Forums → WEPR → Best form of Government

Well, as I already said, I think the equality you're thinking of can be achieved by regular taxes already,

OP, you are asking people's OPINION on what should be the BEST form of government. That seems like an oxymoron to me.
So, you would like to know the best... but wait a minute, what is "best" ? Best for a criminal psycho or best for a good, honest human? My guess is that you want to know what is best for us humans to live a healthy and a good life in general.
Well you should ask yourself: do humans need a government? Why we have one to begin with? What is the purpose of a government and in what way it affects our life? So you see, the key is to ask the right question.

You seem to be picturing an awkward system where all colleges are independent private structures, but the state pays the expenses for you. I don't know if this is obvious or not, but by &quotublic college" I mean a structure that is not only paid, but also managed by the state, so that it can improve itself without a logic of profit, but to serve the people better. I don't know if this is foreign to american mindset or what, but I thought it was a pretty normal thing?

If you're going to answer, "no, we have free will" please explain why you think that, don't just say "no, we have free will".

So I'm not saying a lazy boy will necessarily become a lazy man. I'm just saying that the lazy boy who became a lazy man was never really given the choice to become otherwise when he met the two divergent paths, and the lazy boy who became a hard working man didn't choose right when he met the paths, he followed the only path he could possibly have followed.

Where's the natural phenomena?

You probably was expecting me to say "hey, but the average is 25!" and then answer "there are administrative expenses", but even taking that into consideration, the point doesn't apply to the more realistic situation of 100, 10, 5, 5, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1.

That's not a very meaningful comparison, because it doesn't make sense to associate the victim of the murder to the heir. In heritage, the victim is the one who didn't inherit anything, surely not the heir.

In heritage, the victim is the one who didn't inherit anything, surely not the heir.

The forcing part only applies to underage people, which, after all, are "taken care of" in today's society as well.

Do you want to know what a state run college would be like? It would be whatever the people in charge thing it should be like. The people have no say.
This is what I don't get about socialists. They complain about corporate monopolies that either don't actually exist or exist due to government giving them special privileges, yet they support government monopoly.

Did you do it? Whatever you did, you chose. That's free will. If you felt you were destined to do one, then I literally can't argue against that. I can't disprove a negative. It would be like finding proof as to how God doesn't exist as an omnipotent, omnipresent, being.

But if you believe people don't have a real choice, and therefore they should not only be forgiven but cared for, then why don't we have this mentality for murderers and r-pists? Those people had the choice not to murder, or r-pe, we shouldn't punish them!

You believe humans can NOT control their fate. Their actions are essentially predetermined. Because people don't have free will, they need a God to take care of them. Oh wait, sorry, GOVERNMENT. They need an all knowing government to take care of them.

Yes, I'm comparing it to religion. You believe free will doesn't exist, therefore we need government that is somehow immune to determinism, or error. This is religion.

No punishment doesn't mean no penalty, though, because penalty has two other important functions, beside legalized revenge that does nothing but harm to the society: first, it can be used to physically prevent someone to commit another crime, second, it can cause a fear that can avoid more crimes in the future. The last point's morality is arguable, but neither is in contradiction with determinism.

Determinism is one of the things that make heritage an injustice, but the government is there to fight heritage and injustice, not determinism.

What exactly is the difference between punishment and penalty in your case?

About the second point, is it morally arguable to try and prevent harm to be done? If you let criminals run free without arresting them, they will never learn. If you arrest them, there's a small chance they will think twice, chance which is increased if you add a therapy to the imprisonment. Of course you have to avoid resentment that will make things only worse, so prisoners shouldn't exactly be mistreated.

If your dad worked really hard and earned a lot of money, technically with his performances and the paid taxes he already contributes more to society than others. What he can keep, is his money. his own, personal money. I don't see why society should claim this for itself too.

The problem is that people that should contribute, often don't, see tax evasions etc. I often hear that if everyone would pay the taxes they should, in the actual system, we could solve pretty much all problems. THIS is the real injustice.

So in essence, punishment and penalizement just differentiates the motivation? So the outcome is the same.

What I find arguable about it is the idea of making the world a better place using fear. But yes, in a realistic world it's probably unavoidable.

So in essence, punishment and penalizement just differentiates the motivation? So the outcome is the same.

limiting the possibilities of such fortunes amassing to begin with sounds more reasonable for a point of attack.

Determinism isn't necessarily total.. and it leads to the idea that some people are criminals no matter what. Same as what former French president Sarkozy once alluded about the jobless, something like they're lazy by nature/genetics and thus we shouldn't pay them money... I find such ideas repugnant. It's just probabilities, but that doesn't excuse the actual act (for criminals), nor does it justify leaving people to their "fate".

That's what I've always used to believe, but people like NoName made me a lot more cautious about things like that. If someone put together any huge fortune without doing anything illegal or immoral, it might not be fair to take it away from him against his will, and it probably isn't if that means treating them in a different way than everyone else, like with a progressive taxation, or a tax on huge capitals. Same reasoning for trying to cap salaries.

Heritage control on the other hand does not take away anything you own. It sounds an extremistic solution but from some points of view it's less brutal than normal taxation.

Determinism isn't necessarily total.. and it leads to the idea that some people are criminals no matter what. Same as what former French president Sarkozy once alluded about the jobless, something like they're lazy by nature/genetics and thus we shouldn't pay them money... I find such ideas repugnant. It's just probabilities, but that doesn't excuse the actual act (for criminals), nor does it justify leaving people to their "fate".

Again, what about last wishes? If the deceased uttered the wish before death to spend half of their wealth on some wellfare organisation? You gonna take that away to pay a second car to state employees?

You're taking equal treatment to a whole new level, does it still hold room for individuality? What you're saying is, no matter what you do, you should get the same amount of money from the state. I think it would be better to say, give everyone a reasonable minimum payment, no matter what they do; and allow others to work harder for more money. As long as it stays reasonable. In that case, the others have done nothing to earn a part of the rich one's wealth.

Cynicism, yes, but not that far from reality as you may think. Now not all governments are like that, luckily; but still many individuals at high places, also in politics, create a sort of bubble around them, impervious to reality. Seems like a not so rare thing to happen. As such, I see it as a gain to diversity of funds to let people distribute their amount of society's wealth as they wish.

Concerning dead people's will, of course I'm not insinuating that their wishes are holy by any means. But it is a matter of respect for them and their family. And I feel that respect is more important for social structures than enforcing total equality on the back of individuals.

give everyone a reasonable minimum payment

That minimum payment becomes the new 0 and devalues anything above it.

I mean that if everyone has something, no one does. The prices would become inflated to adjust for the increase. They still won't be off the streets if rent goes up everywhere.

But not everyone would have the same amount; by giving minimum wage, I'm not saying paying everyone the same max sum. Of course the main weak point of this is that the money has to come somewhere; but assuming once the state got money for that, they don't have to pay things like unemployment compensation, and the people's spending capacity is generally enhanced, profiting the economy.