:
I recognize that poverty rate is only one part of the puzzle, but I feel that it tends to be overlooked as having a detrimental impact on a nation’s economy.
I’m quoting this from a another study called “Child wellbeing and inequalities in rich countries”:
“A recent Unicef report ranked the wellbeing of children in 21 rich countries. The report aggregated national data on more than 40 indicators from credible sources in six dimensions?material wellbeing (related to income, poverty, material goods), health and safety, educational wellbeing, family and peer relationships, behaviours and risks, and subjective wellbeing (how the child sees his or her self). The press had a field day when the report was published, because the United States and the United Kingdom were in the bottom five countries for five of the dimensions. The UK ranked 12th in health and the US ranked 12th in education; questions were rightly asked about how this could happen and what the government was going to do about it.”
As I stated, poverty has a detrimental impact on society. For economic efficiency to be realized, the efficiency of the citizens must also be optimized.
If you look closely, you’ll see that the top third consists almost entirely of scandinavian countries (and Spain… for some reason). When you look at the Scandinavian countries, you see a startling level of cultural homogenaity. I know the US and UK are startling in the opposite direction. I can’t entirely speak for the middle countries.
I’m not saying cultural heterogenaity decreases a child’s well-being. I do think it contribute’s significantly though.
One thing though is certain- A child’s well-being does not correlate at all with government spending on it.[/quote]
First, I agree that government spending (on children) does not correlate to child well being. And I might also mention that I did not intend this to support any sort of proposal for increasing welfare spending. I was just making the point that the research makes for itself - the US ranking poorly in mosst of the six dimensions in the study. I would suggest that perhaps there is a strong correlation between the findings of this study and the shitty climate in the US, f.e. I would argue that national security is correlated to education, poverty has an indirect correlation to the economy (referring back to my analogy of picking the guy up out of the mud to get him out of other people’s way - I think this can be analyzed on a deeper level that just welfare by analyzing that example on all aspects from the study… education would be one part of that), etc.
Second, perhaps some components of the the Scandanavian country’s similarity has to do with other aspects like similar government policy rather than just culture. Perhaps there is something there that the US can look to as a model. I admit that this second point is conjecture.
[quote]BulletproofTiger wrote:
orion wrote:
First of all I do not think that tariffs are a shining example of libertarianism, I am just saying that that was the original US tax system that had some advantages.
I do not really feel that the act of transferring property to another person gives a government the right to tax it and why should it. However, if a government is legitimate it has to be financed somehow and in the end all that you can tax is what citizens have produced.
I think that any tax is highly problematic but that we have to agree to taxation in some form. If the reason for a states existence is the protection of life, liberty and private property an income tax can hardly be the answer though. We should at least strive to keep the intrusion into our lives to a minimum and avoid the transfer of wealth if we possibly can, not only because it is theft but also because it leads to a giant waste of resources.
So basically what I would propose is this: As much indirect taxes as possible, for a specific purpose. Meaning, f.e., a gasoline tax for roads and bridges and for roads and bridges only.
On top of that a VAT and a tax refund for any VAT that was paid for purchases under 20000$ a year, per person, per household and no VAT on human labor.
That way, if you want to use a government service you pay for it directly and everything you need to live is basically tax exempt and the costs of employing someone would be magically cut in half.
As you can see such a tax system might have its flaws, like all systems, but at least it leaves citizens much more room to exercise their liberty than most current tax systems do.
Therefore, other tax systems that needlessly infringe on the liberty and property of its citizens can hardly be legitimate, even if you agree that a states existence can be justified and that is what I was trying to show.
Very interesting Orion. I like the points you make in this post. The system you propose seems to be fair, but as you acknowledge, a government has to be financed somehow. Without funding, a government cannot operate and thus cannot be legitimate. Have ran the numbers you have proposed and concluded that what you propose would be sufficient to finance the government? Are you basing this system off some country’s successful implementation of a similar plan?
You acknowledge it has flaws. What cons do you see to your system? (f.e. carousel fraud and other VAT tax aversion)
What “indirect taxes” would you see to support any necessary programs like the police department, army, etc. How would welfare fit into this plan if at all?[/quote]
The VAT would finance those things that cannot be billed directly to those who use these services like police or fire departments.
