Your comparison between the role that big government plays or can play in modern societies and feudal times doesn't pan anywhere near enough attention to the most important thing the role that civil liberties play in the twenty-first century. Today, in most democracies, individuals have a certain unimpeachable rights that no one, not even the state can manipulate.
That’s not the main flaw in your argument though.
Feudal lords were members of an aristocracy, knights and so on, appointed by a monarchy. Today, we have elected government officials who have to answer to the people. Government is a place that people can come together, be heard. Big government means more people can be heard at a more grass-roots level.
I agree there are differences between a monarchy and a representative government. However, I disagree that "big government means more people can be heard." I'd argue that our current federal system is less beholden to the average person than it is large scale special interests and corporations. What we are ruled by now is not a government answerable to the people, but one that serves as a proxy for corporatism (and a few other -ism's), which is the modern analogue to aristocracy
( ... )
First I need to correct the use of 'we'. I am assuming from previous posts that you are American, I am Australian. However, you are certainly correct in saying that many if not all current western capitalist democracies are beholden to the corporate companies they are supposed to govern, however I would argue that this is not at all a result of big government simply because big governments don't really exist in modern democracies anymore. Big government doesn't result in government serving as proxy for corporatism or any of the (many) ism's simply because it has the power to not be dependent on any of them. Government's like the ones we have in our respective countries become lapdogs for the capitalist system when they don't have the means available to them to answer the peoples needs themselves
( ... )
In truth, this represents additional inequality by putting the cost burdens of caring for those who don't manage themselves on those who do.
This implies that, any time someone is sick, it could have been prevented if they had "managed themselves" better.
As if a woman who gets raped and ends up with AIDS, or a grandfather who develops crippling arthritis, or a child born with diabetes, are all somehow to blame for not being in perfect health.
One measure of a society is how well it takes care of its neediest members. I want some of the money I earn to be used to help other people. And, in turn, if I develop breast cancer (which isn't idle speculation; there's a history of it in my family) and can't afford chemo, I would rather not just be allowed to die.
Sorry - I was speaking mainly in the case of obesity and cigarette smoking. (We were going over that in class so it was on my mind.) I wasn't discussing the diseases you brought up
( ... )
Obesity can have many causes - genetics, for example, or side effects of necessary medication. So you're left hanging on the rather dodgy premise that people who smoke Deserve To Die Of Lung Cancer.
Even then, you can hardly argue that a system that takes money from everyone and spends it on health care for everyone is somehow "taking money from the poor and spending it on the rich." Government officials pay taxes like everyone else (okay, some don't, but they're breaking the law), and it isn't only government employees that get sick.
I like the idea of giving my money to a program that is owned by me, and answerable to me.
I'm arguing that everyone is responsible for paying their own bills be they healthy or unhealthy. If I'm injured, it's my responsibility to cover the bill, be it by having insurance or paying it out of pocket to the provider. I have no right to infringe on another person and make them pay it for me
( ... )
Comments 10
That’s not the main flaw in your argument though.
Feudal lords were members of an aristocracy, knights and so on, appointed by a monarchy. Today, we have elected government officials who have to answer to the people. Government is a place that people can come together, be heard. Big government means more people can be heard at a more grass-roots level.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
This implies that, any time someone is sick, it could have been prevented if they had "managed themselves" better.
As if a woman who gets raped and ends up with AIDS, or a grandfather who develops crippling arthritis, or a child born with diabetes, are all somehow to blame for not being in perfect health.
One measure of a society is how well it takes care of its neediest members. I want some of the money I earn to be used to help other people. And, in turn, if I develop breast cancer (which isn't idle speculation; there's a history of it in my family) and can't afford chemo, I would rather not just be allowed to die.
Reply
Reply
Even then, you can hardly argue that a system that takes money from everyone and spends it on health care for everyone is somehow "taking money from the poor and spending it on the rich." Government officials pay taxes like everyone else (okay, some don't, but they're breaking the law), and it isn't only government employees that get sick.
I like the idea of giving my money to a program that is owned by me, and answerable to me.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment