feelz wrote:
Quote:
Protection of the lives of its citizens is one of the core duties of a government Smash. Providing them with free medical care, housing, etc, is not.
Says who?
Says
John Locke. You know. the guy upon who's philosophical theories most of western society is derived. Specifically:
Quote:
CHAP. IX.
Of the Ends of Political Society and Government.
Sec. 123. IF man in the state of nature be so free, as has been said; if he be absolute lord of his own person and possessions, equal to the greatest, and subject to no body, why will he part with his freedom? why will he give up this empire, and subject himself to the dominion and controul of any other power? To which it is obvious to answer, that though in the state of nature he hath such a right, yet the enjoyment of it is very uncertain, and constantly exposed to the invasion of others: for all being kings as much as he, every man his equal, and the greater part no strict observers of equity and justice, the enjoyment of the property he has in this state is very unsafe, very unsecure. This makes him willing to quit a condition, which, however free, is full of fears and continual dangers: and it is not without reason, that he seeks out, and is willing to join in society with others, who are already united, or have a mind to unite, for the mutual preservation of their lives, liberties and estates, which I call by the general name, property.
Sec. 124. The great and chief end, therefore, of men's uniting into commonwealths, and putting themselves under government, is the preservation of their property. To which in the state of nature there are many things wanting.
So. According to Locke, man in his natural state is perfectly free. However, he's also vulnerable. His property and freedom can easily be taken away by others. Thus, he willingly gives up a small amount of his liberty for the protection that joining a society provides. By extension, this is the entire purpose and reason for the existence of the state. To protect the property of those who live under it.
Clearly then, a military is a "core duty" of the government. Protecting us from foreigners who wish us harm also falls under that heading. Making laws also does.
Contrary to Smash's ridiculous assertion, there's nothing inconsistent with giving up some liberty for protection. It's in fact, exactly the entire point of governments. We obviously must strive to keep that cost as low as possible, but simply having a cost does not invalidate the governments actions. As Locke observes, it's that contract that all men make with the state. Always. Arguing about it is like arguing against the sun rising each morning.
The issue of trading freedom (loss of property) for some benefit from the government is more significant. The government does not have to provide those things. It's not part of the default "contract" that we enter into when we choose to leave the natural state and join a society. It's a cost that some people may choose to bear, but not all. Thus, forcing it on all is a violation of rights. It's a violation of the contract.
Remember. The whole point of the government is to protect our property. If the government gets into the business of taking that property from us, it ceases to serve the purpose for which it's supposed to exist. It becomes a tool of oppression instead. While that tool may look nice and have soft edges and come in the form of goodies that they government promises to give us, it's still oppression.
Quote:
You are the only industrialized country without universal health care. Ask any citizen of any country with universal health care if they think it is not a duty of their government to provide it.
Just because many people do something does not make it a wise or "right" thing to do.
I'll also suggest that most people living in those countries don't know much about Locke or his writings. Which is strange since they're the cornerstone of modern liberalism. You'd almost think they were deliberately kept ignorant...
Quote:
I can assure you that the politician here who would say something like that would never win an election or be kicked out of office the next time we get to vote. It would be political suicide.
Of course! But that's because one of the flaws of democracy is that it can end out in a state where the people simply vote themselves benefits from the government. The first step towards arriving there is to convince the public that there's no cost to their freedom of course, which requires that they not understand that property is a right (and that this includes not being taxed frivolously). The second is to divide them into smaller groups that compete for "goodies" from the government. This fosters the idea that if they don't get some benefit someone else will get it instead and they'll be worse off as a result. You use this process to get the people dependent on entitlement from the government. Once in that state, they can't ever vote against entitlement because it's seen as hurting themselves.
Unfortunately, once a state gets to that point, it's almost impossible to turn back. The economy becomes tuned to a "zero sum" process. So if any group of people try to prevent the expansion of entitlement (and the accompanying cost) they end up marginalized by all the other groups.
Have you ever played the "red/green game? If you have, you should understand this process. No group will vote to prevent something, even once they realize that it's just hurting them. They do this because they can't get enough people to all go along with them. As long as the system is rigged in this way, those who demand goodies will get them, and those that don't get punished for not doing so. End result is that everyone keeps voting themselves more and more until the entire system collapses.
Take a gander at economies in the rest of the industrialized world. Pay close attention to the ratio between Federal Revenue and GDP. Note that in all those countries, it's much much higher then in the US. Note also, that over time, the trend of this ratio in those nations has been steadily upwards. When do you think that trend will reverse? It's a percentage. When it reaches 100% (actually, when it just gets near 100%), the economy will simply not be able to provide for all the things that the government has promised. But democracy doesn't have any mechanism to address this. If the people vote for something, they get it, right? The result is that either the economy collapses, or some benefits will have to be trimmed. But you've got that "zero sum" thing going on. Each group will fight to not be the group that loses something, resulting in more conflict over resources (although resources in this case is government entitlement to the voting blocks). The core problem wont be addressed, costs will continue to go up, the economy will increasingly run in the red and eventually it'll collapse anyway.
It may take another 50 years, but unless something changes it'll eventually happen. That or the people will accept a constantly declining standard of living (the very things they gave their freedom for) as the economy becomes increasingly unable to provide all those goodies. In that case, instead of collapse, you'll just have an increasingly impoverished society who likely wont even realize what they've lost as a result of their very poor choices.
Sorry. Universal health care may be neato and all. But I don't want that for my country. Just because you can do a thing doesn't mean you should.
Quote:
But then again I guess you are right and the rest of the world is wrong.
Yes. They are. One of the things you have to realize is that the socio-economic principles you're talking about have really only existed for the last hundred years or so, and have really only been in use for the last 60-70. It's a progressive thing (hah!). The Soviet Union collapsed economically because it adopted the concepts of government provided livelyhood earlier then most and to a greater degree then most. Their collapse happened faster. It may take twice as long for more modest forms of socialism to reach the same collapse point, but they will. More importantly, along the way there will be a gradual decline as industry becomes increasingly less competitive, products become more unobtainable, unemployment rises, and live just kinda steadily gets more sucky.