Welfare is not a proper role of government in my opinion.
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
orion wrote:
So basically what I would propose is this: As much indirect taxes as possible, for a specific purpose. Meaning, f.e., a gasoline tax for roads and bridges and for roads and bridges only.
Orion - Just to clarify your definition of ‘indirect tax’-- is that to say ‘indirect consumption tax’? In the case of gasoline, using those monies for transportation infrastructure (as opposed to a toll, a direct consumption tax)?
Also, when we talk about these types of taxes, that opens up the age old debate about “what is government’s function”? I’m not a smoker, but I feel there are excessive “sin” taxes on cigarettes and tobacco, which supposedly go to fund education and other things related to the evils of the product.
Does that fit into your indirect tax model?
I tend to subscribe to the ‘anti-federalist’ argument in that I think the Federal role should be minimized to taxes (in the form you describe) for essential infrastructure, and let the states compete (ie the way they tax sales, goods, services, etc)[/quote]
The whole debate for me was about the ethical justification of taxes-
I do not think that it matters whether a tax is federal, on a state level or local level when it comes to the ethical justification of it.
However, I do think that the lower the level of most taxes is, the easier it is to vote with your feet.
I would not say that sin taxes are legitimate I´d say tax them like everything else.
The defining characteristic of a tax for me is also not whether a tax is direct or indirect but whether it specifically targets those who use those services or not.
[quote]orion wrote:
BulletproofTiger wrote:
As I stated, poverty has a detrimental impact on society. For economic efficiency to be realized, the efficiency of the citizens must also be optimized.
What is an “efficient citizen”?[/quote]
I’m insinuating that people are inherently lazy. Given this, I feel that attitude held toward education in a nation is directly proportional to the percentage amount of people seeking higher education. Higher education leads to the nation’s efficiency.
This could obviously be a whole new thread, and for that reason I’ve limited my discussion of it, so that we can focus on taxes. To answer your question though, I’d say that an efficient citizen is one who is self driven, unlike the majority of people in the US, and world for that matter. The personal quality of being self-driven leads to pursuit of knowledge, and hence education. A nation of more highly educated people is a more productive one and thus more efficient.
[quote]BulletproofTiger wrote:
orion wrote:
BulletproofTiger wrote:
As I stated, poverty has a detrimental impact on society. For economic efficiency to be realized, the efficiency of the citizens must also be optimized.
What is an “efficient citizen”?
I’m insinuating that people are inherently lazy. Given this, I feel that attitude held toward education in a nation is directly proportional to the percentage amount of people seeking higher education. Higher education leads to the nation’s efficiency.
This could obviously be a whole new thread, and for that reason I’ve limited my discussion of it, so that we can focus on taxes. To answer your question though, I’d say that an efficient citizen is one who is self driven, unlike the majority of people in the US, and world for that matter. The personal quality of being self-driven leads to pursuit of knowledge, and hence education. A nation of more highly educated people is a more productive one and thus more efficient.
[/quote]
I don´t know, I am very far from measuring a society from the point of economic efficiency.
If someone wants to spend his life in front of the tv a country like the US allows him to do that with an minimal effort, hence efficiently.
As long as that does not cost me anything, let him smoke pot and play WOW all day long.
[quote]orion wrote:
SteelyD wrote:
orion wrote:
So basically what I would propose is this: As much indirect taxes as possible, for a specific purpose. Meaning, f.e., a gasoline tax for roads and bridges and for roads and bridges only.
Orion - Just to clarify your definition of ‘indirect tax’-- is that to say ‘indirect consumption tax’? In the case of gasoline, using those monies for transportation infrastructure (as opposed to a toll, a direct consumption tax)?
Also, when we talk about these types of taxes, that opens up the age old debate about “what is government’s function”? I’m not a smoker, but I feel there are excessive “sin” taxes on cigarettes and tobacco, which supposedly go to fund education and other things related to the evils of the product.
Does that fit into your indirect tax model?
