03 Aug 05
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesAnd what happens to you, exactly, if you have nothing to offer in trade?
Absolutely not. Take from nobody. You're the one who wants to take from people via taxation.
Capitalists don't take from anybody. They trade.
The post about Niger made me think of this. Pure capitalism would suggest that the solution to the problem is for the starving people to 'buy' (not necessarily with cash) the food they need.
In return for what, exactly? About the only thing they could conceivably offer is their own labour. But who wants it? Even though the price would probably be obscenely cheap, who actually wants it?
03 Aug 05
Originally posted by StarrmanTo avert world hunger, he would have to take food from those with a surplus of food. Without consent, this would be called stealing. For poverty, replace food with money. Stealing or fraud.
Let us take a theoretical position that Superman exists. Now although he is endowed with superhuman strength, the power of flight, x-ray eyes, near invulnerability etc. He does not act in the best interests of humans unless it is in a reactionary capacity. For example, someone fires a nuclear missile at America and he flies it into space where it detonat ...[text shortened]... he purpose of this thread and is god morally bound to intervene to stop future pain/strife etc.?
To stop pollution, he would have to stop people from polluting. This would probably be regarded as trampling on their rights, and/or bad for the economy.
To stop war... not only would he be putting millions of people out of jobs, but he'd probably have to impose restrictions on where certain people could go (false imprisonment), stop them saying provocative things to each other (freedom of speech), and generally terrify them into submission.
No God is an island...
03 Aug 05
Originally posted by orfeoTaking care of the Niger problem is the job of charities and humanitarian organisations, not the government. Beaurocracy is the biggest waste of money.
And what happens to you, exactly, if you have nothing to offer in trade?
The post about Niger made me think of this. Pure capitalism would suggest that the solution to the problem is for the starving people to 'buy' (not necessarily with cash) the food they need.
In return for what, exactly? About the only thing they could conceivably offer is their ...[text shortened]... ut who wants it? Even though the price would probably be obscenely cheap, who actually wants it?
03 Aug 05
Originally posted by HalitoseWell, charities aren't capitalists either, actually, so you're agreeing with me. I didn't say it WAS the job of government.
Taking care of the Niger problem is the job of charities and humanitarian organisations, not the government. Beaurocracy is the biggest waste of money.
What do you see as the role of government, exactly? I'm genuinely interested.
03 Aug 05
Originally posted by orfeoJustice and National Defence are the only ones I can think of right now.
Well, charities aren't capitalists either, actually, so you're agreeing with me. I didn't say it WAS the job of government.
What do you see as the role of government, exactly? I'm genuinely interested.
03 Aug 05
Originally posted by StarrmanThe three branches of civil government: judicial, legislative and executive. (Maybe justice was an over-simplification). Let me just add that the powers of these branches should be seperated in a system of checks and balances.
Lol, now that's funny. Justice? Since when has justice been anything to do with government?
03 Aug 05
Originally posted by HalitoseIt depends on what you mean by 'justice'.
Justice and National Defence are the only ones I can think of right now.
There are three arms of government - the judiciary (courts), the executive (what's often thought of as 'government'😉, and the legislature (in USA, Congress). They all have a role in making and administering laws, which is the classic function of government.
I'd be interested to know if there ANY kinds of services you think government should provide, or if it should be entirely left in the hands of the private sector and/or charitable bodies.
Welfare payments?
Hospitals?
Postal services?
Water and electricity?
Sewage?
Roads?
Schools?
That's just a random sample, and please don't assume what my own answers would be.
03 Aug 05
Originally posted by orfeoSome of those options are debatable. Depends if they will form profitable private sector corporations. One that for me is a definite no-no for governement is education. One cannot entrust any state with the moulding of the minds of the future voters. The control of education should be in the hands of the parents.
It depends on what you mean by 'justice'.
There are three arms of government - the judiciary (courts), the executive (what's often thought of as 'government'😉, and the legislature (in USA, Congress). They all have a role in making and administering laws, which is the classic function of government.
I'd be interested to know if there ANY kinds of s ...[text shortened]... Schools?
That's just a random sample, and please don't assume what my own answers would be.
03 Aug 05
Originally posted by HalitoseParents?! Are you sure??
Some of those options are debatable. Depends if they will form profitable private sector corporations. One that for me is a definite no-no for governement is education. One cannot entrust any state with the moulding of the minds of the future voters. The control of education should be in the hands of the parents.
03 Aug 05
Originally posted by HalitoseI wouldn't entrust the education of children to half the parents in the world. Sheesh, that sounds like a recipe for disaster and the stupidity of generations to come.
Some of those options are debatable. Depends if they will form profitable private sector corporations. One that for me is a definite no-no for governement is education. One cannot entrust any state with the moulding of the minds of the future voters. The control of education should be in the hands of the parents.
03 Aug 05
Originally posted by lucifershammerPretty much what I was thinking. There are plenty of parents who either are thankful there are people who decide most of these things for them, or regard schools as glorified babysitters who should be doing the entire parenting job for them.
Parents?! Are you sure??
Try getting into higher education on that basis, as well.
"What was your grade?"
"Well, my Dad gave me an A because I learnt everything HE knew."
Someone, somewhere has to do the job of 'moulding minds'. Why not the State? Here in Australia a very large proportion of schools are government-run, but I'm pretty sure the party in power isn't churning out thousands of little future voters.
03 Aug 05
Originally posted by orfeoAnd the military can be more effective if the education is taught and molded by the state.
Pretty much what I was thinking. There are plenty of parents who either are thankful there are people who decide most of these things for them, or regard schools as glorified babysitters who should be doing the entire parenting job for them.
Try getting into higher education on that basis, as well.
"What was your grade?"
"Well, my Dad gave me an A b ...[text shortened]... , but I'm pretty sure the party in power isn't churning out thousands of little future voters.
03 Aug 05
Originally posted by PalynkaWell, it is important for the military to be effective, so having intelligent recruits would be a good idea. I'm sure the US armed forces would be doing a better job if they were smarter--might even have won some hearts and minds.
And the military can be more effective if the education is taught and molded by the state.
If education went completely private it would go the same way as private healthcare--unaffordable for the majority.