(December 3, 2010 at 9:31 pm)Tiberius Wrote: A ridiculous assertion. I am of course concerned with what happens to other people, but I do not think it is the responsibility of the government to play the part of the nanny and look after us like we are completely unable.
People do need help and protection to survive, and they want help and protection to be happy. Invariably people without government fail to provide the necessary or desired level of help and protection to each other.
Quote:Your last sentence of course applies to everyone. If I proposed something that you personally didn't think went in line with *your* view of government, you wouldn't want it either.
What you are saying doesn't apply to me. Of course I defend my style of government, but my style of government isn't myopic and it isn't built on my own myopic interests.
Quote:Oh no you don't. Privileges (which are what we are talking about here) aren't put in place by default, so you must back them up with an argument. I've already outlined why I don't think they should they should exist anyway.
Technically almost nothing is default. Living people have only two guarantees. Living and acting. Ultimately arguments don't matter. There is no such thing as logical proof of rights or proof of privileges. Rights and privileges are literally fought for and protected by people who value them. War is merely politics with diplomacy fails, and I've tried diplomacy to change your values. That's failed, so if you ever make policy changes to take rights and privileges from married people simply because you don't have them I can almost guarantee that people would rise up to smack you and your political party down so hard it would be funny.