I tend to subscribe to the ‘anti-federalist’ argument in that I think the Federal role should be minimized to taxes (in the form you describe) for essential infrastructure, and let the states compete (ie the way they tax sales, goods, services, etc)
The whole debate for me was about the ethical justification of taxes-
I do not think that it matters whether a tax is federal, on a state level or local level when it comes to the ethical justification of it.
However, I do think that the lower the level of most taxes is, the easier it is to vote with your feet.
I would not say that sin taxes are legitimate I´d say tax them like everything else.
The defining characteristic of a tax for me is also not whether a tax is direct or indirect but whether it specifically targets those who use those services or not.
[/quote]
I follow most of the points you make. But I pose this: I see the concept of between the sin tax and making narcotics illegal as the same thing, as the government is negatively reinforcing an action by means of making it more difficult to obtain a product. If you don’t believe in the concept of sin taxes, then do you think governments are not legitimate by making narcotics illegal?
Would you argue for narcotics being legal? At what point is liberty of one worth more than the liberty of another? I’m for the concept of libertarianism, but what about the increased public health cost caused by cigarrette smoking, particularly among the poor? I know you don’t agree with their socialized healthcare anyway, but what of the increased cost on society of their death? Maybe cigarettes aren’t the easiest example to measure a significant social cost, but what of narcotics? With their increased use, private property of citizens would clearly be impacted.
[quote]orion wrote:
BulletproofTiger wrote:
orion wrote:
BulletproofTiger wrote:
As I stated, poverty has a detrimental impact on society. For economic efficiency to be realized, the efficiency of the citizens must also be optimized.
What is an “efficient citizen”?
I’m insinuating that people are inherently lazy. Given this, I feel that attitude held toward education in a nation is directly proportional to the percentage amount of people seeking higher education. Higher education leads to the nation’s efficiency.
This could obviously be a whole new thread, and for that reason I’ve limited my discussion of it, so that we can focus on taxes. To answer your question though, I’d say that an efficient citizen is one who is self driven, unlike the majority of people in the US, and world for that matter. The personal quality of being self-driven leads to pursuit of knowledge, and hence education. A nation of more highly educated people is a more productive one and thus more efficient.
I don´t know, I am very far from measuring a society from the point of economic efficiency.
If someone wants to spend his life in front of the tv a country like the US allows him to do that with an minimal effort, hence efficiently.
As long as that does not cost me anything, let him smoke pot and play WOW all day long.
[/quote]
Laziness and education are correlated.
I’d argue that the pot smoker does cost you indirectly in that a nation of pot smoking tv watchers do not contribute to the capitalistic ingenuity that this country was founded on. Sitting back as an uneducated dip stick plays WOW all day, while China, India, or any country for that matter that is not the US advances past us in technological capability through quality of education, then this hurts our national security and indirectly our economy for example the high tech and auto industries.
[quote]BulletproofTiger wrote:
I follow most of the points you make. But I pose this: I see the concept of between the sin tax and making narcotics illegal as the same thing, as the government is negatively reinforcing an action by means of making it more difficult to obtain a product. If you don’t believe in the concept of sin taxes, then do you think governments are not legitimate by making narcotics illegal?
[/quote]
I believe this.
yes
at no point.
this should be a cost to the public. it should be a cost to those damage themselves or those that choose to insure them.
Society does not own them. they should be free to kill themselves.
I think it is an excellent example and don’t see any difference with narcotics. I have to say, this is tough argument to have when talking about drugs that can be instantly addictive. You have to take emotion out of it and realize the individuals are ultimately responsible for themselves. I will also say that as long as the public is not the hook for healthcare, rehab, and other direct costs, the arguement to keep the illegal has some merit. But the public shouldn’t be on the hook for any of these costs.
This is what you enforce, not selling or purchasing of narcotics.
[quote]BulletproofTiger wrote:
orion wrote:
SteelyD wrote:
orion wrote:
So basically what I would propose is this: As much indirect taxes as possible, for a specific purpose. Meaning, f.e., a gasoline tax for roads and bridges and for roads and bridges only.
