Home Politics & Debate
At The Mix, we want to make our services as helpful as we can. To do this, we’d love to ask you a few questions about you, your visit to The Mix and its impact. It should take only about 5-10 minutes to complete. Take this survey and get a chance at winning a £200 Amazon voucher​.
Come and join our Support Circle, every Tuesday, 8 - 9:30pm! Sign up here
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨

Leave us alone?

Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
Hi all,

I wonder what people think about the literal nanny state we live in, particularly with regards to health. It's a sorry story, but it's both the government and the media to blame.

Don't you think it's sad that we are no longer free to make our own conclusion and therefore, decision, even if it is misinformed or ignorant? Maybe (and this almost always is the case) it's not, and we know exactly the risks of walking down stairs whilst simultaneously scratching our arse, drinking "more than we should" or *insert behavior*.

Ofcourse we live in a highly socialised country, which in my opinion is a good thing - but there is no price on liberty and the ridiculous "Health and Safety" laws (which really are just paying lip service to the trend in number of compensation claims), the almost certain increase in alcohol price intending to force "problem drinkers" to drink less and the constant vilification of anyone who does anything remotely hazardous to their health is a sure precursor to complete loss of liberty. Let's be honest, it's nothing to do with public health, it's to do with saving, no, generating money.

Those generations before us had much more liberty and arguably much better life, even without our technology. Really it's our technology that facilitates all of this bureaucracy.

Get your bubble wrap on boys, we're goin' the shop.
«1

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Really it's our technology that facilitates all of this bureaucracy.

    No, it is your self proclaimed love of socialism.

    Socialism means you desire someone to hold your hand and another to wipe your arse(as you eloquently put it), while you walk down the stairs (perhaps with your licence to do so).

    Cause and effect.

    You are not alone, as evidenced by the general public's love of the NHS.

    You are getting what you want (and more than likely not what you need). If a person proclaims they need their health taking care of it is the prima facie evidence that person is incompetent to do so.

    The guardian/ward relationship ensues.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    No, it is your self proclaimed love of socialism.

    Socialism means you desire someone to hold your hand and another to wipe your arse(as you eloquently put it), while you walk down the stairs (perhaps with your licence to do so).

    Cause and effect.

    You are not alone, as evidenced by the general public's love of the NHS.

    You are getting what you want (and more than likely not what you need). If a person proclaims they need their health taking care of it is the prima facie evidence that person is incompetent to do so.

    The guardian/ward relationship ensues.
    Nonsense, the idea of socialism is to promote equality - with regard to health, to ensure that the pauper from a poor family does not die from somthing that the masses can easily pay to successfully treat - not the plainly false notion you came up with. Neither did I proclaim love for socialism, but it's an ideal isn't it? Fairness, opportunity - a greater perspective and a belief in more than just yourself but your community and society since we all benefit from eachother. It's a humanistic motif, "alone we are weak but together strong" etc, and a mutually beneficial system. We all need eachother economically. Socialism isn't "free" or "being looked after" since all expense is covered in taxes - the only difference is expense is spread out for the good of the whole nation as opposed to the "privileged few".

    Nowhere does socialism require any degree of infringment on social freedoms. That is communism - and there's a vast difference.

    No doubt that silver spoon is already up your arse.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Nonsense, the idea of socialism is to promote equality - with regard to health, to ensure that the pauper from a poor family does not die from somthing that the masses can easily pay to successfully treat - not the plainly false notion you came up with. Neither did I proclaim love for socialism, but it's an ideal isn't it? Fairness, opportunity - a greater perspective and a belief in more than just yourself but your community and society since we all benefit from eachother. It's a humanistic motif, "alone we are weak but together strong" etc, and a mutually beneficial system. We all need eachother economically. Socialism isn't "free" or "being looked after" since all expense is covered in taxes - the only difference is expense is spread out for the good of the whole nation as opposed to the "privileged few".

    The diagnosis does not look good. I think it is a severe case of indoctrination but you do have youth on your side. It is not too late.
    Nowhere does socialism require any degree of infringment on social freedoms.

