Which laws serve Civilization and are worth the price of taxes funding Authority for its Compliance? • page 1/1 • Off-Topic Discussion • lichess.org

I like the idea of Civilization, but paying taxes funding Authority for our Compliance is the price we pay for it.

Imo, people should have a voice about it, even though Governement will do its thing anyway!

Arguablly, that which is considered the public good is justified; so long as the cost/benefit of it is also justifed.

So, laws governing: War, Healthcare, Crime/Fire, Famine, roads, K-12 education, Environmentalism, have a point in Civilization, assuming people pay for all of these priorities, which the government Authority can force.

Some thoughts on this include:

Should the UN (a forum of peace) be funded by Nations around the world to help deter War? Moreover, should the UN have teeth (or bite) with Nations donating military assets for this World goal? Draft to meet military goals?
When is abortion actually healthcare for pregnant women, considering what abortion does to the life they carry?
What crimes don't have victums? Is there such a thing as an innocent drug crime? Also, is the FDA needed?
Should there be a trused and regulated process before people have access to statistically dangeous stuff, like cars, guns, and Space-X? An oz of harm prevention is worth a pound of cure, right?
How much food/water/housing vouchers redistribution should take place; so that people aren't hoarding what someone else needs to live, representing a humanatarian solution?
Should there be a Green New deal for environmental purposes? If so, can it go too far; so that a Nation is left un-competitive, economically?

More questions than this exist, but this is a good start, I feel. Also, how we tax matters too - whether its someone's income, savings, property, wealth, consumption, death, corporate, etc. No matter how you look at it, taxes aren't fair, but they serve the purpose of the greater good, which is the aim of government.

There is a tradeoff between freedom and wealth for these goals - which may produce more freedom and wealth assuming harm is prevented from other people's actions creating these standards.

I like the idea of Civilization, but paying taxes funding Authority for our Compliance is the price we pay for it. Imo, people should have a voice about it, even though Governement will do its thing anyway! Arguablly, that which is considered the public good is justified; so long as the cost/benefit of it is also justifed. So, laws governing: War, Healthcare, Crime/Fire, Famine, roads, K-12 education, Environmentalism, have a point in Civilization, assuming people pay for all of these priorities, which the government Authority can force. Some thoughts on this include: 1. Should the UN (a forum of peace) be funded by Nations around the world to help deter War? Moreover, should the UN have teeth (or bite) with Nations donating military assets for this World goal? Draft to meet military goals? 2. When is abortion actually healthcare for pregnant women, considering what abortion does to the life they carry? 3. What crimes don't have victums? Is there such a thing as an innocent drug crime? Also, is the FDA needed? 4. Should there be a trused and regulated process before people have access to statistically dangeous stuff, like cars, guns, and Space-X? An oz of harm prevention is worth a pound of cure, right? 5. How much food/water/housing vouchers redistribution should take place; so that people aren't hoarding what someone else needs to live, representing a humanatarian solution? 6. Should there be a Green New deal for environmental purposes? If so, can it go too far; so that a Nation is left un-competitive, economically? More questions than this exist, but this is a good start, I feel. Also, how we tax matters too - whether its someone's income, savings, property, wealth, consumption, death, corporate, etc. No matter how you look at it, taxes aren't fair, but they serve the purpose of the greater good, which is the aim of government. There is a tradeoff between freedom and wealth for these goals - which may produce more freedom and wealth assuming harm is prevented from other people's actions creating these standards.

DoomedBishop

While I DO have mixed feelings, I feel that women should still have the right to abortion. My sense of morality could be wrong, could it not? Why should I have the power to tell a woman to "choose life?" I shouldn't and I don't.

I have mixed feelings about abortion. However, I don't believe girls/women should be forced to give birth to their rapists' babies. Further, I don't think girls should be forced to give birth at all. Their bodies are not mature enough and they are not mature enough to go through this. Also, if a full-grown, mature woman's life is in danger from a pregnancy, she should have the option to abort. America's Supreme Court has gone too far this time. While I DO have mixed feelings, I feel that women should still have the right to abortion. My sense of morality could be wrong, could it not? Why should I have the power to tell a woman to "choose life?" I shouldn't and I don't.

Approximation

@DoomedBishop said in #2:

However, I don't believe girls/women should be forced to give birth to their rapists' babies.

A rapist should have their parental rights forfeited.

Moreover, it takes the love of a parent for anyone to make it in this world.

If a pregnant woman won't be the parent of that unborn human being that shares genetic traits of the rapist - then is there anyone else with valid parental claims?

Personally, I'm not for abortion when another party has valid and loving and legal parental claims on the unborn child, whether adoptive parent or the dad.

It's controversial because unwanted pregnancies in a rape situation are especially unwanted, even though the life they carry might (future unknown) make a remarkable contribution to humankind.

What does it mean to be your brothers and sisters keepers afterall? Who can have valid claims on an unborn life that didn't contribute genetically to it? Is abortion (death of the unborn) the most reasonable solution when there is no one willing to parent or carry it to birth?

@DoomedBishop said in #2: > However, I don't believe girls/women should be forced to give birth to their rapists' babies. A rapist should have their parental rights forfeited. Moreover, it takes the love of a parent for anyone to make it in this world. If a pregnant woman won't be the parent of that unborn human being that shares genetic traits of the rapist - then is there anyone else with valid parental claims? Personally, I'm not for abortion when another party has valid and loving and legal parental claims on the unborn child, whether adoptive parent or the dad. It's controversial because unwanted pregnancies in a rape situation are especially unwanted, even though the life they carry might (future unknown) make a remarkable contribution to humankind. What does it mean to be your brothers and sisters keepers afterall? Who can have valid claims on an unborn life that didn't contribute genetically to it? Is abortion (death of the unborn) the most reasonable solution when there is no one willing to parent or carry it to birth?

swimmerBill

Required organizational / legal complexity depends on population density and society complexity of course.