What exactly is the state for?

A little rant.

I always thought it was accepted that the absolute bare minimum a state was supposed to do was secure, as far as may be, the safety and security of its people and their property. If a state can't even do something as basic as that then it really shouldn't be moving on to anything more complicated.

Now, in London, the policy target response time for an emergency call is 20 minutes. That's right, ring 999 and shout "Argh, I'm being stabbed" and they'll get the cops to you in 20 minutes or so. (Only today in the paper there is a report of a murder trial in which the victim was knifed to death whislt his 999 call was on hold, for god's sake. I'm telling you, it won't be long before you dial 999 and get a recorded message saying "Sorry, all of our policemen are busy. Your call is important to us. Press 1 if you are being shot, press 2 if you are being raped....")

So although I admit I don't feel in much physical danger I can't say I have the state to thank for that.

Now, today, I read they are going to increase the fees for using the courts for civil cases. Apparently ministers want court users to pay the full cost of the court service. Big deal, you are thinking, but hang on. This means the state isn't even providing civil justice to its citizens (unless they can pay). What's that? A cowboy builder did a bad job in your house and caused £10000 of damage? You'd like to get compensation? Sorry, you can't. Of you go, try not to fall through the holes in your floor. (Of course you could always just go and break his legs, the police would be along to investigate some time next February)

In short, in the UK, I can't see the state is really providing any sort of basic legal framework for most of its citizens at all.

And another thing. Our wonderful NHS. Because we've got the NHS, we don't waste money on private health insurance like those Americans, do we? Because the NHS will look after us. Well, my mum's just been diagnosed with a nasty form of cancer. The good news is there is a new drug, licensed for that cancer, which offers about a 30% greater chance of a cure than the older treatments. The bad news is the NHS won't prescribe it because its too expensive. And of course she doesn't have private health insurance (which does pay out for the drug) because she thought the good old state NHS would provide. Oh well, never mind, maybe we can find £25,000 out of our heavily taxed income to pay for the drugs ourselves?

Don't even start me on the schools round my way either.

I mean, apart from lesbian equality project co-ordinators what are we actually getting for all this bloody money we pay out to Gordon Brown?

Well the first priority of any government should be the protection and security of its citizens. The bad ones in our case.

I believe the state should protect its citizens and their property, and as an extension of that provide civil and criminal justice, and provide esential, large scale infrastructure (like roads). Providing other stuff (national health care, welfare, etc.) should not be done by the government. The state, as you have shown, will just screw it up.

Quote:

---

Now, in London, the policy target response time for an emergency call is 20 minutes. That's right, ring 999 and shout "Argh, I'm being stabbed" and they'll get the cops to you in 20 minutes or so. (Only today in the paper there is a report of a murder trial in which the victim was knifed to death whislt his 999 call was on hold, for god's sake. I'm telling you, it won't be long before you dial 999 and get a recorded message saying "Sorry, all of our policemen are busy. Your call is important to us. Press 1 if you are being shot, press 2 if you are being raped....")

---

Perhaps Americans aren't so crazy about guns, eh? Did you know that New Hamshire, where you can carry a concealed semi-auto rifle/handgun/what-have-you w/o any sort of license, has the lowest crime rate in the USA? I heard its because you can assume everyone is armed.

I find it slightly ironic, that for all your heavy taxes, the state doesn't provide such services better than the USA.

Crazed Rabbit

Quote:

---

I find it slightly ironic, that for all your heavy taxes, the state doesn't provide such services better than the USA

---

Yeah, well, that's what's twisting my nipples this evening too.

Good use of British understatement there BTW.

Quote:

---

Good use of British understatement there BTW.

---

Thank you. I have always found understatement interesting and fun.

Crazed Rabbit

The UK needs some sort of ccw license like the USA. (You can carry a pistol)

And the second part of your post is why I think free health care is not of much use. It would be nice if it was though :embarassed:



And the states use? there isn't one imo I would like to see the US as a coalition of free counties that band together in times of war.



Kind of like ancient greece except we wouldn't fight each other.



(counties are sections of states for example ohio is a state it has 88 counties)

Thanks cube. That won't happen in our time though :embarassed:

State? What state? I don't want no state!

Oh, and EA Im sorry about your mother. You really should get that drug.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Templar Knight

Well the first priority of any government should be the protection and security of its citizens. The bad ones in our case.

---

new labour standard policy

In a word, the state's main function is to provide security and economic functionality to it's citizens.

