Greetings, and welcome to the World Affairs Board!
The World Affairs Board is the premier forum for the discussion of the pressing geopolitical issues of our time. Topics include military and defense developments, international terrorism, insurgency & COIN doctrine, international security and policing, weapons proliferation, and military technological development.
Our membership includes many from military, defense, academic, and government backgrounds with expert knowledge on a wide range of topics. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so why not register a World Affairs Board account and join our community today?
I have contradictory views. I think that education should be available for everyone (not not the horrible neosoviet system adopted in Belgium), while I don't think that the government should interfere in how people trade, what they put in their cigarettes or how they defend themselves.
Education up to and including three years tertiary level. Basic welfare which allows people to live without undue hardship but is difficult to stay on. Defence at 3% gdp. National infrastructure of state highways and rail links. Comprehensive health funding outsourced to private providers. The free market is just that.
At that point, other than legislation governing the usual 'thou shalt not kill" etc, the government can **** off.
All this should be easily achievable with a personal tax rate of 25%.
In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.
Education up to and including three years tertiary level. Basic welfare which allows people to live without undue hardship but is difficult to stay on. Defence at 3% gdp. National infrastructure of state highways and rail links. Comprehensive health funding outsourced to private providers. The free market is just that.
At that point, other than legislation governing the usual 'thou shalt not kill" etc, the government can **** off.
All this should be easily achievable with a personal tax rate of 25%.
Agreed. But I'm still thinking about the pros and contras of the privatisation of the public transportation system.
City public transport can be handled by the cities themselves but IMO shouldn't be subsidised, national roads and rail (inter-city) need to be government controlled.
I have no problem with private companies operating trains but the rail corridors need to be owned by the state, and trucks need to pay either the true cost of them running on the roads or the rail companies need to be subsidised to the same extent as trucks are. Government ownership of the rail corridor achieves this from an overall transport budget gleaned from road user charges.
In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.
Education up to and including three years tertiary level. Basic welfare which allows people to live without undue hardship but is difficult to stay on. Defence at 3% gdp. National infrastructure of state highways and rail links. Comprehensive health funding outsourced to private providers. The free market is just that.
At that point, other than legislation governing the usual 'thou shalt not kill" etc, the government can **** off.
All this should be easily achievable with a personal tax rate of 25%.
Interesting thought, but how are you expecting the people to control government, if the government has had 12 years to indoctrinate them?
Or are you falling for the Classic Socialist Fallicy: it'll work, if the "right people" are in charge, and with my plan, the "right people" would be in charge?
Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -1.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.87
To sit down with these men and deal with them as the representatives of an enlightened and civilized people is to deride ones own dignity and to invite the disaster of their treachery - General Matthew Ridgway
Interesting thought, but how are you expecting the people to control government, if the government has had 12 years to indoctrinate them?
Or are you falling for the Classic Socialist Fallicy: it'll work, if the "right people" are in charge, and with my plan, the "right people" would be in charge?
No actually I'm not.
Here the model is the state collects the tax and supplies the schools with a bulk sum, set per child educated.
It (the govt) sets a national exam and the schools are run by elected parents and the teachers. Unless you're suggesting individual home schooling is the only answer, I'm damned if I could think of a more representative and financially efficient model that adhers to both local and national society-based standards, can you?
In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.
I would probably prefer one in which the government collected taxes and distributed vouchers, so that the government would have no role in running the schools at all. You wouldn't even be locked into what your neighbors wanted (which bears no relation to what I would want, were I to have kids). Of course, this opens the door for some abuse, as people could call something that just provided athletic training a 'school', but we have that now in lots of inner cities and some universities.
I fear allowing government to define the word 'school' too carefully, as it would be easy to add Keynsian economics or the superiority of socialism to the curriculum. The same problem exists with creationism vs evolution. I think that evolution is the most realistic scenario, but that doesn't stop me from supporting the right of those who disagree with me to teach their children as they choose. Their kids will have plenty of time to change their minds.
I would probably prefer one in which the government collected taxes and distributed vouchers, so that the government would have no role in running the schools at all. You wouldn't even be locked into what your neighbors wanted (which bears no relation to what I would want, were I to have kids). Of course, this opens the door for some abuse, as people could call something that just provided athletic training a 'school', but we have that now in lots of inner cities and some universities.
I fear allowing government to define the word 'school' too carefully, as it would be easy to add Keynsian economics or the superiority of socialism to the curriculum. The same problem exists with creationism vs evolution. I think that evolution is the most realistic scenario, but that doesn't stop me from supporting the right of those who disagree with me to teach their children as they choose. Their kids will have plenty of time to change their minds.
I see the voucher system and the one we have now as fairly similar so I'd have no objection to that, parents are in the bulk of cases more than capable of deciding what's right for their own children.
The fine line for me with government is the setting of standards. How can you tell if both your child and the school is achieving unless you have a nationally defined set of standards? So a government sets the standard and curriculum, but how do we keep out political agendas?
In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.
I took the other test and it says I'm a centrist with a bit of a communist leaning anarchist. WTF? According to my beliefs
think everyone should get a fair shake, but if someone works harder than you, be prepared to lose.
VERY minimal govt.
EVERYONE pays the same % tax. The IRS can go to hell.
NO free rides. Everyone works.
You play, you pay.
Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.
An armed man is a citizen, and unarmed man is a subject.
Comment