Reply to Re: blah
If you don't have an account, just leave the password field blank.
When I want to make a statement, I just make the statement. When someone wants me to explain what I just said I do another post in which I explain myself. (That makes a total of two posts)
If I then reply to someone who disagrees to defend myself I am no longer just making a statement, I am trying to confince someone, in which case I should supply evidence. I don't know how you see this, but this is my view, so I agree with Striker on this one.
I believe it's about more than just actions. I believe it's more about intentions.
Striker has given you some good advice, take it I'd say.
Which advise is so good? The advice to appease the wish of others and ignore my own wishes?
If you want to know what my views of goverment are, this is mine:
The goverment is there to:
A: provide protection
B: Provide basic services
C: provide equal chances for all
D: provide financial help for the weak
E: create a law that protects people, their freedom and comfort
F: enforce the law
I agree with all but D. Didn't expect me to agree with that much did you?
Now for comments on the points:
A. I agree in full.
B. Except for public transport I agree. "Why public transport?" you may ask. Because "public" transport is run by private companies that's why.
C. "Equal chances" are something I strongly agree with. Within reason. It would not be equal for a extreme criminal, such a rapist the chance to study, despite what the NZ Department of Corrections think. After all they forfeited their rights upon commiting their crime. Minor criminals are okay, just never major criminals and repeat offenders. oh, and you're right, thing's won't go well if left to go their own way. However, that should not breach fundemental rights, as it sometimes does. What I mean is that everyone should be able to go their own way, as long as they do not hinder the rights or chances of others.
D. true it isn't always our fault, but I do not agree with "they should". Only if they want to should they do it. It's just like we should only give to charity if we want to. If the government wanted to use their legitemately gained money on charity (such as benefits or funding), that's their choice. After all their is nothing wrong with us voluntarily spending on charity. What I don't like is the current system where they use our money for charity without our permission. and yes, i hate them using your money in such a way just as much as them using mine. It's the principle of the matter, not who they do it to.
E. Of course the law should protect people! That's a large part of the reduced government role I've been advocating. However, I think governments are getting to the point where their attempt to do so is invading our fundemental rights, thus actually doing harm, not protecting. protect their freedom> Well, that's the most obvious role of government. That's why I advocate governments protecting our rights. In fact that and protecting us are one and the same. they're inseperable. To be alive is to be free, to be free is to be alive. To not be free is to be in a state of living death, to be a zombie.
I mean if the goverment never acted against microsoft at all, it would be totally impossible to buy a computer without windows installed (it still almost is, but atleast not completely)
Now, this I disagree with. MS in no way violates rights, so they are doing nothing wrong. People choose to use their products. All the commonly stated reasons as to why this isn't true are rubbish. For example, not being bothered changing OS is still a choice.
I wouldn't like to live in freedom when that would mean I have to work 65 hours a week, 7 days a week, 360 days a year. (just to give an example)
There is no reason why that would be the case. In fact if anything you could work less time, since you would only be paying for what you need, rather than everything, including things you don't use. You wouldn't advocate paying for every service a business offered you if you were using only some of them, so why the government?
F. Indeed, it does explain itself, and this I agree with. I just don't agree with a lot of the laws that exist, as they go above and beyond the rights of the governemnt.
If I then reply to someone who disagrees to defend myself I am no longer just making a statement, I am trying to confince someone, in which case I should supply evidence. I don't know how you see this, but this is my view, so I agree with Striker on this one.
I believe it's about more than just actions. I believe it's more about intentions.
Striker has given you some good advice, take it I'd say.
Which advise is so good? The advice to appease the wish of others and ignore my own wishes?
If you want to know what my views of goverment are, this is mine:
The goverment is there to:
A: provide protection
B: Provide basic services
C: provide equal chances for all
D: provide financial help for the weak
E: create a law that protects people, their freedom and comfort
F: enforce the law
I agree with all but D. Didn't expect me to agree with that much did you?
Now for comments on the points:
A. I agree in full.
B. Except for public transport I agree. "Why public transport?" you may ask. Because "public" transport is run by private companies that's why.
C. "Equal chances" are something I strongly agree with. Within reason. It would not be equal for a extreme criminal, such a rapist the chance to study, despite what the NZ Department of Corrections think. After all they forfeited their rights upon commiting their crime. Minor criminals are okay, just never major criminals and repeat offenders. oh, and you're right, thing's won't go well if left to go their own way. However, that should not breach fundemental rights, as it sometimes does. What I mean is that everyone should be able to go their own way, as long as they do not hinder the rights or chances of others.
D. true it isn't always our fault, but I do not agree with "they should". Only if they want to should they do it. It's just like we should only give to charity if we want to. If the government wanted to use their legitemately gained money on charity (such as benefits or funding), that's their choice. After all their is nothing wrong with us voluntarily spending on charity. What I don't like is the current system where they use our money for charity without our permission. and yes, i hate them using your money in such a way just as much as them using mine. It's the principle of the matter, not who they do it to.
E. Of course the law should protect people! That's a large part of the reduced government role I've been advocating. However, I think governments are getting to the point where their attempt to do so is invading our fundemental rights, thus actually doing harm, not protecting. protect their freedom> Well, that's the most obvious role of government. That's why I advocate governments protecting our rights. In fact that and protecting us are one and the same. they're inseperable. To be alive is to be free, to be free is to be alive. To not be free is to be in a state of living death, to be a zombie.
I mean if the goverment never acted against microsoft at all, it would be totally impossible to buy a computer without windows installed (it still almost is, but atleast not completely)
Now, this I disagree with. MS in no way violates rights, so they are doing nothing wrong. People choose to use their products. All the commonly stated reasons as to why this isn't true are rubbish. For example, not being bothered changing OS is still a choice.
I wouldn't like to live in freedom when that would mean I have to work 65 hours a week, 7 days a week, 360 days a year. (just to give an example)
There is no reason why that would be the case. In fact if anything you could work less time, since you would only be paying for what you need, rather than everything, including things you don't use. You wouldn't advocate paying for every service a business offered you if you were using only some of them, so why the government?
F. Indeed, it does explain itself, and this I agree with. I just don't agree with a lot of the laws that exist, as they go above and beyond the rights of the governemnt.
