What exactly is the state for?

**Don Corleone** · 09-30-2005, 18:48

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.

**Seamus Fermanagh** · 09-30-2005, 19:01

EA:

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

Seamus

**Taffy_is_a_Taff** · 09-30-2005, 20:10

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.

**Mongoose** · 09-30-2005, 20:18

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

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

**Red Harvest** · 09-30-2005, 20:24

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.

**Efrem** · 10-01-2005, 08:47

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

**Red Harvest** · 10-01-2005, 16:53

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.

**Soulforged** · 10-01-2005, 19:16

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.

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...

**Seamus Fermanagh** · 10-03-2005, 03:35

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