@ PETER HUME

"Imagination is more important than knowledge" - Albert Einstein

'Think it's high time you revised your perceived need to try and convince other people of your convinced sense of self-righteousness & intellectual preeminence and do something more interesting -exercise your imagination - don't ya think, Pete?

Continued...@PETER HUME

Clearly, you are an intellectual pedestrian.

Hi, I've had my attention drawn to some posts. There appears to be a level of abuse creeping in. Calling someone a "fool" is abusive from where I stand, but I'm not sure that calling someone intellectually pedestrian isn't going to raise the temperature to the stage where I need to intervene either.

The forum rule is that you address arguments not personalities. The only way a personality legitimately becomes a matter for debate on the forum is where someone is unwise enough to put their claimed expertise in evidence as proof.

IMHO. Government's responsibility is to do what is in the best interests of the nation as a whole.

Where there is no elected government (or ineffective government) militias, military, or insurgents from another country will fill the void. A nation will be ruled, either by choice or by force. I see no alternative for any progressive society. No government means no rule of law, but rather tribal law or despot law.

Governments of various persuasion place varying emphasis on social services, public utilities and infrastructure, etc, as well as on commerce and defence forces. If a government undertakes its responsibilities well, it will have general support, and will thus avoid popular revolt, election defeat, or coup detat, depending on the advancement or otherwise of the country's political system and constitution.

In a democracy, the people will try to elect representatives with whose (and whose party's) policies and ideas they agree. Did we all want a carbon tax? Who knows. But our government decided it was in the best interests of the world, and therefore, by association, for the nation. The next election will evidence the strength of support or otherwise for that initiative, and others - such as maternity leave, MRRT, NBN, baby bonus, childcare and family allowances, etc. The people have a say. In totalitarian and communist regimes the people have little if any say. I know which system I prefer.

Is there a viable superior alternative to democracy? I don't think so. Is democratic government perfect all the time for all the people? Obviously not - but it still appears to be the best available option.

Does effective government require taxation to be able to perform its governance role? Yes. Who should pay tax? All who earn more than is essential for a modest lifestyle for themself and family. Should taxation be excessively onerous on anyone? No.

Should people who can't earn a living be made to feel like parasites or second-class citizens? NO. Should government act to maintain an acceptable balance between capital and populace? Yes. Has the US erred in these latter respects? It appears so.

"All who earn more than is essential for a modest lifestyle for themself and family"

Why should a choice not to earn more than a "modest lifestyle" exempt someone from their share of financial responsibility to society?

Why should a choice to try and earn more than a "modest lifestyle" increase someones financial responsibility to society?

There are those who genuinely can't can't earn a living through disability or legitimate responsibilities for the care of others and it appears sometimes because many employers won't take on the over 50's.

There are also many who can't earn a living because of choices they make, an ongoing choice to abuse their body with harmful substances being one that springs to mind and sometimes just an unwillingness to work.

I feel some responsibility for those who genuinely can't earn a living because of circumstances beyond their control, none for the those who can't earn a living because of their own ongoing choices.

R0bert

R0bert,

To your first question: I think the answer is 'fairness'. That those with a greater capacity to pay should be obliged to do so. (Of course, if the system was totally fair, contributions to the 'community purse' would be based on total assets rather than fiscal year earnings alone - and maybe that is where the world will have to head to achieve a real semblance of equity.)

As for lifestyle choice: We relish freedom, and hold compassion and empathy in high esteeem, but all able-bodied should have a responsibility to contribute productively in some measure. Most have something to contribute, given the chance to 'belong'.

The overall answer is 'community'. We may help a neighbour with a problem, and would hope for the same from others. However, the definition of neighbour, and of community, is flexible, and culture and society (also rather flexible) act to determine our sense of responsibility for the wellbeing of others in our midst.

In our progressive civilisation (or our small part of it) compassion for others extends to social programs, healthcare, public services and rehabilitation - the common good, sovereignty, security and quality of life. Such 'gifts' are not always well appreciated, such is the 'human' condition. Similarly, the sacrifice by some for the common good is not always well appreciated, sometimes abused, and often overlooked or misjudged.

In our increasingly artificial and aloof society, we have lost a large measure of the cooperative bond essential for group survival, but we long for that bond nonetheless, for that is humanity.