ManusJustus said:
No, in a free country you can decide wether you want those services or not. You think you're on on the side of 'free' but that is actually not the case. And thats not to mention numerous services that, using your logic, are forced on us by our government everyday. Maybe I dont want to pay for road construction, maybe I dont want to pay for military funding, but I am forced to do so and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. I see that this hypocrisy was already mentioned and you responded that with "the government protects, not provides." I find it disheartening that you refuse to see the error in your logic. Not only can protect and provide be used simultaneously for the many services the government provides, but the government can also protect people by providing healthcare and education. I know I would like to be protected against cancer just as much as I want to be protected from Al Quieda. And what about services that have nothing to do with protection, such as the road system. Anybody with knowledge of economics knows that the government has to provide most of the road system since is it uneconomical for private companies to do so. Or I guess the government is protecting my low-rider from dirt roads that I would otherwise use... |
There are a lot of people who think like you an Avinash_Tyagi, and I will never convince you of the errors in your ways.
The problem is both of you think that some minimum standard of living is an entitlement. That giving away liberties for services, thus centralizing power, will never backfire.
The problem is we are not the first time in history that we have done this, and every time it turned out bad. But... we think we are somehow different then people 60, 500, 2000, 3000, or 4000 years ago. That what happened to them can't happen to us.
I am sure they all thought that too.
