We should immediately disband the army, police, and fire departments. No foreigner has invaded my place, I haven’t been mugged, nor ever caught on fire so I don’t see why my tax dollars should go towards other people’s problems. That’s socialism.
what, no? Why are these institutions important? Militaries keep us SAFE from the ineveiable uncontrollable other society harming us, police keep us SAFE from the inevitable uncontrollable element within our own society harming us, and the fire brigades keep us SAFE from inevitable uncontrollable combustion harming us.
We can all agree that we task the govornment with keeping us safe from the common threats we all share as individuals in a society, yes? Yet there’s a fourth element of risk we all share which will definitely impact your safety during you lifetime, whether or not there is an invasion, crime, or fire, you will definitely get sick, and need to see a doctor about it. So why shouldn’t the govornment have just a minimum safeguard in place to keep you SAFE in the one way you will undoubtedly need it during your life?
November 28th, 2009 at 10:05 pm
anybody? anybody? Bueller?
December 3rd, 2009 at 12:46 am
“So why shouldn’t the govornment have just a minimum safeguard in place to keep you SAFE in the one way you will undoubtedly need it during your life?” That’s why Most countries have a VOLUNTARY armed forces, and we (the US) haven’t had a draft in 35+ years. Now, I rather like the idea that Israel & Russia have in place: you turn 18, you do a mandatory 2-3 years service in the military.
You’ll appreciate your freedoms, rights, and priviliges a lot more.
So, to drop a bomb (THAT’S the government’s lil’ safeguard) on your rant, here’s my lump sum in response: 90% of medicine is reactive. The military, police, and fire brigade get paid for what they MIGHT HAVE TO DO, and then DO.
Immune systems offer a bit of defense against virus and germs. Last time I checked, I wasn’t fire
retard(nyehehheheheh)ant. But that’s OK. Ninjas can’t catch you when you’re on fire.
December 4th, 2009 at 1:11 am
I find that argument self-contradictory.
90% of all these services is reactive. firemen aren’t needed until there’s a fire, police aren’t needed until there’s a crime, military aren’t needed until there’s a threat, and as you said doctors aren’t needed until there’s a serious health problem.
“The military, police, and fire brigade get paid for what they MIGHT HAVE TO DO, and then DO.”
it’s the insurance companies, correct me if I’m wrong, that get paid for what they MIGHT HAVE TO DO, and then DON’T.
All these services do preventitive maitenance like doctors nudging you towards healthier lifestyles and annual checkups to make sure nothing’s going on, same as fire brigades telling you to install smoke alarms or do fire inspections, or police telling you not to leave valuable shit in your cars or walking thwe beat to let thier presence be known, same as the military uses intel when it can to sort out trouble before it flares up.
The question remains unanswered, unless your answer classing socialised health care as largely reactive it should be disqualified from being a legitimate social service, and therefore concede all four of services mention should be equally disqualified on account of thier reactionary nature.
My question stands: Why shouldn’t the govornment have just a MINIMUM safeguard in place to keep you SAFE in the one way you WILL undoubtedly need it during your life?
December 4th, 2009 at 11:35 pm
I thought you were getting away from this political shit?
December 5th, 2009 at 12:09 am
this isn’t political, this is well being of human beings.
December 5th, 2009 at 11:22 am
no youre right youre right