My sincere sympathies to your mother. My father was a victim of cancer.

Well, being a Libertarian, I should give some smart alec answer like 'take your money and give it somebody else, keeping half for themselves in the process".

Tough break for your mum, EA. I thought private insurance, in a one-payer system, is illegal. It is in Canada.

EA:

God bless and keep your mother and your whole family in what will be a stressful time.


Seamus

EA, sorry to hear about your mum.

It seems that nowadays, on top of security, the state (in the U.K.) is meant to exist so that the welfare system and NHS can keep running.
Unfortunately the state is failing in every area that it is meant to have responsibility for.

Anyway, I'm sure some Labour faithful will be along soon to tell us all how wrong we are.

Sorry to hear about your mom. That's the problem with public health care; if the service is poor, theres nothing you can do about it. And in some cases the taxes that people have to pay for it prevent them from buying their own health care:dizzy2:

Quote:

---

I believe the state should protect its citizens and their property, and as an extension of that provide civil and criminal justice, and provide esential, large scale infrastructure (like roads). Providing other stuff (national health care, welfare, etc.) should not be done by the government. The state, as you have shown, will just screw it up.

---

Agreed https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/image...isc/ht_bow.gif

What exactly is the state for?

Good question, as I'm being told here in Texas that they aren't responsible for security or emergency response either... While I personally have the capacity to pretty much take what I need (assuming I survive an initial disaster) I'm not too darned impressed by the way the U.S. and Texas are handling things. All I keep hearing are apologists saying nobody is responsible for anything...except for the private individuals of course.

Anarchy or true demcracy in a fuedal system with most powers going to the local governments is the way to go.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Efrem

Anarchy or true demcracy in a fuedal system with most powers going to the local governments is the way to go.

---

Isn't that what Afghanistan had? A bunch of feudal lords with local councils? AACCKKKKK!

If you want nothing but tyranny and corruption, leave decisions up to the locals. A couple of powerful families will control everything and take what they want from everyone else.

The only function of the state should be administrative (throw down executive, legislative and judicial), with a disciplined bureaucracy. In a short or long term the state should disappear completely and the power should return to the rightful owner, the society. But as long as it exists, the organs on judicial matter cannot wash their hands and not provide what they should provide.

Quote:

---

Anarchy or true demcracy in a fuedal system with most powers going to the local governments is the way to go.

---

Anrchy + feudalism? Sorry that will never happen, that will mean the concentration of the power in one person, wich is not anarchism...

The state is nothing more than a standardization of rules and regulations in order to make a larger society run smoother. Anyone that makes more of it, will create trouble.....

Any point in standard rules and regulations when people and corporations will just side step them and use for instance sweatshops overseas, or mining corporations that will pollute rivers etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Any point in standard rules and regulations when people and corporations will just side step them and use for instance sweatshops overseas, or mining corporations that will pollute rivers etc.

---

Any point in having mods when people will post crap in other forums anyway..... ~:grouphug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

I believe the state should protect its citizens and their property, and as an extension of that provide civil and criminal justice, and provide esential, large scale infrastructure (like roads). Providing other stuff (national health care, welfare, etc.) should not be done by the government. The state, as you have shown, will just screw it up

---

I was going to say "as little as possible" for what the state should do- but I think your summation is probably better. ~D

It's for bashing, obviously, isn't it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bmolsson

Any point in having mods when people will post crap in other forums anyway..... ~:grouphug:

---

True, but some states also have rules on what their citizens or corporations can do overseas.

If you commit pedophilia (sp) overseas as an Australian you can get charged back in Australia for the crime. Similar situation for Australian companies polluting overseas.

I think states to be effective in the 21st century will have to have multinational laws to cope with multinational citizens and corporations, both to help them succeed and to stop them from side stepping justice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

True, but some states also have rules on what their citizens or corporations can do overseas.

If you commit pedophilia (sp) overseas as an Australian you can get charged back in Australia for the crime. Similar situation for Australian companies polluting overseas.

I think states to be effective in the 21st century will have to have multinational laws to cope with multinational citizens and corporations, both to help them succeed and to stop them from side stepping justice.

---

As I said, that is what the state is for...... ~:grouphug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Efrem

Anarchy or true demcracy in a fuedal system with most powers going to the local governments is the way to go.

---

My heavens, I'm agreeing with Soul' and Red Harvest on this one. What you describe is a recipe for balkanization, not utopia.

...and I do hope you mean the entire human race vis-a-vis your sig

Seamus