Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

The state has exceeded its authority Watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    This is not a bunkum post, some kind of verbal spouting about some random thing in a newspaper for the sake of discussion.

    This is the most serious issue of our time. Recognise it.

    There has been for a very long time a defined baseline of the remit of the state. The Magna Carta hints at it. The U.S. Constitution defined it very carefully. A number of thinkers like Ayn Rand have talked about it.

    The purpose of the state is to provide basic critical and essential functions, and to prevent the use of force or coercion between parties.

    The western state today has put a massive collectivist ideology above the baseline. This ideology justifies the state being involved with your morals, your values, what you are allowed to say, consume, trade, coin our money, manipulate financial markets e.g. Set interest rates "for the common good", trying to make people "equal" with "affirmative action" and political correctness which almost everyone thinks is bonkers and results in a kind of doubletalk.

    Furthermore the state robs people of generally 30 to 70 percent of their income. The state is larger in proportion to the economy (more than half) than former Soviet Russia.

    What this is is state as an end in itself, a kind of bureaucratic industry that is largely a parasite that largely makes nothing.

    Don't be brainwashed and see what it happening here. The state is taking over everything.

    What we need to do is to decommission at least 75% of the state at this point.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Reply


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Objectivism2017)
    The purpose of the state is to provide basic critical and essential functions, and to prevent the use of force or coercion between parties.
    What is the state doing at the moment which you deem to be beyond 'providing basic critical and essential functions'?

    (Keeping it specific to the UK)
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Objectivism2017)
    The purpose of the state is to provide basic critical and essential functions, and to prevent the use of force or coercion between parties.

    The western state today has put a massive collectivist ideology above the baseline. This ideology justifies the state being involved with your morals, your values, what you are allowed to say, consume, trade, coin our money, manipulate financial markets e.g. Set interest rates "for the common good"
    From the above I conclude that you wish the state to protect you from the violence of your fellow citizens while, at the same time, allowing you to defraud them and otherwise prey on them in furtherance of your own amoral interests.

    The state's legitimate role goes well beyond protecting its citizens from physical violence, and the morality it encourages (and, in some cases, enforces) is derived from the wishes of its people, expressed in elections.

    Who wants to live in a country where devious people can defraud their compatriots willy-nilly? Who wants to live in a country where the state has not set up and protected the means for commerce to grow? Those that do can emigrate to Zimbabwe, or some other third world hellhole, surely?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SHallowvale)
    What is the state doing at the moment which you deem to be beyond 'providing basic critical and essential functions'?

    (Keeping it specific to the UK)
    I have given many examples in my OP. One example is the state enforcing "hate crime" rules for negative things that a person says about a group. The state has no business policing things that someone says about a group with its selective policing of this e.g. They allow a Harvard professor (Noel Ignatiev) to say he wants to abolish white problem but if someone said that about other groups they would want to make arrests. Rather than PC liberal double standards policing of this there should be no policing of this.

    Another example is state paid quangos that spread values like equality (Equalities Commission) diversity, tolerance, abortion, sugar consumption, measurement systems, shape of bananas, minister for women etc. Close them all down.




    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    You're overlooking a critical problem: the point at which the state exceeds its authority is not set in stone. The maximum extent of the authority of the state is controlled by those with the authority to set it, that is the decision of courts as and when (which easily changes over time) and of the people of the time.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    From the above I conclude that you wish the state to protect you from the violence of your fellow citizens while, at the same time, allowing you to defraud them and otherwise prey on them in furtherance of your own amoral interests.

    The state's legitimate role goes well beyond protecting its citizens from physical violence, and the morality it encourages (and, in some cases, enforces) is derived from the wishes of its people, expressed in elections.

    Who wants to live in a country where devious people can defraud their compatriots willy-nilly? Who wants to live in a country where the state has not set up and protected the means for commerce to grow? Those that do can emigrate to Zimbabwe, or some other third world hellhole, surely?
    No I am an honest hard working person and me wanting to scrap things like Equalities Commissions, Ministers for Women, Ministries of Banana Shapes and Ministries of measurements doesn't mean I want to defraud people.

    I will use eBay as a euphemism to make my point. eBay used to charge 3% commission and the buyer had the benefit of a feedback system and basic disputes system but largely the buyer was at the mercy of the seller.

    eBay then changed their system to include a fully managed disputes system and raised their charges to 10%. The new system includes things like forced returns, eBay automatically issuing tracked return labels at the sellers expense, automatic deduction of money for lost disputes etc.