    All contractual obligations infringe your liberties to some extent. That is a legal maxim.
    That is communism - and there's a vast difference.

    I have never seen much difference in practice, only academia's theories.
    No doubt that silver spoon is already up your arse.

    Would you care to elaborate ?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru

    All contractual obligations infringe your liberties to some extent. That is a legal maxim.

    Well, sure.

    But whoever said that liberty was the only value? Or the most important?

    And if anyone did say that, why on earth should we accept it as true?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    No, it is your self proclaimed love of socialism.

    Intersting take, considering that "think of the children", "something must be done" and "there should be a law to stop that" are usually the refrains of the right.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    MoK wrote: »
    Intersting take, considering that "think of the children", "something must be done" and "there should be a law to stop that" are usually the refrains of the right.

    Are they?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Are they?
    Often, perhaps more than usually. Libertarianism, not so much, but social conservatism, certainly. Things like banning drugs, censorship of the media, bans on things like abortion, all come from the right. That's not to say the left doesn't have equivalents, such as banning racist language, banning cruelty to animals, banning things with an environmental impact, etc (I say "banning" to cover anything from legal sanctions to encouraging particularly organisations to change policies on it).

    But on the OP, it seems fairly simple to me. We live in a society, where we all pay for healthcare, so it makes sense to tax those substances that have a disproportionate impact on the resources. And even if we lived in America, where we all have our own separate insurance, there would still be the additional cost to the police, for example. As for health and safety, I dunno about you, but personally I'm happy to do a job where I get a computer chair that won't gradually destroy my back over 30 years. I'm happy my friends who work in heavy industry get ear defenders so they don't end up deaf towards the end of their careers. I'm less sympathetic to health and safety impacting on people's leisure activities, but we are all forced to go to work (well, most of us), so I think our employers should be required to do everything in their power to make sure we don't suffer the ill effects of it. I think a working environment should take into account the fact that the majority of people have no real choice but to be there, and should expect certain standards of care and certain standards of behaviour from fellow employees and bosses. So I have no problem with enforcing workplace rules that wouldn't apply more generally.

    But having said that, the vast majority of reported health and safety rules (particularly the European ones) are bullshit to some degree, peddled by the likes of the Daily Fail. In fact a favourite tactic is to pick a new European law to be outraged by, and neglect to tell anyone that it's identical to the existing British law.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Often, perhaps more than usually. Libertarianism, not so much, but social conservatism, certainly. Things like banning drugs, censorship of the media, bans on things like abortion, all come from the right. That's not to say the left doesn't have equivalents, such as banning racist language, banning cruelty to animals, banning things with an environmental impact, etc (I say "banning" to cover anything from legal sanctions to encouraging particularly organisations to change policies on it).

    Social conservatism is as much practiced by the left as the right - look at Cuba on homosexuality and censorship of the media is hardly exclusively right (Andrea Dworkin and porn). Legalisation of drugs is often pushed by right wing libertarian parties (Guido Fawkes) and it's not like left wing governments legalise them (still illegal under the USSR, who were also much tougher on alchol than its more right wing replacements)

    It's also a very narrow definition of liberty. If you look at ID cards - Labour want them in, Tories will repeal (which fits with their past history - Atlee kept the emergency ID cards from WW2, they weren't abolished until Churchill came into power again). It's the left as well who want to put restrictions on people's pay and its mainly on the left who want to ban political parties, such as the BNP.

    There is an authoritarian right wing tradition, but there is an equally authoritarian left wing tradition

    (And to go back to the original question interestingly I was in Sweden over the summer and visited a building site - which wasn't fenced off, no-one wore helmets or heavy boots and we just wandered across. One of the Swedes said that they had much weaker H&S than the UK did, so even that is not a left vs right thing)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    jamelia wrote: »
    Well, sure.

    But whoever said that liberty was the only value? Or the most important?

    And if anyone did say that, why on earth should we accept it as true?

