- 20 Feb 2013 10:48
#14177341
Here I thought that the point of free health-care was to make sure that poor people get adequate treatment.
Now I find that the point of a free health-care system is to restrict the quality of health-care we all can obtain to the lowest common denominator?
Close enough. I don't have anything against governance as such. My opposition is to government.
No, there isn't. The answer is that each power should reside at the most local level possible. Thus national defence has to stay with the national government, but responsibility for schools, streets, wages, drug control, pornography, gun control, health-care, etc, etc. should be at the local level (with inter-local-governmental cooperation as necessary).
Again, this is a far second best to leaving those powers with individuals.
I use the "left alone in their own homes" phrase to highlight the inevitably coercive and intrusive nature of government. It forces itself and its rules on every citizen, and thus is ready to use force even against perfectly peaceful and harmless people.
So ideally, people couldn't be forced to pay taxes or obey drug prohibition laws, right?
IT appears that your "government" is merely a voluntary organisation of all who choose to vote and abide by the decisions of the majority. I have no problem with it under those terms.
No. It was under military occupation. Not the same thing.
It was perceived as legitimate in Germany, but not in Poland (at least not early on; those things change over time)
Poland was under military occupation, not ruled by a government. The military occupation was, in turn, answerable to a foreign government, but not to a Polish one.
As for anarchy being my "dream state", I really think you know better by know. But just in case you are genuinely confused, let me clarify.
My "dream state" is one in which the NAP is considered the fundamental principle regarding the legitimate use of force. Every society in which that is the case is an anarchy, but not every anarchy is a society in which that is the case. Get it?
RhetoricThug wrote:This defeats the point of the free health-care. Eran, you will still be dividing service between the rich and the poor.
Here I thought that the point of free health-care was to make sure that poor people get adequate treatment.
Now I find that the point of a free health-care system is to restrict the quality of health-care we all can obtain to the lowest common denominator?
Suska wrote:Under my definition of the term this is governance.
Close enough. I don't have anything against governance as such. My opposition is to government.
This is an ambiguous proposition. Do you mean military power? Economic policy? Do you mean authority over social policy? Judgment's regarding legal procedure? These are not a single thing called "powers".
No, there isn't. The answer is that each power should reside at the most local level possible. Thus national defence has to stay with the national government, but responsibility for schools, streets, wages, drug control, pornography, gun control, health-care, etc, etc. should be at the local level (with inter-local-governmental cooperation as necessary).
Again, this is a far second best to leaving those powers with individuals.
The ambiguity here is problematic. There is a necessity for a division of powers mandated explicitly in our constitution. I may be expected to understand what you mean, but I do not, it is not explained by what you say, what does "alone" and "home" mean to you? The implications are enormous given the influence of wealth and the potential lethality of violence.
I use the "left alone in their own homes" phrase to highlight the inevitably coercive and intrusive nature of government. It forces itself and its rules on every citizen, and thus is ready to use force even against perfectly peaceful and harmless people.
Ideally everyone votes on everything and everyone has the power to withdraw from agreements, without the power to withdraw they would have a veto power so that nothing done in their name is something they don't actively support. Nothing would happen in this case which was not with the full consent of those affected.
So ideally, people couldn't be forced to pay taxes or obey drug prohibition laws, right?
IT appears that your "government" is merely a voluntary organisation of all who choose to vote and abide by the decisions of the majority. I have no problem with it under those terms.
Did occupied Poland in 1940 have a government in your language?
No. It was under military occupation. Not the same thing.
Was the Nazi government "perceived as legitimate" or "illegitimate"?
It was perceived as legitimate in Germany, but not in Poland (at least not early on; those things change over time)
If it was "perceived as illegitimate", was the General Government therefore not a government? And if not, was Poland therefore in "anarchy", your dream state?
Poland was under military occupation, not ruled by a government. The military occupation was, in turn, answerable to a foreign government, but not to a Polish one.
As for anarchy being my "dream state", I really think you know better by know. But just in case you are genuinely confused, let me clarify.
My "dream state" is one in which the NAP is considered the fundamental principle regarding the legitimate use of force. Every society in which that is the case is an anarchy, but not every anarchy is a society in which that is the case. Get it?
Free men are not equal and equal men are not free.
Government is not the solution. Government is the problem.
Government is not the solution. Government is the problem.