3 ms·

> Not my own security, but the security of the person who pays for the room. Can a person decide for himself whether to stay with a government licenced busines

by snitko 12y ago

> Not my own security, but the security of the person who pays for the room. Can a person decide for himself whether to stay with a government licenced business like a hotel or with someone who wants to rent him a room without any special permits from the government? Why are you deciding for that other person what is safe or not? >I don't care about what people thinks is just or not. Taxes must be paid, because otherwise there would be no public services, such as healthcare or education. We rely on them. And roads. You forgot, no one but government bureaucrats can build roads. So, you don't care for what other people think is just, but you're absolutely okay with forcing your perceived conception of justice upon them by saying "it's unfair to hotels"? What makes you think your sense of fairness is better? >You are free to open a hotel which follows the law but has lower prices This is impossible because the permits I'd have to obtain and rules I'd have to comply with would raise prices. >A very weird comparison you're pulling here. I won't even bother to respond to this... Not weird at all. You said you can't go breaking a law if you simply disagree with it. I gave you an example of a law that many people break and asked you whether you would send them to jail for breaking it. If you stand by your principle, you'd have to do it.

mahouse 12y ago
> Can a person decide for himself whether to stay with a government licenced business like a hotel or with someone who wants to rent him a room without any special permits from the government? Why are you deciding for that other person what is safe or not? No. By that way of thinking, people should be free not to wear a seat belt or a helmet when driving, and that's wrong. (Now that we're talking about weird analogies...) > And roads. You forgot, no one but government bureaucrats can build roads. Not here at least. Private companies can build roads and make you pay a fee for using them. (There's always a free alternative, though.) > So, you don't care for what other people think is just, but you're absolutely okay with forcing your perceived conception of justice upon them by saying "it's unfair to hotels"? What makes you think your sense of fairness is better? I don't care about hotels, but this is not the jungle -- you need a set of permits and pay your taxes, and not having/paying them would be unfair competition, which is not allowed. > This is impossible because the permits I'd have to obtain and rules I'd have to comply with would raise prices. Then go to another country. We need money from taxes to maintain our welfare state. > Not weird at all. You said you can't go breaking a law if you simply disagree with it. I gave you an example of a law that many people break and asked you whether you would send them to jail for breaking it. If you stand by your principle, you'd have to do it. Who's going to go to jail for smoking pot? At least not here. You can't sell it though, because 1) you'd pay no taxes (it's not regulated) and 2) there are diseases related to it, and public healthcare must pay for them.
- snitko 12y ago
  >No. By that way of thinking, people should be free not to wear a seat belt or a helmet when driving, and that's wrong. (Now that we're talking about weird analogies...) Exactly, they should be free to do that. How does not wearing a helmet or a seatbelt hurts anyone else but them? Why can't they make this decision? Wearing a seatbelt or a helmet is not going to help the other side involved in the accident. >Then go to another country. We need money from taxes to maintain our welfare state. Precisely what is going to happen. Also, you need tax money, but you say "go to some other place to do your business"? Really? Do you understand logic? >Who's going to go to jail for smoking pot? At least not here. Are you saying if I openly go smoke a joint outside in your country, cops will just pass by and not pay any attention to me? Anyway, I get your point and, as you can imagine, I disagree completely.
  - mahouse 12y ago
    > Exactly, they should be free to that. How does not wearing a helmet or a seatbelt hurts anyone else but them? Why can't they make this decision? Wearing a seatbelt or a helmet is not going to help the other side involved in the accident. First, nobody wants to see people dying. If you want to see the cold side of it, a lot of people fall in depressions due to traffic accidents, which in turn means productivity lowers. And remember: public healthcare must pay for the hospital, the medics, and if the accident makes you unable to work, you'll get a life-time pension, which the country must pay for as well. > Precisely what is going to happen. Anyway, I get your point and, as you can imagine, I disagree completely. I don't care about liberalism, as long as it's out of my country. I respect your point of view, though. There are countries where liberalism is working, so I don't think it's that bad. I just don't want it to be here. :)

by snitko 12y ago

mahouse 12y ago

> Can a person decide for himself whether to stay with a government licenced business like a hotel or with someone who wants to rent him a room without any special permits from the government? Why are you deciding for that other person what is safe or not? No. By that way of thinking, people should be free not to wear a seat belt or a helmet when driving, and that's wrong. (Now that we're talking about weird analogies...) > And roads. You forgot, no one but government bureaucrats can build roads. Not here at least. Private companies can build roads and make you pay a fee for using them. (There's always a free alternative, though.) > So, you don't care for what other people think is just, but you're absolutely okay with forcing your perceived conception of justice upon them by saying "it's unfair to hotels"? What makes you think your sense of fairness is better? I don't care about hotels, but this is not the jungle -- you need a set of permits and pay your taxes, and not having/paying them would be unfair competition, which is not allowed. > This is impossible because the permits I'd have to obtain and rules I'd have to comply with would raise prices. Then go to another country. We need money from taxes to maintain our welfare state. > Not weird at all. You said you can't go breaking a law if you simply disagree with it. I gave you an example of a law that many people break and asked you whether you would send them to jail for breaking it. If you stand by your principle, you'd have to do it. Who's going to go to jail for smoking pot? At least not here. You can't sell it though, because 1) you'd pay no taxes (it's not regulated) and 2) there are diseases related to it, and public healthcare must pay for them.

snitko 12y ago
>No. By that way of thinking, people should be free not to wear a seat belt or a helmet when driving, and that's wrong. (Now that we're talking about weird analogies...) Exactly, they should be free to do that. How does not wearing a helmet or a seatbelt hurts anyone else but them? Why can't they make this decision? Wearing a seatbelt or a helmet is not going to help the other side involved in the accident. >Then go to another country. We need money from taxes to maintain our welfare state. Precisely what is going to happen. Also, you need tax money, but you say "go to some other place to do your business"? Really? Do you understand logic? >Who's going to go to jail for smoking pot? At least not here. Are you saying if I openly go smoke a joint outside in your country, cops will just pass by and not pay any attention to me? Anyway, I get your point and, as you can imagine, I disagree completely.
- mahouse 12y ago
  > Exactly, they should be free to that. How does not wearing a helmet or a seatbelt hurts anyone else but them? Why can't they make this decision? Wearing a seatbelt or a helmet is not going to help the other side involved in the accident. First, nobody wants to see people dying. If you want to see the cold side of it, a lot of people fall in depressions due to traffic accidents, which in turn means productivity lowers. And remember: public healthcare must pay for the hospital, the medics, and if the accident makes you unable to work, you'll get a life-time pension, which the country must pay for as well. > Precisely what is going to happen. Anyway, I get your point and, as you can imagine, I disagree completely. I don't care about liberalism, as long as it's out of my country. I respect your point of view, though. There are countries where liberalism is working, so I don't think it's that bad. I just don't want it to be here. :)