Post
by Alexandra » Tue Sep 20, 2016 8:02 pm
I must plead guilty to being one of those "hard cores" who thinks any form of taxation is theft. With that said I don't believe that such drastic reforms can possibly happen over night, that's what I meant when I said that I think it's a good start. People depend on various things and worry for the future so they are reluctant to drive the required changes forward at a high velocity, I understand that. But I would be less unhappy with a shrunk government than how unhappy I am to be ruled by various decide-it-all type of umbrella organizations.
Legalizing victimless crimes, such as narcotics possession (see Portugal's success story), is not only something that can but is actively happening, at least in America judging by recent changes to cannabis legislature. That is also what I would call a good start. I would prefer all wars on abstract things to end completely: the war on drugs, the war on terrorism, and so on. I want to see an end to interplanetary surveillance, it repeatedly shows that it doesn't work. Most recently the bombs in New York went unnoticed to the American intelligence community until one of them blew up.
I think we as a species are already in full agreement about importances. Murdering, harming, stealing, robbing, etcetera, we have a biologically driven understanding that those things are bad. There is not a single advocate of any political ideology in this world that sets out to say: "I want the world to be a terrible place!". The question is: how can we make it as good as possible for as many as possible? I believe variety is key.
Call me a naive utopist, but I think that even without what we know today as "government" we can co-exist peacefully. Frankly put, it doesn't matter to me that my neighbour subscribes to a different company for cable TV than I. It doesn't affect me if we have a different health insurance policy or that we send our kids to different schools. What does affect me is when he participates in national elections and votes for a whole package that may be to his benefit for fewer reasons than the same package is bad for me. In real life, when I see him in the stairway, I don't really care if he's a communist. He should be able to subscribe to communist packaging of life without it having a negative impact on mine, and I should be able to choose something completely different without it affecting him. If he wants to pay 100% of his income on charity then I don't have a problem with that, but I don't want to be chased down the stairs for choosing to pay less or even nothing to charity. Those few roads we share? I'm sure we can agree that we both need them and come up with the costs with other people who use them. Hell, we might even start our own joint venture and co-own them!
To me, it's as if humanity has lost touch. Every small issue has been blown out of proportion and presidents need to sign off on decisions left and right because people have lost the ability to communicate and listen to each other. I don't believe that sane working people want to harm others, but that is the result when people vote left instead of right for small benefits or vice versa. I somehow hope that most people in this world are sane, and we should be able to get along a lot better than we do in public sector. Private sector doesn't really seem to have those problems, you have Metfone and I have Cellcard and we can somehow magically call each other up without the need of any third party dictating how it should be done or adding fees simply for allowing that transaction to happen. I just hope one day more layers of life to be like that and I think it stems from getting rid of, well, you get it.
Sorry for ranting all over your thread.
Bless