OpinionGovernment is bad. Free individuals do not need people who think they know everything telling them how to live their lives.
      – DigitalBoss, 2009-10-11 at 21:36:32   (29 comments)

On 2009-10-11 at 21:43:08, DigitalBoss wrote...
As long as I am not infringing on the rights of others through force or through fraud, I should be free to do as I wish without the pain or burden of government. My life should be my responsibility, and mine only. I expect nothing from the government. I should be able to provide my goods or services in a free market without the pain or burden of government. Government should impose no ideology on me as a free citizen, whether it be religious or political.
On 2009-10-12 at 02:24:44, BorgClown wrote...
Government is not in itself bad. We are already hardwired to seek government, the trick is reaching a form of government where the unadapted ones (parasites, exploiters, resource hogs, thieves, etc.) don't get positions of power. We don't have such thing, and we don't know if it's possible, but total government transparency would be a good step towards it. Governments are too opaque nowadays.
On 2009-10-12 at 04:47:00, Bensci wrote...
Um the government isn't bad. You need the government for many things. When you turn on your TV in the morning, who created the broadcasting system? And who put up the power lines that give your TV power? When you drive to work, who planned and built the roads you use to get there? And who keeps our roads safe by pulling over unsafe drivers? Finally If your building is on fire, who puts it out? The government is the answer to all of these questions. Without them, you'd be screwed. Its a matter of limits. The government is neither bad nor good. We need it, but it should need us as well. It should serve our needs; not the other way around.
On 2009-10-12 at 15:26:45, DigitalBoss wrote...
"Who created the broadcasting system?" It certainly was not the government. I think you need to go back to school young man. You make very poor arguments. The power lines were installed by capitalist free market companies that are looking to make a profit, not the government. The government regulates the shit out of the power companies, but they did not create them. I shudder to think of the kind of electrical service we would get if the government was responsible for it. We had fire crews way before government came along and took over. Why not private fire companies? I like that idea. Did you know that the US government built the Interstate Highway System to more effectively move the military around? They did not do it so you could get to work. Government is bad. You have not persuaded me.
On 2009-10-12 at 15:49:07, DigitalBoss wrote...
@TheBorg: You have been indoctrinated to seek government. You have been indoctrinated to depend on government.
On 2009-10-13 at 01:50:42, BorgClown wrote...
Hierarchical, gregarious apes. We are hardwired to seek (or create) government. I'd love for people to cooperate on their own and progress, but that would need a massive and continuous education program, because our primal instincts press otherwise.
On 2009-10-13 at 03:09:46, Bensci wrote...
@DigitalBoss: The FCC is part of the government, isn't it? Without them there would be a mess of ill-defined channels specific to each TV, there would be no standard. And the government at least maintains the power lines. If private companies built and maintained power lines, you could only get power if there was a provider in your area, and you would be stuck with them. It would be the same situation as DSL is in right now. And moving the military around is a bad thing? Regardless of the intentions of creating the roads, they still are the ones who maintain it. If private companies built and maintained roads, you would have to drive to the rich persons house first to get to work, because he would be the only one rich enough to hire out the road builders to build a road into town. Also the road system would be totally inefficient for those who didn't hire out the service because it would be client-workplace lines rather than in a grid.
On 2009-10-13 at 03:58:44, DigitalBoss wrote...
Ok, so the FCC says you can use this frequency and you can use this frequency, BIG DEAL. The broadcasters could do that on their own. Far cry from inventing broadcasting. You obviously do not know what you are talking about.
On 2009-10-13 at 08:37:39, Bensci wrote...
@DigitalBoss: Yeah sorry. I did not mean to claim that they created the brodcasting system. That was my bad. I merely meant that they controlled the frequencies.
On 2009-10-13 at 09:03:46, Lee J Haywood wrote...
@Bensci: Hah, roads laid out in a grid - what will they think of next? You obviously don't travel enough - only the US has boring grid layouts. (Actually, it's often less efficient in a grid because diagonal routes are shorter). To be fair, a lot of things don't strictly require the government. Distributing power from central points is actually an historical accident, and hobbles us all to use energy derived from fossil fuels. It'd be better if we generated power locally from available sources (wind/solar).
On 2009-10-13 at 15:11:43, DigitalBoss wrote...
@Bensci: (who must be in his late teens or early 20s) and it really takes a lot of intelligence to control the frequencies... The government couldn't wipe its own ass.
On 2009-10-13 at 15:21:07, DigitalBoss wrote...
@LeeJ: Here in the deep south, the great State of Georgia, we do not have roads laid out in grids. Most of the main roads started as well traveled Native American paths (Peachtree Road is one. It is the main road in Atlanta), pig trails, or left-overs from railroad construction. In downtown areas, some of the cities have "town squares" with a few streets in a grid, but usually not very many. The Eisenhower Interstate Highway system was a big deal here when it came through in the 60s and 70s.
On 2009-10-13 at 15:32:17, DigitalBoss wrote...
