We're doing alright, but not as well as last year

That sounds great. And that's what they did. People who think like me came all together to create states and nations. They created something beautiful that worked very well at the beginning. Their sons and grandsons continued that work but organizations ended up corrupted. Those descendents have the challenge to end corruption and improve the system, in case they want to continue inside of it. But they are also free to go and create a new system, independent from the current one.

You and me are two of those descendents. I choose to stay and fight for a change in the system. What do you choose?

 

No, you do want to force people to live by your rules, since you do not accept what our society democratically decided.

 

If you don't agree with promotion of equal freedom among children via taxation, you aren't in favour of equal opportunities and equal freedom, because both of us know that if it's not by taxation, it won't happen. Pure game theory.
And another thing you didn't understand (or at least you didn't explain to me why that's not true) is that every democratic State is a friendly society. They don't force you to stay. But if you do, you have to follow the rules. And like any organization, it has to be managed. Liberals like so much to say that the State should behave more like a company (to be more efficient). But on the other hand, they say the State shouldn't do anything that is not agreed by everyone. Do you imagine how companies would perform if they were managed like that?

 

Why are you twisting things?
A company executive makes decisions with the company's money, not with his own money. But he was elected by those who own the company.
A prime minister makes decisions with the country's money, not with his own money. But he was elected by those who own the country.
It's exactly the same situation.

See my comment to boardsilver.

 

I don't agree with putting the perceived need of some individuals above others. Children, the elderly, the disabled, the sick, the non-English speaking migrant, the refugee, indigenous, the disfigured, the unintelligent, the unsuccessful, the ice-addled druggies, the homeless, the single parents, the religious, the unemployed, the easily offended, the differently coloured to average, the "selfless" public servants etc. Once you make an exception the list of people deemed to be worthy of assistance or different treatment through the forced slavery or theft and redistribution from others is very long.

And again, I disagree. People have strong incentives to build social capital through mutual self-interest. The fact is that all of us will go through at least some of the types of disadvantage that I listed. Hence your game theory is really an intertemporal problem of overlapping generations and not some transient simplified short-term game. The Friendly Societies are historical (and current) proof of this. As described in the Medical Care thread, the benefits are also wide ranging.

The State is nothing like a friendly society. A friendly is a club where every member is invariably treated equally and pays dues to obtain specific services or to aid the group carry out its activities. Due to the moral hazard problems, joining generally (but definitely not always) has some restrictions along with internal rules or codes of conduct for members. People who don't wish to abide by these rules aren't jailed or have their general property taken away or have to move home. They simply join another association, set up their own, self-insure or take out commercial equivalents. Friendlies embrace competition and self-help. The scope of activities of any given Friendly are limited (even if some do become a large part of people's lives).

In contrast the State loathes competition and intrusive welfare+socialist states loathe self-help. The scope of activities of the State are essentially unlimited, intruding on nearly every aspect of our lives. It is a geographic monopoly on violence with the geography illegitimately obtained. The entire continent of Australia plus a massive swathe of the surrounding oceans is claimed to be the property of the Australian state. A friendly society - no matter how big - could never make a legitimate claim on over 7 million square kilometres of land. Membership would never require you to physically abandon your property and move thousands of kilometres away from your friends, family and cultural heritage simply because you wanted to join a competitor with better rules or wanted to live your life differently.

 

No individual has the right to take away other people's rights and since every collective is simply comprised of individuals, neither does society. Voting people rights away isn't something to be applauded as it is just a variant of mob rules. The purpose of the State under Classical Liberalism is to uphold the rights of the minorities against the majority (and as someone I forget said, the smallest minority on earth is the individual).

Under the system we are advocating people will be free to live by their own rules as long as it is voluntary. There is nothing preventing people setting up communes, kibbutz's, local councils etc. Communists are free to be communists. Monarchists are free to have pomp and pageantry and revere their god ordained supreme ruler. As long as they aren't initiating force against their members or others then so be it. Let all peaceful individuals go about their peaceful projects and lives as they see fit. Excepting for my forced acquiescence to the state, every one of my actions involve peaceful interaction with the people and friends I deal with or only affect my own person or property. Why can't others do the same?

(In terms of "accepting what our society democratically decided" I take the threats of violence against me if I don't accept the rules very seriously. That is why I pay my taxes and obey (most) of the laws however illogical and self-destructive they are. However, we still have relative freedom of political speech and while we do I will actively voice my disapproval and opinions just as every other political party voices their disapproval and opinions. Or doesn't my political speech count?)

 

I'm talking about freedom and you're constantly avoiding the subject.

For example:
A - "The fighter has not lost any of his property" - I could say that you didn't take a punch in the face either. But I will just say the obvious: you pretend not to know what an analogy is. My suggestion to you, go here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analogy
B - "When the State or for that matter anyone else, takes the property of an individual without consent then that action is tantamount to theft" - I couldn't care less about what theft is or not at this point. I'm just talking about freedom.
C - "its forced removal results in a loss of freedom for the owner" - I know it. The only thing I'm not sure is whether you've said that already 10, 20 or 30 times. For the same amount of times, I replied to you that some investments in freedom (initial costs) actually turn a profit. The example of the bread and the starving man would account for a huge profitability in freedom. So please stop going around in circles. Please just stop.
D - "If the State takes my bread and gives it to someone else then I've lost and the other has gained at my expense." - You pretend that freedom is a boolean variable, when we both know it isn't. When you lose, you don't lose it all, you lose some quantity of it. And when the other gains, he doesn't gain absolute freedom either, he gains some quantity of it too.
E - "Yes you are." - Then please quote the specific sentence in which I'm talking about the right to take.

