Obligations to the State

[laklak]

We all have obligations to society at large. Part of that whole social contract thingy. The problem is in the definition of those obligations. Do I have an obligation to serve in the military and go shoot people who never did anything to me? I did back in the 70s, and escaped by the skin of my teeth. I imagine most here would disagree with that particular obligation. I have an obligation to pay taxes, but if I don't like what those taxes are spent on and am free to push for change.

When many people here talk about Libertarianism they talk about the most extreme philosophies, it's a strawman caricature akin to saying "democratic socialists are Marxist useful idiots".

[Animavore]

Well in fairness I did use capital L Libertarianism on purpose. I'm not attacking small l libertarianism. There's as much problems with extreme forms of social cohesion as unrealistic expectations of individualism. Including group-think, hating the 'other', execution of those who don't tow the line etc.

There's probably a happy medium our history has been basically a struggle to find.

[JimC]

Forty Two wrote:

I am not arguing that there can be no laws and regulations. I'm not arguing that being a stock broker requires you to obey the securities laws, pay registration fees, and be licensed to participate in that industry (having taken required courses, etc.). I'm not arguing that the State can't have conditions to the practice of law, or engineering or accountancy. I'm suggesting that the State should not be able to compel you to be a broker, lawyer, engineer or accountant, if you want to be layabout, poet, or professional masturbator, instead.

No-one in the current spectrum on Ratz (or virtually anywhere else other than totalitarian regimes of the past) would argue that any State should be able to "compel you to be a broker, lawyer, engineer or accountant, if you want to be layabout, poet, or professional masturbator, instead." Moreover, there is no sign of any modern state even hinting that should be the case.

Now, if society is heading towards running short of STEM professionals (which in places it may well be), then States could dangle some impressive carrots if they wanted to, like zero University fees in such areas, and significant scholarships, as well as potential tax breaks etc.

[Brian Peacock]

Education is a State-sponsored program of brainwashing and mind control that operates as a profit subsidy for the bosses while turning the workers into indebted, compliant economic canonfodder.

[JimC]

Education is a State-sponsored program of brainwashing and mind control that operates as a profit subsidy for the bosses while turning the workers into indebted, compliant economic canonfodder.

All I care about is whether the little fuckers can solve quadratic equations...

[Svartalf]

this old geezer forgot the method to solve quadratic equations within 6 months of leaving high school, never had any use for those.

[Brian Peacock]

So how do you figure out how many sheep have passed through a gate based on the distribution of their footprints Svarty?

[Svartalf]

Eh, I use a camera to film the gate and I count heads.

[Brian Peacock]

Cheat.

[Svartalf]

no, lazybyum, nuance.

[Forty Two]

Forty Two wrote:

I am not arguing that there can be no laws and regulations. I'm not arguing that being a stock broker requires you to obey the securities laws, pay registration fees, and be licensed to participate in that industry (having taken required courses, etc.). I'm not arguing that the State can't have conditions to the practice of law, or engineering or accountancy. I'm suggesting that the State should not be able to compel you to be a broker, lawyer, engineer or accountant, if you want to be layabout, poet, or professional masturbator, instead.

No-one in the current spectrum on Ratz (or virtually anywhere else other than totalitarian regimes of the past) would argue that any State should be able to "compel you to be a broker, lawyer, engineer or accountant, if you want to be layabout, poet, or professional masturbator, instead." Moreover, there is no sign of any modern state even hinting that should be the case.

Now, if society is heading towards running short of STEM professionals (which in places it may well be), then States could dangle some impressive carrots if they wanted to, like zero University fees in such areas, and significant scholarships, as well as potential tax breaks etc.

What brought about this side-issue was the notion that people have an obligation to engage in productive activities. My position was that people should not have any such obligation. That was the extent of my position on this. I did not suggest that the state can't tax income, or can't provide free college as an incentive. That's not an obligation to engage in "worthwhile" activities. That was the qualifier from at least one poster - that the State could require people's activities to be "worthwhile" or some verbiage to that effect.