    I would rather use the low fee system where he parties deal with disputes themselves. I completed many hundreds of transactions under the old system with both parties happy. There was a perfect incentive for people to be honest - reputation.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    You're overlooking a critical problem: the point at which the state exceeds its authority is not set in stone. The maximum extent of the authority of the state is controlled by those with the authority to set it, that is the decision of courts as and when (which easily changes over time) and of the people of the time.
    That's true. I'm stating my opinion that the state has exceeded its authority. Yes I accept that it's subjective however I have given some examples of guidelines establishes over the ages about this, and in relation to those guidelines the state is reaching way way to far.

    It's like saying that in 1999 Yahoo stock was overvalued. Your argument is that there is no precise valuation. That is true, but you can establish a baseline for example earnings times 8, to compare with. There is no precise comparison but one can look into the orders of magnitude and see where the current position is in relation to the expected long term average position.

    (And this is the reason why there was a major correction in 1999 because the wise people realised that the market was positioned incorrectly, the same principle could apply with critical mass opinion towards the state.)

    I suspect that the person who will do this will make Trump look like a liberal left socialist union leader.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SHallowvale)
    What is the state doing at the moment which you deem to be beyond 'providing basic critical and essential functions'?

    (Keeping it specific to the UK)
    the fact the OP mentions Ayn Rand says it all ...

    the OP will have no cogent understanding of the issues never mind actually be able to articulate an answer to the question you pose,.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Objectivism2017)
    That's true. I'm stating my opinion that the state has exceeded its authority. Yes I accept that it's subjective however I have given some examples of guidelines establishes over the ages about this, and in relation to those guidelines the state is reaching way way to far.

    It's like saying that in 1999 Yahoo stock was overvalued. Your argument is that there is no precise valuation. That is true, but you can establish a baseline for example earnings times 8, to compare with. There is no precise comparison but one can look into the orders of magnitude and see where the current position is in relation to the expected long term average position.

    (And this is the reason why there was a major correction in 1999 because the wise people realised that the market was positioned incorrectly, the same principle could apply with critical mass opinion towards the state.)



    Posted from TSR Mobile
    And the critical mass opinion of the state would be much larger than it is now, I wouldn't be surprised if it were a state double the current size or even more.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    And the critical mass opinion of the state would be much larger than it is now, I wouldn't be surprised if it were a state double the current size or even more.
    I would probably agree with you. The state will probably keep expanding and we will find more uses for it like recorders on lampposts issuing automatic fines for non-PC speech and inspectors for speed limiters for drivers who are caught Many times by cameras.

    The state will probably expand to such a large size that no amount of income could pay for it and such the country into bankruptcy before a change is forced by financial constraints.




    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zippyRN)
    the fact the OP mentions Ayn Rand says it all ...

    the OP will have no cogent understand ing of the issues never mind actually be able to articualte an answer to the question you pose,.
    Your post is not Smart or logical I.e. Specific, measurable etc.

    What is it that you deduce from mentioning Ayn Rand?

    No understanding of what issues?

    Who does Ayn Rand equate to no understanding of issues?

    I'm assuming you have read an Ayn Rand book? Which one?




    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Objectivism2017)
    Your post is not Smart or logical I.e. Specific, measurable etc.

    What is it that you deduce from mentioning Ayn Rand?

    No understanding of what issues?

    Who does Ayn Rand equate to no understanding of issues?

    I'm assuming you have read an Ayn Rand book? Which one?




    Posted from TSR Mobile
    You've obviously recently discovered Rand and 'Objectivism' ...

    just like all those other kiddies those who read Heinlein and suddenly think that Service Guarantees Citizenship is a good idea or those taken in by L. Ron Hubbard ...
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Objectivism2017)
    No I am an honest hard working person and me wanting to scrap things like Equalities Commissions, Ministers for Women, Ministries of Banana Shapes and Ministries of measurements doesn't mean I want to defraud people.

    I will use eBay as a euphemism to make my point. eBay used to charge 3% commission and the buyer had the benefit of a feedback system and basic disputes system but largely the buyer was at the mercy of the seller.

    eBay then changed their system to include a fully managed disputes system and raised their charges to 10%. The new system includes things like forced returns, eBay automatically issuing tracked return labels at the sellers expense, automatic deduction of money for lost disputes etc.

    I would rather use the low fee system where he parties deal with disputes themselves. I completed many hundreds of transactions under the old system with both parties happy. There was a perfect incentive for people to be honest - reputation.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    So in other words the classic immature, selfish narcisist who thinks that libertarianism and objectivism are brilliant becasue rules are for other people ( until they are hard done to )...

    how much would other readers willing to put on the OP being a comfortably off middle class child who has never struggled for anything and has thus far failed to real the ceiling of their modest academic potential ...
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Objectivism2017)
    I have given many examples in my OP. One example is the state enforcing "hate crime" rules for negative things that a person says about a group. The state has no business policing things that someone says about a group with its selective policing of this e.g. They allow a Harvard professor (Noel Ignatiev) to say he wants to abolish white problem but if someone said that about other groups they would want to make arrests. Rather than PC liberal double standards policing of this there should be no policing of this.

