h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I personally don't like or get any vaccinations at all. But as long as one is not proved to be bad, it should remain legal to administer it. I think it is terrible to force someone to get one though.

It's an old one, but what about police and fire protection?

It's all well and good to say everybody should be allowed to do what they want as long as it doesn't hurt others, but the world isn't black and white, and the gray areas appear quite clearly when it comes to vaccination. Vaccination has eliminated a number of deadly diseases from the world. Refusing a vaccine provides a possible surviving pool of disease organisms which are a threat to your neighbors and future generations. Are you certainly causing harm to others with your choice? No. Are you certainly not causing harm? No, again.

We live in a mosaic of societies, whether we like it or not, and we have a responsibility to each other. As I see it.

I think fire protection for a home or private property is not really any different than insurance, so see no reason why it needs to be public. Haven't thought about raging wildfires coming to town though...

Police could possibly be like health care. You gotta put the money in the insurance pool, but in case of an emergency they respond anyway, and charge you for it... possibly. I really do think that people would find a way to protect themselves and weed out the bad ones for prosecution though.

As I said earlier, Iluvatar, I'm glad I live in the absolutely free society I enjoy instead of the restrictive terror-bound anarchy you're dreaming of.

"As I said earlier, Iluvatar, I'm glad I live in the absolutely free society I enjoy instead of the restrictive terror-bound anarchy you're dreaming of."

All the better. One less person telling me what to do, how to live and how much society can take from me. I don't see how "many restrictions and no right of ownership" constitutes freedom.

I don't see how living where I live constitutes 'many restrictions and no right of ownership'. I'm glad you're not where I live trying to take my freedoms away to make your nightmarish utopia.

Just to make it clear, Iluvatar, here is a brief description of the freedom in which I live which you can add to the more general description I gave a few days ago:

I am not yet fifty years old. I have paid neither Federal nor Provincial tax for a number of years. I pay a municipal property tax on the house which I *own* (the bank doesn't own it, just to be clear: I do) and a portion of that levy goes to paying for the public school system which I choose to support -- *I am not required to support that schools system financially. Up until about a year ago, I paid a small premium (which has since been eliminated, with no decrease in insurance coverage) to the provincial government for health insurance which I supplemented with enhanced coverage from a private company. Both insurance plans pay doctors who are *private business operators*. I have chosen not to work a regular job because after working for decades in the *private family business* I have enough money invested that I need no other income for my needs. I have never drawn Employment Insurance (the dole) although I have qualified for it for a good portion of my life. Another *free choice*. Now I spend my days painting, visiting friends and neighbors, supporting and promoting local *private businesses* and just generally enjoying all these wonderful freedoms that my country and I try so hard to protect.

Also, I juggle (and ride a unicycle), Iluvatar. Perhaps we are more alike than either of us realizes.

Although you're not signed on right now, in real life I'm raising a wee glass of woodford reserve ( http://www.woodfordreserve.com/Default.aspx ) to a fellow juggler, whatever his political proclivities.

>You gotta put money into the insurace pool<

Yes, and that´s how it works, as long as everyone does. Frightening for people not used to the idea, but wonderful when you suddenly need to draw.

Yes, Pit, you do have to put money into the insurance pool. In most societies, the premiums which go into the police (and fire protection) insurance pool are called 'taxes' -- a dirty word in some circles.

A good reason to make these 'premiums' compulsory, in my view, is a very simple one: if my neighbour's house catches fire, I'd like the fire department to put the fire out before it spreads to my house. In the voluntary plan Iluvatar suggests, there's less incentive for the firefighters to risk their lives putting out my neighbour's fire if my neighbour has chosen not to pay the premiums and the firefighters might never get paid. Similarly, I would rather the police stop the burglar in my libertarian neighbour's house before the burglar gets a hold of my libertarian neighbour's assault rifle and sets his sights on my house.

I've never been *forced* to pay for police and fire protection (even when I did pay for it) -- I *want* to pay for it. I would consider someone in my neighbourhood who didn't want to pay for it to be extremely anti-social, perhaps criminally so.