Orion - Just to clarify your definition of ‘indirect tax’-- is that to say ‘indirect consumption tax’? In the case of gasoline, using those monies for transportation infrastructure (as opposed to a toll, a direct consumption tax)?
Also, when we talk about these types of taxes, that opens up the age old debate about “what is government’s function”? I’m not a smoker, but I feel there are excessive “sin” taxes on cigarettes and tobacco, which supposedly go to fund education and other things related to the evils of the product.
Does that fit into your indirect tax model?
I tend to subscribe to the ‘anti-federalist’ argument in that I think the Federal role should be minimized to taxes (in the form you describe) for essential infrastructure, and let the states compete (ie the way they tax sales, goods, services, etc)
The whole debate for me was about the ethical justification of taxes-
I do not think that it matters whether a tax is federal, on a state level or local level when it comes to the ethical justification of it.
However, I do think that the lower the level of most taxes is, the easier it is to vote with your feet.
I would not say that sin taxes are legitimate I´d say tax them like everything else.
The defining characteristic of a tax for me is also not whether a tax is direct or indirect but whether it specifically targets those who use those services or not.
I follow most of the points you make. But I pose this: I see the concept of between the sin tax and making narcotics illegal as the same thing, as the government is negatively reinforcing an action by means of making it more difficult to obtain a product. If you don’t believe in the concept of sin taxes, then do you think governments are not legitimate by making narcotics illegal?
Would you argue for narcotics being legal? At what point is liberty of one worth more than the liberty of another? I’m for the concept of libertarianism, but what about the increased public health cost caused by cigarrette smoking, particularly among the poor? I know you don’t agree with their socialized healthcare anyway, but what of the increased cost on society of their death? Maybe cigarettes aren’t the easiest example to measure a significant social cost, but what of narcotics? With their increased use, private property of citizens would clearly be impacted.[/quote]
Well, first of all the private property of US citizens is impacted now by the WOD. Forfeiture laws, RICO and so on.
Then, I do not see how legalization costs anybody anything. Except the drug gangs of course, but I could live with that.
Also, people ODíng and be it with alcohol cost very little, you simply have to remove their bodies from the streets.
And yes, I do not think that it is a legitimate purpose of government to make one person pay for the bad decisions of another.
[quote]BulletproofTiger wrote:
orion wrote:
BulletproofTiger wrote:
orion wrote:
BulletproofTiger wrote:
As I stated, poverty has a detrimental impact on society. For economic efficiency to be realized, the efficiency of the citizens must also be optimized.
What is an “efficient citizen”?
I’m insinuating that people are inherently lazy. Given this, I feel that attitude held toward education in a nation is directly proportional to the percentage amount of people seeking higher education. Higher education leads to the nation’s efficiency.
This could obviously be a whole new thread, and for that reason I’ve limited my discussion of it, so that we can focus on taxes. To answer your question though, I’d say that an efficient citizen is one who is self driven, unlike the majority of people in the US, and world for that matter. The personal quality of being self-driven leads to pursuit of knowledge, and hence education. A nation of more highly educated people is a more productive one and thus more efficient.
I don´t know, I am very far from measuring a society from the point of economic efficiency.
If someone wants to spend his life in front of the tv a country like the US allows him to do that with an minimal effort, hence efficiently.
As long as that does not cost me anything, let him smoke pot and play WOW all day long.
Laziness and education are correlated.
I’d argue that the pot smoker does cost you indirectly in that a nation of pot smoking tv watchers do not contribute to the capitalistic ingenuity that this country was founded on. Sitting back as an uneducated dip stick plays WOW all day, while China, India, or any country for that matter that is not the US advances past us in technological capability through quality of education, then this hurts our national security and indirectly our economy for example the high tech and auto industries.[/quote]
Even if you could force someone to be a model citizen, however you define that, I´d be against that because you have no right to do so. I doubt that you can though.
I find your idea of a capitalist, consumerist utopia a tad disturbing though.
It is these proud mountain dew sipping, potato chip devouring, WOW playing consumers that have made the American game developing community the best in the world-
I also believe that America has a kick-ass carbohydrate based snack industry and nobody equals the US in HFCS- beverages.
