02 Feb 08
1 edit
Originally posted by mtthwYes precisely to do with "free from force threats of force and fraud" because the transaction is "free from force threats of force and fraud.
Ah. So nothing to do with "free from force, threats of force and fraud" then, actually.
The transaction is voluntary.
Edit: actually
02 Feb 08
Originally posted by RedmikeThe forced funding of elderly peoples care is not 'capitalism'.
But that's nothing to do with communism. The practise of funding elderly people's care from taxation is happening in a capitalist economy.
This is just about democracy. A political party stood on a platform which included the privision of free personal care. They won a majority, and implemented the policy. That's how it works.
You can't opt out - I can't say I don't want my taxes spent on nuclear weapons.
Democracy is not 'capitalism'.
03 Feb 08
Originally posted by RedmikeThey are exactly what they say they are i.e. the forced funding of elderly care is the forced funding of elderly care. Note the word 'force'.
Really? What are they then?
No definition of capitalism uses the word force.
except
In response to the initiation of force, threats of force and fraud.
It is not capitalism because it is not recognising the individuals right to their property.
03 Feb 08
Originally posted by WajomaSo, if it isn't capitalism, what is it?
They are exactly what they say they are i.e. the forced funding of elderly care is the forced funding of elderly care. Note the word 'force'.
No definition of capitalism uses the word force.
except
In response to the initiation of force, threats of force and fraud.
It is not capitalism because it is not recognising the individuals right to their property.
03 Feb 08
Originally posted by shavixmirWhat's the point when you can't even fend off a resurgent Islam that's colonozing Europe and remaking it in its own image?
Meaning that even if you're unemployed all your life, you are still looked after when you're old.
And I think it's something you Americans should be looking at, seeing the way your economy is going. You'll be glad of a safety net in the end.
Europe wasn't for the first 1200 years either.
03 Feb 08
Originally posted by RedmikeI am opposed to unlimited democracy. What is needed is a strong constitution strictly limiting it's scope. The US nearly got it right with their constitution, which BTW is constantly under attack.
So you're opposed to democracy then?
Democracy:
"Two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner."
03 Feb 08
Originally posted by WajomaBut do you accept that an elected body should set some rules for the society, and these should be observed by all?
I am opposed to unlimited democracy. What is needed is a strong constitution strictly limiting it's scope. The US nearly got it right with their constitution, which BTW is constantly under attack.
Democracy:
"Two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner."
I'm thinking, for example, of which side of the road to drive on. Or would you consider this to be forced on people?
03 Feb 08
Originally posted by RedmikeI expect that is something democracy is capable of, although I would also guess that the side of the road to drive on has been decided in many countries without the aid of the popular vote.
But do you accept that an elected body should set some rules for the society, and these should be observed by all?
I'm thinking, for example, of which side of the road to drive on. Or would you consider this to be forced on people?
03 Feb 08
Originally posted by WajomaBut surely, by your logic, people are having their freedom to drive on whatever side of the road they choose by threats?
I expect that is something democracy is capable of, although I would also guess that the side of the road to drive on has been decided in many countries without the aid of the popular vote.