Let's focus on the real subject. Please let me know what steps you do not understand or agree with from my very simple logic:
1 - Freedom is what is being discussed here. Not pride, not dignity, not right of any kind...just freedom.
2 - Freedom is a matter of options.
3 - If I remove some little and insignificant option from a person that has hundreds of big and relevant options, his freedom is barely the same.
4 - If I add some big and fundamental option to a person that has very few options, his freedom increases dramatically.
5 - A dramatic increase is more significant than a little decrease.
6 - Overall freedom is the sum of all the individual freedoms.
7 - If the overall freedom has a little decrease on the one side and a big increase on the other, in the end it gets greater than it was initially.

Please just let me know the numbers that you're having a challenge to accept, instead of going around in circles again.

You don't want a change in the system. You just don't want the system at all. You want no system. You're inside of something you claim it shouldn't exist. If so, then leave. Nobody's stopping you.

 

I think you all need to go back to basic and agree on some definitions first.

I'm almost 100% sure you guys are using different definitions of "freedom" which is where the misunderstanding is coming from.

For example suggestion that giving somebody a piece of bread is giving them "freedom" doesn't really make sense.

 

I think the thread title needs to be changed :

 

You're like a politician. You avoid answering directly to the questions. I've said you're not in favour of equal freedom among children. You reply by saying you're not in favour of equal opportunities, which is basically the same, but you don't want to use the word "freedom" because that's your main value.

Did you know that companies have different stakeholders with differing values and make decisions that sometimes go against some of them? Indeed, they would go bankrupt if they didn't.

I've read all the posts and I'm still not convinced. This is the most important issue that needs to be clarified between us, because everything else results from our different views on this.
If you are willing to reply to me, please consider this your highest priority and explain thoroughly why a democratic State is not a friendly society. What are the similarities and differences.

Again, a politician's answer.
You know there's a political spectrum between your vision and the current state. Both of us know in what direction you would like the state to move: getting small and behaving more like a company. In the limit (in your vision) it would be abolished. But you cannot ignore what's in between.

 

Again, until you show me why a democratic State is not a friendly society, I have to say you're wrong. No one forces you to contribute to the State, like no one forces you to invest in a company. You can leave the society (leave the company) or you can stay.

You point some important differences between the State and companies. However, some of your conclusions don't seem correct. An "industry benchmark" can be established, by comparing the efficiency of a State with other States. I show you some states that are more efficient than others, if you want. So, they are managed and their performance can be evaluated. Contributors can judge how well their money is being spent.
If a government performs poorly, as you said, the PM is sacked and replaced. The State doesn't go out of business, like the private sector doesn't. What happens is that a company that performs poorly is replaced by others (its competitors grow, or new companies enter the market or new companies enter new markets). Likewise, a government that performs poorly is replaced by another. It's like a new company and it may "go out of some markets" and "enter new markets".

 

Those who feel are getting less from the society than they are receiving, just leave, like I sell my stocks of a company that I think is taking bad decisions. But claiming that the company should only do the moves everyone agrees on is ludicrous. The same for the State.

If I born with no deficiencies I won't contribute to those who born with them, although I think everyone should. What is the generation that would contribute to that?
Also, regarding children and Education, you would only decide after having received your Education, so basically you would not decide.

A democratic State is a club where every member is invariably treated equally (unlike monarchy where people have different titles) and pays dues to obtain specific services (Education, Health, Security, etc.) or to aid the group carry out its activities (social inclusion, etc.).

Due to the moral hazard problems, joining generally has some restrictions (immigration is possible but restricted) along with internal rules or codes of conduct for members (the law).

States embrace competition (for international investments, bright students and professionals) and self-help (most, if not all, of them are based on capitalism).

The scope of activities of any given State are limited (even if some do become a large part of people's lives) - with the exception of extremist States, none of them are responsible for the country's food production, etc.

Like any company or organization (including your friendly societies).

Not true. Social democracies (pretty much the system in every democratic country) are based on capitalism and therefore promote self-help. However, they moderate capitalism with socialism, because they do the trade-off between negative and positive rights (not just looking at part of the equation).

Not true. See above.

In practice you don't need to move thousands of kilometres away. You can simply go to a wild region. But if you have enough people agreeing with you, you may even split the country and form a new one. If you don't, yes you have to physically abandon your property, because you were raised, educated, produced and bought things (your property) from a society that works by certain rules (different from yours).

 

I think you shouldn't because his post was one of the best efforts in decomposing in small parts the entire path that separates both of you, so that you can understand each other.

Pretty much aligned with what he said:

These definitions suggest more the "binary thing", although it's open for interpretation. I can say you are freer with more absence of restraint (or with less force, fraud or theft) or I can say you are only free with complete absence of restraint (or force, fraud or theft). But you all seem to rely on those freedom rankings, so I presume you think of freedom as being measurable and having different possible levels.

So he decomposes his argument in small parts and asks what are the ones you disagree. You refuse to tell him. And then you say you can't make your claims more sound? It seems you don't want to debate because you don't have a logical answer compatible with your previous statements.

 

You caught my attention. Tell me more...