    I am not forcing you to accept anything, or impose values on you.

    Others (some calling themselves socialists) may.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Social conservatism is as much practiced by the left as the right

    Left/Right is a false dichotomy. Both are sides of the same coin.

    The conservatives (right) see man as a body freely roaming the earth, building sand piles or factories -- with an electronic computer inside his skull, controlled from Westminster. The liberals (left) see man as a soul freewheeling to the farthest reaches of the universe -- but wearing chains from nose to toes when he crosses the street to buy a loaf of bread.

    Each camp wants to control the realm it regards as metaphysically important; each grants freedom only to the activities it despises…..‘Control,‘ to both camps, means the power to rule by physical force. The conservatives want to rule man’s consciousness; the liberals, his body.
    *

    * adapted from a then old (and now deceased) Russian dingbat.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Social conservatism is as much practiced by the left as the right - look at Cuba on homosexuality and censorship of the media is hardly exclusively right (Andrea Dworkin and porn). Legalisation of drugs is often pushed by right wing libertarian parties (Guido Fawkes) and it's not like left wing governments legalise them (still illegal under the USSR, who were also much tougher on alchol than its more right wing replacements)

    It's also a very narrow definition of liberty. If you look at ID cards - Labour want them in, Tories will repeal (which fits with their past history - Atlee kept the emergency ID cards from WW2, they weren't abolished until Churchill came into power again). It's the left as well who want to put restrictions on people's pay and its mainly on the left who want to ban political parties, such as the BNP.

    There is an authoritarian right wing tradition, but there is an equally authoritarian left wing tradition
    Maybe so, but may I point out that the authoritarian left wing tradition tends to be restricted to left wing dictatorships only, whereas the authoritarian right wing tradition is alive and well in practically all right wing governments, democratic or otherwise...

    A democratically elected left wing government is invariably far less restrictive of liberty and authoritarian than its right wing counterpart would be.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Social conservatism is as much practiced by the left as the right - look at Cuba on homosexuality and censorship of the media is hardly exclusively right (Andrea Dworkin and porn). Legalisation of drugs is often pushed by right wing libertarian parties (Guido Fawkes) and it's not like left wing governments legalise them (still illegal under the USSR, who were also much tougher on alchol than its more right wing replacements)
    Indeed, but I would say that there are policies we more generally associate with the right, and others we generally associate with the left. And pointing out examples of left wing governments adopting policies more associated with the right or vice versa doesn't change the fact that the pressure for such policies tends to come from the right or left respectively. That's assuming you see left and right as anything more than an economic position, which is all it really is.
    It's also a very narrow definition of liberty. If you look at ID cards - Labour want them in, Tories will repeal (which fits with their past history - Atlee kept the emergency ID cards from WW2, they weren't abolished until Churchill came into power again). It's the left as well who want to put restrictions on people's pay and its mainly on the left who want to ban political parties, such as the BNP.

    There is an authoritarian right wing tradition, but there is an equally authoritarian left wing tradition
    Isn't that what I said? The wish to silence things you don't agree with isn't something that any particular political persuasion has a monopoly on (although it's obviously more common the more authoritarian you get in any political persuasion). Of course left-wing people are going to be more likely to be in favour of restrictions on pay. That is a fundamentally left-wing position, just like the restrictions that result from property rights are a fundamentally right-wing position. Although in reality, you can point to left and right wing parties that will accept both of these restrictions to varying degrees.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    Maybe so, but may I point out that the authoritarian left wing tradition tends to be restricted to left wing dictatorships only, whereas the authoritarian right wing tradition is alive and well in practically all right wing governments, democratic or otherwise...

    A democratically elected left wing government is invariably far less restrictive of liberty and authoritarian than its right wing counterpart would be.

    Really - I would compare Atlee and Churchill (post war) and see who is the most authoritarian eg ID cards

    I'm also suprised that you think David Davis is more authoritarian than Jack Straw or David Cameron than Tony Blair, whilst we'll have to see in Govt the evidence looks like the Tories will be less authoritarian.