So, these people play their part.
[quote]orion wrote:
BulletproofTiger wrote:
orion wrote:
BulletproofTiger wrote:
orion wrote:
BulletproofTiger wrote:
As I stated, poverty has a detrimental impact on society. For economic efficiency to be realized, the efficiency of the citizens must also be optimized.
What is an “efficient citizen”?
I’m insinuating that people are inherently lazy. Given this, I feel that attitude held toward education in a nation is directly proportional to the percentage amount of people seeking higher education. Higher education leads to the nation’s efficiency.
This could obviously be a whole new thread, and for that reason I’ve limited my discussion of it, so that we can focus on taxes. To answer your question though, I’d say that an efficient citizen is one who is self driven, unlike the majority of people in the US, and world for that matter. The personal quality of being self-driven leads to pursuit of knowledge, and hence education. A nation of more highly educated people is a more productive one and thus more efficient.
I don´t know, I am very far from measuring a society from the point of economic efficiency.
If someone wants to spend his life in front of the tv a country like the US allows him to do that with an minimal effort, hence efficiently.
As long as that does not cost me anything, let him smoke pot and play WOW all day long.
Laziness and education are correlated.
I’d argue that the pot smoker does cost you indirectly in that a nation of pot smoking tv watchers do not contribute to the capitalistic ingenuity that this country was founded on. Sitting back as an uneducated dip stick plays WOW all day, while China, India, or any country for that matter that is not the US advances past us in technological capability through quality of education, then this hurts our national security and indirectly our economy for example the high tech and auto industries.
Even if you could force someone to be a model citizen, however you define that, I´d be against that because you have no right to do so. I doubt that you can though.
I find your idea of a capitalist, consumerist utopia a tad disturbing though.
It is these proud mountain dew sipping, potato chip devouring, WOW playing consumers that have made the American game developing community the best in the world-
I also believe that America has a kick-ass carbohydrate based snack industry and nobody equals the US in HFCS- beverages.
So, these people play their part.
[/quote]
Lol. That comment about carbs made me hungry. It is getting to be lunch time though. But, while it does increase the economy in one sliver, I do not agree that it’s good for society whatsoever though or the economy overall. I also believe my view is not sad/disturbing. Governments make laws. That’s how they are legitimate. Laws protect people and are based on moral codes. For a state to look the other way to immoral acts of its citizens, it has failed them. Do you disagree with the seat belt law? I’m sure you do fundamentally, but you really think it’s a bad idea to have such a law?
I’d also like to point out that the country does its best to make its citizens “model.” Do you think kids choose to go to school? If you really belive in absolute liberty than would you say kids should be able to choose not to go to school? In actuality, this would result in a much more “disturbibng” reality. Governments must step in sometimes, and education is one place.
[quote]orion wrote:…Well, first of all the private property of US citizens is impacted now by the WOD. Forfeiture laws, RICO and so on.
Then, I do not see how legalization costs anybody anything. Except the drug gangs of course, but I could live with that.
Also, people ODíng and be it with alcohol cost very little, you simply have to remove their bodies from the streets.
And yes, I do not think that it is a legitimate purpose of government to make one person pay for the bad decisions of another.[/quote]
With the increased use of narcotics do you not see your private property being impacted with increased crime, dui/hit and run, etc? Increasing the occurence of DUI increases the risk to your life. While this increase is slight, I find it unnacceptable. To me human life is the ultimate personal property that the government must protect.
[quote]BulletproofTiger wrote:
orion wrote:
BulletproofTiger wrote:
orion wrote:
BulletproofTiger wrote:
orion wrote:
BulletproofTiger wrote:
As I stated, poverty has a detrimental impact on society. For economic efficiency to be realized, the efficiency of the citizens must also be optimized.
What is an “efficient citizen”?
I’m insinuating that people are inherently lazy. Given this, I feel that attitude held toward education in a nation is directly proportional to the percentage amount of people seeking higher education. Higher education leads to the nation’s efficiency.
