Reply to Re: blah
If you don't have an account, just leave the password field blank.
I believe it's about more than just actions. I believe it's more about intentions.
intentions lead to actions.
Which advise is so good? The advice to appease the wish of others and ignore my own wishes?
Yes
About the points I made:
A: I think I misinterpreted your post, this was very much a reply to your statment that "Police aren't there for portection. That's the joint forces job. The police are there to arrest criminals.". I was trying to point out that it is the police's job to protect us too.
B: That's why I don't think public transport should be run by private companies, but that's a completely different disscussion.
C: I think we agree on this one.
D: I strongly disagree with this sentence: "If the government wanted to use their legitemately gained money on charity (such as benefits or funding), that's their choice." It's not their legitemately gained money, it's still our money. We pay taxes because we expect something in return, saying it's their money is like buying a TV and saying to the shopowner: "It's your money deliver the TV if you feel like doing so"
"Only if they want to should they do it" Only if who wants it? The goverment or the person to get the money? If you say the goverment I disagree, that would mean that you have a unreliable goverment, something nobody wants. (The taxpayer nor the benefitter) If you say the person to benefit of the money I agree, I even think the goverment can demand something in return, like doing charity work.
What I don't like is the current system where they use our money for charity without our permission
Eh, isn't that where elections are for?
E: You're trying to break this point into pieces (perhaps my fault), What I meant to say is that protection is as worthless without freedom as freedom is without comfort. I mean who likes to be free but having to live in a poluted city to earn a decent living. I mean you could go out of the city but if that means poverty I doubt many people would do this. I rather have both a good city to live in as well as a good income, it's the goverment's responsibility to take care of that.
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?
In french they say "l'histoire se repetoire"(if my french doesn't fail me, which it probably will) which means history will repeat itself. Now if I learned my historylessons well we had quite a liberal goverment (and a law with little jobprotection) back in the 1800's. This lead to lots of exploitation of the workers, people didn't really have a choice, they had to work long days just to earn a decent living, for if they demanded let's say shorter working days their boss would fire them. What I was trying to say is that we need certain laws to protect our comfort, for freedom without laws to protect our own style of living really isn't freedom.
intentions lead to actions.
Which advise is so good? The advice to appease the wish of others and ignore my own wishes?
Yes
About the points I made:
A: I think I misinterpreted your post, this was very much a reply to your statment that "Police aren't there for portection. That's the joint forces job. The police are there to arrest criminals.". I was trying to point out that it is the police's job to protect us too.
B: That's why I don't think public transport should be run by private companies, but that's a completely different disscussion.
C: I think we agree on this one.
D: I strongly disagree with this sentence: "If the government wanted to use their legitemately gained money on charity (such as benefits or funding), that's their choice." It's not their legitemately gained money, it's still our money. We pay taxes because we expect something in return, saying it's their money is like buying a TV and saying to the shopowner: "It's your money deliver the TV if you feel like doing so"
"Only if they want to should they do it" Only if who wants it? The goverment or the person to get the money? If you say the goverment I disagree, that would mean that you have a unreliable goverment, something nobody wants. (The taxpayer nor the benefitter) If you say the person to benefit of the money I agree, I even think the goverment can demand something in return, like doing charity work.
What I don't like is the current system where they use our money for charity without our permission
Eh, isn't that where elections are for?
E: You're trying to break this point into pieces (perhaps my fault), What I meant to say is that protection is as worthless without freedom as freedom is without comfort. I mean who likes to be free but having to live in a poluted city to earn a decent living. I mean you could go out of the city but if that means poverty I doubt many people would do this. I rather have both a good city to live in as well as a good income, it's the goverment's responsibility to take care of that.
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?
In french they say "l'histoire se repetoire"(if my french doesn't fail me, which it probably will) which means history will repeat itself. Now if I learned my historylessons well we had quite a liberal goverment (and a law with little jobprotection) back in the 1800's. This lead to lots of exploitation of the workers, people didn't really have a choice, they had to work long days just to earn a decent living, for if they demanded let's say shorter working days their boss would fire them. What I was trying to say is that we need certain laws to protect our comfort, for freedom without laws to protect our own style of living really isn't freedom.
