Quote:
Originally posted by madp
In the US, the government has proven to be the LEAST cost-effective, efficient, and successful entity at providing practically services when compared to the private sector. <b>It is ridiculous for the government to forcibly take my money away to do a bad job of providing an unneccessary service to a group of citizens who are capable of providing for themselves in the first place. </b>
|
Just one of many counter-examples: public transport... In the Netherlands, the train system used to be government-controlled, and it used to be very good. Now, it's run as a private business, and it's getting worse all the time. An extreme example of where it *could* go would be the UK, where the whole train system is rotten to the core.
The private sector is about making money, which can be a bad thing when applied to certain services.
You cite health care as an example: you prefer the US system, where you have to pay a lot to get state-of-the-art care. This essentially means that poorer people cannot afford top-notch health care and will have to make do with bad doctors and bad help, if they can afford it at all. I prefer the Dutch system, where *everyone* can get good care, no matter what their income is.
Quote:
Originally posted by seretogis
To what degree is anti-discrimination speech law enforced, and to what degree do you agree with it? If someone sets up a discriminatory website, for example sandnigger.nl which contains material which Arabs living in the netherlands would find offensive, would your government shut it down? How about a public gathering of religious types, talking about how homosexuality is an abomination? Would they be dispersed with tear-gas?
|
anti-discrimination laws are enforced quite rigidly. If someone objects to a certain website, newspaper article, or anything else for that matter, they can (and do) complain. If the charges are serious enough, the judicial system *will* act. The problem we do run into is this: we have freedom from discrimination, freedom of speech, and freedom of religion (amongst many others) --- now, which of these is more important???
For example, about two years ago, a Muslim cleric declared that gay people were sick. This led to a HUGE outcry all over the country, and to a judicial inquiry. The judge eventually decided that this remark was protected by his freedom of religion. And this then raises the following question: if *I* were to say it, being the atheist that I am, would I be fined, even though *he* was allowed to say it? If I were, I'd be discriminated against by the judge/law, based on my (lack of) religion!
I firmly believe this guy should have been fined, no matter what his excuse was - freedom of religion, to me, is less important than the freedom from discrimination. Either that, or the whole anti-discrimination law should be scrapped, so that we can all insult each other. (I prefer the first option, FYI)