|
>> I thought the obvious message would be to make military service never
>> compulsory, and drop income tax. Do you mean 'dropping' income tax altogether or lowing it? If it is
lowered, the issue is still the same. If you believe that society can function
without taxes, I disagree - the choice is taxes or anarchy. I just object to governments setting taxes
Laffer maximum. As for military
service, I am quite prepared to point a gun at someone's back and say 'get up
on the wall and defend it or I will kill you'. Is this 'collectivism'? Yes. The
reality is that you belong to strong coalition or you die. I would be quite
prepared to make the coalitions voluntary if they weren't fundamentally
geographically based, and therefore prone to tragedy-of-the-commons. It ain't,
so I'm not. .. I keep meaning to write a proper essay on this, but when you only get time
in 30-minute chunks between other things it's hard to do. > Age of consent is always going to be prickly - a sixteen year old boy having
>> sex with his fifteen year old girlfriend could be charged with statutory rape
>> (I think...) .. I posted separately on this. > People are made to have sex, over and over again, until they have
>> offspring. Who is 'made to have sex, over and over again'. I thought that was illegal
(unless you belong to victim minority group who can call it 'exercising
traditional cultural right' - then the law turns a blind eye). >>This requires little intelligence. Age of consent and voting are
>> separate issues. But they are related issues too. It goes to the issue of 'competence'. Sex
is more than just a physical act for most people. Adults feel damaged as a
result of making bad decisions - their choice of course, but children are
judged 'incompetent' to make those potentially damaging decisions are hence are
protected from them. Do you let a three year-old play with a carving knife, or
play out in the traffic? No. > Dying for your country, and politics are another matter. If the age of
>> adulthood was sixteen, but there was no draft eligibility, and there was
>> voluntary voting, I don't see too many sixteen year olds flocking to polling
>> booths, ..
I beg to differ. Introduce a policy of free movie tickets or voluntary
schooling and you'll could easily change the result of the election.
Doubtless you will say that they will lose more votes (from 'responsible'
adults) than they gain from ('irresponsible') children, but still think the
outcome would be worse. .. unless they reflect their parents vote (let's assume both conservative
>> and ALP families have roughly the same amount of kids), pay a substantial
>> amount of tax - e.g "whizz kids" who are financial geniuses. Not many of
>> them. Or genuinely feel informed. As so do many readers of the SMH. Whose
>> views on education and economics I spurn. > Lowering the voting age will be, in fact, rather benign if we had voluntary
>> voting. But in our compulsory voting system, most sixteen year olds do not want
>> to cough up the fifty dollars, so the question is will another mob of
>> uninformed, uncaring voters change the electoral results for the betterment or
>> detriment of Australia? Where did the 'fifty dollars' come from? > If it is a victimless crime, then why not remove it? The reason would be, (not
>> to remove it) that they could do it to someone else less forgiving. This raises some interesting points. Much of the leftists arguments about
banks keeping credit ratings for 10 years is that 'I am not the same person as
I was 10 years ago'. Of course the extreme users of this belief argue:
- No-one is allowed to remember what I have done 10 years ago.
- I am not the same person as I was yesterday, therefore I have obligation
to comply with the contract I signed then.
- It is ridiculous to keep someone locked up for a crime that was committed 20
years ago.
Of course like most leftist arguments there is a grain of truth in it -
people do change. Consider
It is ridiculous to lock someone up for having sex ten years ago with someone who is now
18.
Not so ridiculous, others would believe. If someone feels that a crime has been committed against them, and society
agrees, then a crime has been committed against that person. If the person then
finds religion/forgiveness/drugs or whatever and changes their mind, does the
crime cease to be? No. A crime was still committed. If the person is no longer
hurting then it's may not be appropriate to keep someone locked up for it, but
history is history. It did happen. There was a victim, and a perpetrator, and
therefore a crime. > Hmm, there's nothing hardline about free banking - just that I question why in
>> our Government Controlled RBA, there isn't zero inflation targeting, given how
>> successful the inflation band has been since it was implemented, or at least
>> recently. And most people have no idea how "unliberalised" our market economy
>> is. So the government has a monopoly on a brand called 'Australian Dollars'. I
can't get exited about this. If I don't like it I can adopt another brand -
'Credits', 'L.E.T.S', 'PatOnTheBacks', 'GoodOnYous', Gold or even clam shells. The
only problem I have is with government outlawing the alternatives (and the
thought that if my mistress gives me two hot nights of passion I have to give
one to the tax-man :) > The system of responsibility you propose has merit. I like
it. Why thank you. > Anyway, we know kids are great - you can teach them to hate the things you hate
>> - or you can make someone else responsible for them. I like the idea of
>> proportional responsibility, because, if you have kids, they are your
>> responsibility, plain and simple. Yes memes have a strong urge to reproduce. :)
| 