This could obviously be a whole new thread, and for that reason I’ve limited my discussion of it, so that we can focus on taxes. To answer your question though, I’d say that an efficient citizen is one who is self driven, unlike the majority of people in the US, and world for that matter. The personal quality of being self-driven leads to pursuit of knowledge, and hence education. A nation of more highly educated people is a more productive one and thus more efficient.
I don´t know, I am very far from measuring a society from the point of economic efficiency.
If someone wants to spend his life in front of the tv a country like the US allows him to do that with an minimal effort, hence efficiently.
As long as that does not cost me anything, let him smoke pot and play WOW all day long.
Laziness and education are correlated.
I’d argue that the pot smoker does cost you indirectly in that a nation of pot smoking tv watchers do not contribute to the capitalistic ingenuity that this country was founded on. Sitting back as an uneducated dip stick plays WOW all day, while China, India, or any country for that matter that is not the US advances past us in technological capability through quality of education, then this hurts our national security and indirectly our economy for example the high tech and auto industries.
Even if you could force someone to be a model citizen, however you define that, I´d be against that because you have no right to do so. I doubt that you can though.
I find your idea of a capitalist, consumerist utopia a tad disturbing though.
It is these proud mountain dew sipping, potato chip devouring, WOW playing consumers that have made the American game developing community the best in the world-
I also believe that America has a kick-ass carbohydrate based snack industry and nobody equals the US in HFCS- beverages.
So, these people play their part.
Lol. That comment about carbs made me hungry. It is getting to be lunch time though. But, while it does increase the economy in one sliver, I do not agree that it’s good for society whatsoever though or the economy overall. I also believe my view is not sad/disturbing. Governments make laws. That’s how they are legitimate. Laws protect people and are based on moral codes. For a state to look the other way to immoral acts of its citizens, it has failed them. Do you disagree with the seat belt law? I’m sure you do fundamentally, but you really think it’s a bad idea to have such a law?[/quote]
Yes, it is a bad idea to have such a law, for the very reason that it makes other laws that go in the nanny direction a bit more legitimate.
Then, what is an immoral act? I know that prostitution in Austria is legal and weed is quasi-decriminalized and we have far less problems with these things than the US.
So, how has out government failed us in that regard?
Plus I do not get your reasoning regarding laws? Is a government legitimate that makes nanny laws or a nanny laws legitimate because they come from government?
[quote]
I’d also like to point out that the country does its best to make its citizens “model.” Do you think kids choose to go to school? If you really belive in absolute liberty than would you say kids should be able to choose not to go to school? In actuality, this would result in a much more “disturbibng” reality. Governments must step in sometimes, and education is one place.[/quote]
I say that my kids WILL go to school, even if government tries to stop them at gunpoint.
That very thing happens in countries where women are forbidden to go to school by their governments and their eduction is often times better than that of their male counterparts because they know that they have the PRIVILEGE to go to school.
Even if you think though that a government should make a minimum education mandatory that is no sufficient reasons for government schools, just like the belief that noone should starve does not require state farming.
[quote]BulletproofTiger wrote:
orion wrote:…Well, first of all the private property of US citizens is impacted now by the WOD. Forfeiture laws, RICO and so on.
Then, I do not see how legalization costs anybody anything. Except the drug gangs of course, but I could live with that.
Also, people ODíng and be it with alcohol cost very little, you simply have to remove their bodies from the streets.
And yes, I do not think that it is a legitimate purpose of government to make one person pay for the bad decisions of another.
With the increased use of narcotics do you not see your private property being impacted with increased crime, dui/hit and run, etc? Increasing the occurence of DUI increases the risk to your life. While this increase is slight, I find it unnacceptable. To me human life is the ultimate personal property that the government must protect.
[/quote]
So to protect live you would have your government take live all around the globe, making drugs so profitable that gang wars kill even more people?
When did you see the last shoot-out between beer breweries or liquor vendors? That was commonplace during the prohibition though.
That is the Valentines Massacre by the way, were Al Capone´s outfit killed seven of the Bugs Morane gang.
Those were BEER- wars. No kidding.
pic did not show
Okay, what about the nanny law outlawing child pornography?