That sounds pretty damn socialist to me...
I won't speak for him, but Ikari seems to be pretty minarchist and has been pretty consistent with that ideology. Despite what tea party rhetoric says, not every government service is socialist in nature. Basically, Ikari agrees that taxes do need to be paid to the government for certain services, he just argues which services the government should collect taxes to provide.
I have commented before on the need for a sarcasm font.
I have commented before on the need for a sarcasm font.
A governments duty is whatever it political platform they are elected on.
Aww crap. Then the duty of our government is to talk to the People like we're idiots, use only little sound bites and stump speeches, bitch and moan about the otherside while your side does nothing to remedy the problem, and continue bitching and moaning over the same problems for decades while misleading the people and performing duties and military interventions which the government was not empowered to make all while keeping up the facade of two parties, all the sound bites and stump speeches, while avoiding anything of any real consequence.
Aww crap. Then the duty of our government is to talk to the People like we're idiots, use only little sound bites and stump speeches, bitch and moan about the otherside while your side does nothing to remedy the problem, and continue bitching and moaning over the same problems for decades while misleading the people and performing duties and military interventions which the government was not empowered to make all while keeping up the facade of two parties, all the sound bites and stump speeches, while avoiding anything of any real consequence.
Yeah, because that's so much easier to do than just put an "/s" at the end of your post.
/s
:tongue4:
Right.. I forgot your not interested in democratic empowerment of the state.. dam libertarians.
None of the above. Government does not define our rights. Rights are natural. The only job of government is to enforce those rights.
If you think the government doesn't define your right try going to Liberia or Somalia then tell us what natural 'rights' you have. No. Go government defines your rights. If it's a ****ty government, you have no rights. If it's an 'okay' government you'll have most rights. End of story.
We the people decide what powers the government has. How big the government should be. And how the balance of powers is enforced. The founders of our nation debated this and came up with a system via the constitution. It feels to me, that we have veered from that system (for better or worse). If this is what we as a nation want to do, so be it, let's change the system/rules/constitution based on our 'new' philosophies. But neglecting the rulebook isn't the answer.
We the people decide what powers the government has. How big the government should be. And how the balance of powers is enforced. The founders of our nation debated this and came up with a system via the constitution. It feels to me, that we have veered from that system (for better or worse). If this is what we as a nation want to do, so be it, let's change the system/rules/constitution based on our 'new' philosophies. But neglecting the rulebook isn't the answer.
So I feel we need to go back to the basics. Let's first ask the most important question: What is the job of our government?
1) To define and protect our fundamental rights
2) #1 and to define and provide additional privelages
so let me define the options:
1) our constitution, exactly as it is written - no extras.
2) our constitution plus the ability to provide laws granting privelages (such as health care, social security, medicare, unemployment benefits, public roads, etc.). Assuming that most people want it, therefore it passes legislation, and all people live by it for the benefit of the majority.
I am asking in a broad sense, should it be the government's job to step beyond simply protecting our fundamental rights as defined by the constitution and also grant us privelages?
My arguments against any 'privelage' is always the same. But it seems those against the 'privelages'.... the GOP... are against it based on some other ideas that just don't make sense to me. The debates seem pointless to me. It's not a question of 'is this a good or bad idea' but rather, 'is it the job of the government?'
I never denied that rights can be violated. Just because they're trampled upon doesn't mean that they don't exist.
No. If they're not there, they don't exist. And even when they are, they really don't. There is no such thing as rights, just priviledges humans give themselves in the silly belief we're somehow above animals. History has proven there is no such thing as rights.
No. If they're not there, they don't exist. And even when they are, they really don't. There is no such thing as rights, just priviledges humans give themselves in the silly belief we're somehow above animals. History has proven there is no such thing as rights.
1. Defend our country against foreign aggressors (That does NOT include meddling into others' affairs unless they are a direct threat).
2. Keep our roads in good shape (It does NOT include willy-nilly road building to line politicians' pockets and create eminent domain abuse).
3. Protect our individual rights (It DOES include repealing every law that violates them).
4. Leave people alone and stop meddling.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?