How is the NHS very different from the military. Americans love their military and often have propaganda-style bits like fly-overs during football games. American's don't get the option to 'opt-out' of paying for its gigantic costs. Why not have military spending depend on voluntary donations?
They actually should be able to, for the most part.
The original idea of state exists to ensure 3 things:
- Protection of the territory of the state
- Protection of the integrity of the individual citizen
- Protection of the private property of the citizen
This is why people started organizing in societies and allowing the existence of a ruler class. These 3 things.
You will always need some amount of military to be part of the state. But what most countries waste today (the USA for instance), is pornographic. The state should only be allowed (by taxation) enough military to defend their territory, not to exert control over the all planet like the USA wants to do.
EDIT: Yeah, I should have guessed the part of the "integrity of the individual citizen" would, of course, be twisted. No, it's not protection of the individual from disease of from his own stupidity or lack of ability. It just means the role of the state is to ensure the citizen is protected from deliberate harm from another individual.
The idea behind taxation is to enable collective spending power for things that ideally benefit society. The NHS is likely to be useful for the vast majority of people at some point or another though individuals may well not get value for money if they're healthy or die young etc. However, providing free/cheap healthcare enables people to get check-ups and hopefully catch problems earlier which can make a huge difference to the outcomes. Of course, increasing the health of the workforce is going to benefit the economy as well, if you're looking for a purely monetary benefit.
There's option to opt out of social security if you are of the right religion that existed before, I want to say, by the 1960s was the nominal date in the statute -- and registered as such by some gatekeepers in the religion. The Amish won't let those who didn't grow up in the community register although some Mennonites might. Or are working as a preacher.
It should probably be challenged because it's a clear religious discrimination. I looked seriously at renouncing my right to social security but eventually I found out they've gamed the system in favor of a few insular religions.
Eddy_Viscosity2|21 days ago
wtcactus|21 days ago
The original idea of state exists to ensure 3 things:
- Protection of the territory of the state
- Protection of the integrity of the individual citizen
- Protection of the private property of the citizen
This is why people started organizing in societies and allowing the existence of a ruler class. These 3 things.
You will always need some amount of military to be part of the state. But what most countries waste today (the USA for instance), is pornographic. The state should only be allowed (by taxation) enough military to defend their territory, not to exert control over the all planet like the USA wants to do.
EDIT: Yeah, I should have guessed the part of the "integrity of the individual citizen" would, of course, be twisted. No, it's not protection of the individual from disease of from his own stupidity or lack of ability. It just means the role of the state is to ensure the citizen is protected from deliberate harm from another individual.
ndsipa_pomu|21 days ago
MattPalmer1086|21 days ago
mothballed|21 days ago
It should probably be challenged because it's a clear religious discrimination. I looked seriously at renouncing my right to social security but eventually I found out they've gamed the system in favor of a few insular religions.
wtcactus|21 days ago