I personally would want those services. But I don't think its right to force them on someone. Yet I also can't see any way around it without letting wildfires burn rampant into towns, or my neighbors house be a liability to me. So although I think its wrong to steal money for anything, there are a very few things which I cannot see any way around. It would be nice to have an opposing view I could consider without having to come up with everything on my own

Oh, and I now also unicycle, but 18 credit hours of engineering classes and 20 hours of work, a wife, a mortgage and bills tend to eat up all my time for Juggling/uni.

I get the feeling that you've never really thought through what it actually takes to provide you with all those accoutrements of a civilised society which we tend to take pretty much for granted.

Noggin

>I think its wrong to steal money for anything,<

What do you mean, "stealing"? You go to university. Running one costs a packet, paid by people who went there, have a better job because of it (as I hope you will have some day) earn more money and,accordingly, pay more taxes.

You have a house, so I hope you have fire insurance. When your house burns down you get paid the money of people whose hasn´t, and if theirs burn and yours doesn´t they get your few cents.

It´s all give-and-take, and a matter of trust in each other. Mind, when I look at the wages of some who became politicians because they were too lazy to work...but that´s a different .

Iluvatar:

Basic principle: You should not have to pay for the services you need: others should. *And you should pay for theirs*.

"I get the feeling that you've never really thought through what it actually takes to provide you with all those accoutrements of a civilised society which we tend to take pretty much for granted."

Atually I have thought throu a lot of it. I think it is wrong to forcibly take ones earnings either way, so I try to find where the private market and charity can pick it up willingly. There are a few things, as I have mentioned, which I have not yet figured out how the private market could provide, but that doesn't change my moral point of view. I may have been content with the forced taxes all my life if Bush and Obama had't gone way overboard with the spending. Many of the laws are merely complex ways of enforcing the "thou shalt not harm your neighbor" rule. Why not leave it up to judges to decide if the local water supply facility is proving harmful water? Shut them down if they are selling us poison. There might be a place for taxes to pay for water treatment also on a community if that community is dumping poison in the groundwater also. These taxes would be a fine equal to what it costs to fix a communities misdeed to someone elses water supply.

This is how I try to look at everything. Forced charity is always wrong. But forced payment to fix a problem you caused is fine. I don't think it is the federal governments duty, though it may go to the supreme court, case by case.

Also forced welfare cannot last indefinitely. If one place taxes the rich disproportionally to pay for those not working, and therefore not contributing to the society, it provides incentive to work less, and incentive to make the rich leave and the poor come in. Sure this will work for a while. people trickle in and out slowly. They slowly start producing less. The economy gets slightly poorer as a whole. Then there is less to tax and less to give. They must tax the rich even more to make up the difference. Then more rich people become poorer, produce less, and leave. The next generation in this society then produces less. With millions of people this may take a few generations, but eventually you have everyone earning the same, regardless of work contributed. Then everyone knows this, and produces the bare minimum in this new lower standard society, causing widespread poverty. No entrepreneurs, no advancement. Then the government must pay extra money for advancement, but since there is still a low GDP, they must tax the poor extrw now, leaving utter poverty to pay for the government desperate attempts. Eventually it crumbles because people really want to eat. And there is widespread violence and dog eat dog. Then either a dictator with a large powerful army emerges, or the smart people get the best army and start the capitalist cycle anew.

"Basic principle: You should not have to pay for the services you need: others should."

They sould not be forced to though. I am not forced to buy health insurance, but I chose to because I prefer to know I can afford a catastrophy.

Even if I have nowhere to live and no money, I have no right to break into the house of the local rich guy for his money, even though he may be able to afford it. So why should I be allowed to hire someone to do it for me? Why should I be permitted to get together all my deadbeat buddies and hire a group of men with guns to rob the rich guys who I hate?

If you have an answer for that I may consider it. But I have not yet heard a justification for the bum to break into Bill Gates' mansion.

Haha this thread is still titled "athiests" while the socialism vs capitalism thread has died.

*atheists*

>>They sould not be forced to though. I

No. But anyone refusing to comply has no place in decent society. They should be ostracised. At gunpoint, if necessary.

No pasaran!