    And don't forget that the phrase elected dictatorship, so often thrown against Thatcher was actually invented to describe left wing labour Governments of the 70 and their rolling back of civil liberties.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Indeed, but I would say that there are policies we more generally associate with the right, and others we generally associate with the left. And pointing out examples of left wing governments adopting policies more associated with the right or vice versa doesn't change the fact that the pressure for such policies tends to come from the right or left respectively. That's assuming you see left and right as anything more than an economic position, which is all it really is..

    I'd agree that defining left and right is always difficult, and if forced I would define them as purely economic. However assuming that in day to day use its a bit wider a quick look at political history should show you that there is a right wing libertarian tradition as powerful (if not more so) than the authoritarian tradition. In fact you could argue that liberalism is intrinsically right wing (the original 19th century liberals would be much closer to today's Conservatives than they would to the modern Liberal Democrats - small government and free marketeers). And of course the original right and left were in the French revolution with the rights being the moderates who wanted a constitutional monarchy with safeguards and the left being the radicals who were more than happy to preside over 'the terror'

    However, I'm not taking issue with the fact there are right wing authoritarians, just that this is more the preserve of the right than the left.

    Isn't that what I said? The wish to silence things you don't agree with isn't something that any particular political persuasion has a monopoly on (although it's obviously more common the more authoritarian you get in any political persuasion). Of course left-wing people are going to be more likely to be in favour of restrictions on pay. That is a fundamentally left-wing position, just like the restrictions that result from property rights are a fundamentally right-wing position. Although in reality, you can point to left and right wing parties that will accept both of these restrictions to varying degrees

    Yeah looking again at what you wrote I don't think we disagree too much
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Current UK politics is an odd one, because Labour are massively more authoritarian than the Tories, but atm, I would put the Lib Dems as both the least authoritarian of the three, and the most left leaning of them too. But it's only Labour that are wankers on this issue, and I hope that if the Tories get in, they actually repeal a lot of this BS. Because it's one thing to oppose it when you're in opposition, but when in government, people have always shown themselves reluctant to get rid of powers they already have.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Possibly, though I'd argue if you look at the details of Government behind the headlines labour are much more left-wing than popularly supposed (and they present themselves in different ways to different audiences as well, but the media, being middle-class, tend to concentrate more on the middle class stories). However even that doesn't invalidate the proposal, Atlee presided over a generally more authoritarian government than Churchill, Sunny Jim may have been a liberal, but Wilson wasn't (neither was Thatcher of course though just to complicate matters she was one of the sponsors for the legalisation of homosexuality - which just shows how complex people's views are).

    That said within a democracy such as the UK both economically and socially you are talking about Governments within a pretty narrow range. No Govt has shown it would be liberal enough to legalise drugs, but then none have introduced the British NKVD. Even economically you're talking a difference between a right wing Govt of around Govt spending of 40% of GDP and a leftwing one being 50%
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    That said within a democracy such as the UK both economically and socially you are talking about Governments within a pretty narrow range. No Govt has shown it would be liberal enough to legalise drugs, but then none have introduced the British NKVD. Even economically you're talking a difference between a right wing Govt of around Govt spending of 40% of GDP and a leftwing one being 50%

    Those statistics relate to relatively recent times, say the last 50 years or so. At the beginning of the 20th century that % was around 10%.

    More telling is that the 19th century, for the most part, kept around the 10% figure.

    Would you agree those figures suggest a big shift towards authoritarianism (and whichever socialism/fascism/communism label you want to pin on it) ?

    As Il Duce presciently said,
    For if the nineteenth century was a century of individualism it may be expected that this will be the century of collectivism and hence the century of the State.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Those statistics relate to relatively recent times, say the last 50 years or so. At the beginning of the 20th century that % was around 10%.

    More telling is that the 19th century, for the most part, kept around the 10% figure.

    Would you agree those figures suggest a big shift towards authoritarianism (and whichever socialism/fascism/communism label you want to pin on it) ?

