3 ms·
I define "rights" as the freedom to do whatever you want with your body and property as long as you don't infringe on another's freedom to do the same. But as
by jwallaceparker 15y ago
I define "rights" as the freedom to do whatever you want with your body and property as long as you don't infringe on another's freedom to do the same.
But as you say, "rights" and "expectations" are slippery slopes.
> if "intellectual property" was a natural right
I don't believe this is a natural right. If anything, nature shows us that there is no such thing as intellectual property. Once an idea is "out in the open" it's out there for good.
> Also, government could tax us to do unprofitable stuff such as the US Postal Service.
But this is a terrible thing, is it not?
I'd guess at least 85% of mail is junk mail. This is only possible because mail is so cheap and the post office runs at an annual loss in the billions.
Eliminate the post office. Let UPS/FedEx/whoever compete to deliver your mail. Pay $3 to mail a letter. Save trees. Eliminate junk mail.
> However, the problem is that our government lacks incentives to stop growing, and we need to introduce them.
I agree.
I'd start with not allowing the government to print its own money. As long as it can, it will never have an incentive to stop growing.
- jarek 15y agoIf you are advocating increased independence for the Federal Reserve (discussing the U.S. case), are you concerned that it will then grow itself to perpetuate the organization as discussed elsewhere in the comments on this post?
- jwallaceparker 15y agoMore likely the eradication of the Fed.
- EGreg 15y agoThe Ron Paul solution? How do you propose to move from the current situation to a non elastic currency backed by a combination of commodities, in a way that doesn't involve hurting a lot of people? And how would it be better?
- EGreg 15y agoI am not saying that "expectations" are slippery slopes, it is just the word I use to describe the situation, much like I use "government granted monopoly right" instead of "intellectual property right". I am just observing what governments do and what their purpose is supposed to be. Once we can agree on what their purpose is, then we can decide on what they should be doing, and perhaps how to make them more efficient at doing it. People today expect more from their governments than 2000 years ago. If we were talking about "rights", they would be the same throughout time. But it's more mundane than that. Anyway, "ensuring that the minimum expectations of the citizens are met" is not just for welfare states. It is for ALL governments that serve their people.