    Another example is state paid quangos that spread values like equality (Equalities Commission) diversity, tolerance, abortion, sugar consumption, measurement systems, shape of bananas, minister for women etc. Close them all down.
    Why do you think that the state shouldn't support these institutions? I've highlighted the one's I'd like to talk about in bold. Why do you think that hate crime's shouldn't exist?

    The thing about specific shapes of banana's being banned/regulated is a myth. I don't know what you mean by ''minister for women''.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zippyRN)
    You've obviously recently discovered Rand and 'Objectivism' ...

    just like all those other kiddies those who read Heinlein and suddenly think that Service Guarantees Citizenship is a good idea or those taken in by L. Ron Hubbard ...
    You're hilarious. Do you realise that this is a web forum and therefore you know nothing about the other person you are speaking to. What caused you to think I have just discovered Ayn Rand? I am older than the average person on here and discovered Ayn Rand in the 1990's.

    How can you compare a philosopher who makes an assessment of human beings by going back to their position in nature and an assessment of political systems by going back to a baseline defined over millennia, with a Star Trek dude?

    Have you ever read an Ayn Rand book? Have you ever read anything about an Ayn Rand book? Do you know who Ayn Rand is?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SHallowvale)
    Why do you think that the state shouldn't support these institutions? I've highlighted the one's I'd like to talk about in bold. Why do you think that hate crime's shouldn't exist?

    The thing about specific shapes of banana's being banned/regulated is a myth. I don't know what you mean by ''minister for women''.
    OP despite their objections to my assessment of their position is a selfish , immature narcissist, Rand and 'Objectivism' appeals to that sort of individual along with libertarianism and being a 'Kipper
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SHallowvale)
    Why do you think that the state shouldn't support these institutions? I've highlighted the one's I'd like to talk about in bold. Why do you think that hate crime's shouldn't exist?

    The thing about specific shapes of banana's being banned/regulated is a myth. I don't know what you mean by ''minister for women''.

    I've already said hate crime is a nonsense. There is a professor who openly says he wants to eradicate white people and nothing happens but in someone made a minor comment about some other race it would be a hate crime. That is called an agenda. People should just quit this stuff and the state should not persecute people for these agendas. If something is a crime then it's a crime and action should be take. You don't need a hate crime, just a crime.

    The government has a positions called Minister for Women. Why would we need a minister to represent exactly half the population. Perhaps we need an iPad user Minister or Minister for TV watchers or Minister for tall people.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Objectivism2017)
    You're hilarious. Do you realise that this is a web forum and therefore you know nothing about the other person you are speaking to. What caused you to think I have just discovered Ayn Rand? I am older than the average person on here and discovered Ayn Rand in the 1990's.

    How can you compare a philosopher who makes an assessment of human beings by going back to their position in nature and an assessment of political systems by going back to a baseline defined over millennia, with a Star Trek dude?

    Have you ever read an Ayn Rand book? Have you ever read anything about an Ayn Rand book? Do you know who Ayn Rand is?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Rand is no more a philosopher than L Ron Hubbard is a Prophet

    Ration wiki sums up Objectvism quite well http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Objectivism

    funnily enough you will strugle to find Philsophers of other schools of philosophical thought who given Rand the time of day becasue of the many glaring holes in the model http://www.noblesoul.com/orc/critics/

    http://michaelprescott.freeservers.c...-ayn-rand.html
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Objectivism2017)
    I've already said hate crime is a nonsense. There is a professor who openly says he wants to eradicate white people and nothing happens but in someone made a minor comment about some other race it would be a hate crime. That is called an agenda. People should just quit this stuff and the state should not persecute people for these agendas. If something is a crime then it's a crime and action should be take. You don't need a hate crime, just a crime.

    The government has a positions called Minister for Women. Why would we need a minister to represent exactly half the population. Perhaps we need an iPad user Minister or Minister for TV watchers or Minister for tall people.
    Why is it nonsense? I don't know much about hate crime laws in the US so I have no opinion on what you've described. Can you provide a UK example as I had requested in my first reply?

    The Minister for Women and Equalities is there to address all forms of discrimination. Why should it not exist? You've also not explained why you think the institutions listed in your previous reply shouldn't be supported by the state.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.