Yes, the Eisenhower Interstate Highway System was a good thing that the government did. But the government did not do it so that people could drive on it to work and back. The highway system was built to make it easier to move the military around. Building the military is a constitutional function of the federal government. Confiscating citizens wealth at the point of a gun and giving that money to other people for any use is not a constitutional function of the federal government. Providing citizens with personal healthcare is not a constitutional function of government. Now, having said that, I think that the federal government does have a constitutional mandate to look after the general health and welfare of the citizens, but that means in general, not as individuals. And I hate it when people use the fire department as an example. The fire department is paid by local government, and they don't come and put out your house when it is on fire, they come out to keep your house from burning everyone else's.
On 2009-10-14 at 00:52:25, BorgClown wrote...
The firemen do put out houses on fire, they won't refuse to if your house has no other houses around. Their goal is saving lives, not putting out fires by itself. That and getting kittens down from trees, so they won't reproduce and invade adjacent trees.
On 2009-10-14 at 03:09:04, DigitalBoss wrote...
Yeah, they would look bad telling you that because you were stupid and had candles burning in your house all night while you were stoned that they were not going to put out your house. They are there to keep your stupidity from burning down the whole neighborhood.
On 2009-10-14 at 03:19:23, DigitalBoss wrote...
I think they are called firemen because they put out fires. I wonder how many times the following statement has been heard in a firehouse, "OK, lets go put out this dumbass's turkey frier before he burns the whole damn neighborhood down".
On 2009-10-14 at 03:20:14, DigitalBoss wrote...
The firemen are there to protect the area in general, not you individually.
On 2009-10-14 at 07:03:35, BorgClown wrote...
The firemen like me!
On 2009-10-14 at 07:04:04, BorgClown wrote...
Oops, wrong avatar.
On 2009-10-14 at 07:05:28, BorgClown wrote...
It's like rescue teams, they exist to rescue specific individuals, and even lose their lives doing so. It's the same spirit with firemen, regardless of the official intention of mass protection.
On 2009-10-14 at 10:11:14, Lee J Haywood wrote...
You have to ask what is bad about a fire, even if it doesn't affect other property. Certainly with a building, it's likely that the building will be easier to repair if it's partially burnt and not completely gutted. Also, it's usually not easy to tell if occupants are in danger until after the fire has been put out. Fires happen for a lot of reasons, not just neglect. It would be a sad state of affairs if people were simply allowed to die in house fires, e.g. if a private fire company required you to have fire insurance registered before they'd spend any money helping you. The fire brigade is a basic emergency service, along with the police and ambulance services, which everyone relies upon to be there whenever it is needed. Also, I'm pretty sure that the military has completely failed to use any/all of the roads around my house.
On 2009-10-14 at 12:51:04, DigitalBoss wrote...
"required you to have fire insurance registered before they'd spend any money helping you." Not if you lived next door to a paying customer. Try not paying your taxes and see what happens to you.
On 2009-10-14 at 13:27:33, Lee J Haywood wrote...
You'd probably be locked-up for not paying taxes, but your fire would still be put out even if you have no neighbours.
On 2009-10-14 at 15:28:16, DigitalBoss wrote...
Maybe, but the fire department's purpose is general protection from fire, not to protect you and your property from fire as an individual.
On 2009-10-14 at 15:29:33, DigitalBoss wrote...
Around here, if you have no neighbours, chances are you are in a volunteer fire district anyway.
On 2009-10-14 at 20:29:17, Lee J Haywood wrote...
I don't see the distinction - if you put out a fire, you protect people and property at the same time. And if the fire brigade attends, they will perform rescue operations to the best of their ability. The firefighter is the one with the tools to deal with fires, carries breathing equipment and has heavy-duty equipment for rescues. They've evolved to deal with a lot of additional issues based on what they're able to do - e.g. removing crashed cars that obstruct roads. Firefighting is their primary purpose, but not their only one.
On 2009-10-14 at 21:27:23, Bensci wrote...
Allow me to say something that I don't think anyone has brought up yet in this thread. Sometimes we forget that the government is made up of people, just like us. If you are friends with anyone who is in government, you don't think of them as bad people. This applies to most anyone who knows somebody in the government. You see, the government is made up of (mostly) people who are, individually, looking in the best interest of those they represent. The system may be flawed, but the people aren't necessarily. The government is not trying to screw you over, it is trying to help you but failing. This also applies to firefighters. They are not just part of the system, they are people too. Now what kind of people want to be a firefighter? Those who want to keep fires from spreading? maybe. But if you ever wanted to be a firefighter as a kid, you'd know that more likely to be firefighters are those who want to make a difference and save people's lives.
On 2009-10-15 at 01:08:02, DigitalBoss wrote...
It does not matter what you think firefighting is all about. What matters is the reason the fire department is started and why it is continued to be supported and funded. Oh, they are people too. World peace.
On 2009-10-15 at 08:57:58, Lee J Haywood wrote...
@Bensci: That's a big problem with companies too - there's a total lack of personal responsibility, and when an employee knows that something needs to be changed they can simply tell themselves that it's somebody else's responsibility.