    As Il Duce presciently said,

    Well yes, but then some authoritarianism is a good thing...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Well yes, but then some authoritarianism is a good thing...

    Didn't he get his somes wrong ?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Those statistics relate to relatively recent times, say the last 50 years or so. At the beginning of the 20th century that % was around 10%.

    More telling is that the 19th century, for the most part, kept around the 10% figure.

    Would you agree those figures suggest a big shift towards the civilisation and humanisation of man?
    Corrected that for you.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    Corrected that for you.

    Your true colours are coming to the service. There are careers available for those with a communist/fascist personality disorder who wish to impose their will on others.

    http://fp1.centurytel.net/marshallco/corroff.htm

    Good luck.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Those statistics relate to relatively recent times, say the last 50 years or so. At the beginning of the 20th century that % was around 10%.

    More telling is that the 19th century, for the most part, kept around the 10% figure.

    Would you agree those figures suggest a big shift towards authoritarianism (and whichever socialism/fascism/communism label you want to pin on it) ?

    What a crock of shit.

    In the 19th century, if you couldn't afford food, you starved. If you couldn't afford shoes, you went barefoot. If you couldn't afford medical or dental care, your body decayed, slowly and painfully.

    Those things are no longer true.

    However, nothing about that establishes that the UK is now more authoritarian than it was then. Got any evidence for that wildly inaccurate claim? What fundamental rights and liberties did people have in the 19th century that have since been stripped away? The right to vote? Oh no, hang on, we now have a full franchise for all, including women and those without property. The right to have sex with whomever one pleases? Oh no, hang on, homosexuality was illegal in the 19th century.

    If anything, society now is both more liberal AND more egalitarian.

    But of course, you're just going to bang on about how being made to pay taxes is on a par with slavery. Well, if that's what you think, bloody well argue for it instead of talking in riddles like a tedious undergraduate who last week discovered Ayn Rand and now thinks she's some kind of philosophical genius. (Clue for you: she isn't.)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    While I am afforded a moment or two, let us examine Aladdin's definition of
    "the civilisation and humanisation of man"

    Namely, an increase in the % of GDP that the Government spends.

    A logical conclusion of that definition may claim that 100% is nirvana.

    However in this day of crazy economics, 100% is not the ceiling.

    I could suggest an insane institution rather than a correctional one, but it appears you are in the majority here (and I would not want to insult your God).

    The UK budget deficit is predicted to rise from 40% of GDP , to 100% of GDP by 2014. And who cares ? Most of the voices I hear or articles I read request that the Govt. does something about it !

    At least it is entertaining, provided one can stay somewhat remote of the madness.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Awesome. Nothing makes me happier than pointing out people's really basic errors of reasoning.


    let us examine Aladdin's definition of

    "the civilisation and humanisation of man"


    Namely, an increase in the % of GDP that the Government spends.

    FIrst off: nowhere did Aladdin define the civilisation and humanisation of man as an increase in government spending.

    He said that an increase in government spending has led to the civilisation and humanisation of man; it has caused it. It is not synonymous with it.

    A logical conclusion of that definition may claim that 100% is nirvana.

    No idea how you're defining nirvana. But Aladdin's claim in no way commits him to the argument that "some government spending is good; more is better".

    We can easily argue that society is more civilised and humane when there is some redistributive taxation, but when this is over a certain threshold, it would get less civilised and humane. This is because of the idea of plural and conflicting social values, which need to be balanced. Liberty is not the only value, so there is no justification for maximising it and the cost of any amount of equality or justice. However, neither can we maximise equality and totally diminish liberty. It's a balancing act. Think that liberty is the only thing that matters? Like I said, argue for it.

    But before you try arguing for it, I suggest you take an elementary class in Critical Thinking or Reasoning, because your grasp pf basic logic is terrible and your attempt at argumentation is so poor as to make every one of your posts unintelligible. Clarity is the first virtue of language, you know.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    jamelia wrote: »
    What a crock of shit.

    Perhaps. I was quoting official statistics so you may have a point
    In the 19th century, if you couldn't afford food, you starved. If you couldn't afford shoes, you went barefoot. If you couldn't afford medical or dental care, your body decayed, slowly and painfully.

    I did not realise how old you were. I bet you have quite a few tales to tell.
    Those things are no longer true.

    I would say all those statements are just as true whenever they are said.
    However, nothing about that establishes that the UK is now more authoritarian than it was then. Got any evidence for that wildly inaccurate claim? What fundamental rights and liberties did people have in the 19th century that have since been stripped away? The right to vote? Oh no, hang on, we now have a full franchise for all, including women and those without property. The right to have sex with whomever one pleases? Oh no, hang on, homosexuality was illegal in the 19th century.

    All laws infringe your liberty to some extent.I will let you do a head count.
    But of course, you're just going to bang on about how being made to pay taxes is on a par with slavery. Well, if that's what you think, bloody well argue for it instead of talking in riddles like a tedious undergraduate who last week discovered Ayn Rand and now thinks she's some kind of philosophical genius. (Clue for you: she isn't.)

    I will have to decline your kind invite since crusading is not for me.

    A reasoned case could be made that all taxes are voluntary. There are ways to avoid most of the ones I am aware of. Perhaps you get what you deserve in life ? Just a thought.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    God you're tedious. I know you think you're clever; but if you really are, prove it with some clear, explicit argument instead of the evasive and empty riddles.

    Otherwise I can no longer be bothered to discuss with you, because discussion requires trying to convey meaning.

    But to conclude, I will say this: of course all laws reduce your liberty to some extent. (I wouldn't say infringe, since this is a value-laden, moralised term).

    But that doesn't establish that the existence of laws necessarily means a society is authoritarian, does it? A law preventing you from stabbing people is hardly an authoritarian move. If anything, it protects my liberty form those who want to infringe it by stabbing me.

    So you've got to argue that there is something authoritarian or tyrannical about the content of specific laws, such as laws surrounding taxation. You can't just assume that; you've got to argue for it. Suggesting that it reduces your liberty is so obvious and banal as to be pointless. What you need to argue for is why such a reduction in your liberty is authoritarian or unjust.

    Sadly, I doubt you're up to the job of arguing that. But if you are, I'd be willing to engage with you then.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Your true colours are coming to the service. There are careers available for those with a communist/fascist personality disorder who wish to impose their will on others.

    http://fp1.centurytel.net/marshallco/corroff.htm

    Good luck.
    I'd rather live in a society in which children are not slaved for labour, the sick are not left to die through being unable to pay for healthcare, and those in need of help actually getting some, if it's all the same to you.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The diagnosis does not look good. I think it is a severe case of indoctrination but you do have youth on your side. It is not too late.
    Patronise much?

    This is a messageboard for young people to debate on, so you shouldn't use somebody's age against them.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Namaste wrote: »
    Patronise much?

    This is a messageboard for young people to debate on, so you shouldn't use somebody's age against them.

    Cheers, but don't worry - I think he's just well on the conservative bandwagon and his age has finally got to him :thumb: :D

    Ad hom, ad hom, ad nausium.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    All laws infringe your liberty to some extent.I will let you do a head count.

    Including laws of property. But libertarians always forget that one and assume somehow that the right to property is some sort of natural right, whereas the others are the infringement of a tyrannical government. Without a government, you have no property, you only have what you can keep hold of through the laws of nature. And the laws of nature say that if I'm bigger than you or have more guns than you and I want what you have, it's mine. Funny how people always want the government to protect certain rights for them, yet when they protect different rights for other people that they don't stand to benefit from, suddenly the whole concept of government is the issue. And we'll conveniently ignore the fact that you only have personal wealth because we have a system of government that recognises it and protects it.

    Does it depress you that the countries that do what we suggest are the most successful by absolutely any measure you care to mention, whereas the ones that do what you suggest are......well Dubai?
Sign In or Register to comment.