Indeed, this is the definition. And to make sure the state can perform its tasks, it has a monopoly on violence. But since paying taxes is not “violence” as it is a right, theoritically, paying more taxes is not a punishment.

Paying taxes is a duty, not a right. I doubt anybody would pay taxes if they were considered rights 🙄 :D.

Children who become a burden on society – a good point you brought up here – can be avoided through a good educational system. Even then, there will always be exceptions who will still become criminals. As is the case now, the “good” people will still have to pay for the “bad” people’s mistakes. I don’t really think there’s anything you can do. But if a state can use some of its power, maybe it can prevent these things from happening.

Yeah, but since they do not contribute to society (on the contary!), and children are, to a large extent, the product of their upbringing, aren’t the parents responsible for them being a burden to society. And wouldn’t it follow logically from your argument that people who don’t have children, and thus don’t ‘contribute’ to society, and therefor should pay more taxes, that the parents of children who grow up to be criminals (or sometimes are) should also pay more taxes, as they didn’t contribute to society?

Ofcourse, if the state is not allowed to interfere in anyone’s life, how can you expect it to effectivily put a halt on issues like criminal activities.

You should read my posts more carefully. I said state interference should be kept to a minimum. Let me quote myself:
The issue is not a minimal level of ‘control’, like crime-prevention (if that is the way you wish to describe this), the issue is whether or not the state should force people to have children.

IOW, I consider fighting crime to be one of the functions a state should perform. Minimal intrusion inot people’s lives, Benjamin, not zero.

Ofcourse not, it’s not like we live in a totallitarian state. But if you have children, you already recieve more money now.

Yup, and that should change.

If people want to stay single then they should be able to. Paying a bit more taxes is not going to kill or even opress you.

That depends of course how much money you make each month. Nor is it the issue whether or not it is going to kill you, the issue is whether or not the state has a right to force you to have children.

If you are handicapped or have a perfectly good reason not to marry or get children, you should not pay more taxes ofcourse.

So now we not only have state that forces you to have children, we also have state that decides what is a good reason to have kids, and what is not. And how is this not slightly totalitarian? This way the state will mingle even more in people’s lives.

True, and that is largely because doctors in the Netherlands are payed by the state instead of owning a private business. Too much state controll can also damage society, like here. So that shows once again I’m not a socialist, and I chose for liberalism wherever it is possible.

I guess the Dutch branch of liberalism is somewhat different from the Dutch brand ;).

You mean like – what? Ofcourse Belgium is not perfect, I’m probably the last one who’s going to say that, looking at my posts. But for a nation which has 3 totally different cultures, languages and opinions, I still think it’s a succes. Unless a civil war breaks out.

No offense intended, but for one all your cities look kinda, well, poor. Houses are dirty from the outside, most of them look like they hadn’t had a proper overhaul in thirty years, and everything looks so old. Still liked Brussels though :).

Elections don’t necessairily mean a country is democratic. What you mean is a republic. Iran is also a republic, though I have my doubts on the democratic values over there. Democracy means that people (individuals) have the possibility to activelly, become a part of the “government” (both legislative and executive tranch). This is impossible though, it can never work. What most so called democracies today are, are actually republican authoritarian states, where a dictator – who represents more than 50 % of people’s opinion because he has been elected – holds all power. What we now have is a dictatorship of the majority, not of some individual despot. But it’s still not democracy, because that would mean you can satisfy all 100 % of a country’s population.

This is an interpretation of democracy that is a) Utopian and b) impossible. It works only in theory and perhaps very smal communities, but tell me, how are you going to satisfy the need of 16 million people, let alone 165 million, or 1 billion? And how are these people to decide over all those issues and still work and live? Working with such definitions onlyobfuscates reality and reduces the present Western liberal democracies to the same level as authoritarion, totalitarian states present on this planet.

I wouldn’t call it a EU-constitution either, because as you said, there aren’t any individual rights in it. But don’t forget we still have the national constitutions.

Correct, but because the EU already has so much power (legislative, executive), one really has to question what is the value of these constitutions anymore. So much power has gone to Brussels that European democracies are being slowly but steadily eroded, because while the power has moved, the democratic input has not.

No Jonathan. The definition of a nation-state is, that, unlike citizens, states have a monopoly on violence.

Which definition of the nation-state are you referring to? The definition I know is a territory, inhabited by a people, with a effective ruling entity (legal defintion). This is moot point anyway, as what it boils down to is the function of the state. I’ve descried what I think a state should look like, now it’s up to you. Otherwise we’ll be comparing apples and oranges here.

I still think that anyone who does not want children, should just pay more taxes. Or at least s/he should find another way to help society.

People without children already pay taxes, why should they pay more? Children, apart from being society’s future, can also be a burden. Again I ask, what next? For instance, should parents whose children grow up as crimials also pay more taxes, as their children are not a benefit to society, but a burden? And what about unamarried people, or singles? Should they be forced to marry or engage in a relationship, so they as well can have children? Do you see now where this leads to? It’s a slippery slope you’re on Geforce, and a very dangerous one.

So, the state should be able to defend economic interests (going to war to fight against a third enemy), but on the same hand, should not be able to controll their own citizens. In other words, the US (or any other gov’t but the US is a fine example) can controll everyone except their own citizens. The people living in Iraq have to obey US rule.

This is not a debate anout Iraq or the US, you should really get over that issue, or at least not sling it in every debate. There’s more in the world that the US system, and either is there only one alternative to the US system.

Neither are you making any point here. The issue is not a minimal level of ‘control’, like crime-prevention (if that is the way you wish to describe this), the issue is whether or not the state should force people to have children. That is something far more intrusive into people’s private lives, and an area a state should not mingle in, unless it is absolutely necessary (like after WWI or WWII).

At least poverty rates in the country north of me are lower than in the US. And I don’t think there are such backward regions in the Netherlands like you can find in the US: West-Virginia, Mississipi …

Poverty as per what standard? You do know that poverty, in some statistics, is defined as a certain percentage of per capita GDP, do you? Also, do you think there are no homeless people here, or pore areas? You should try out the Schildeeswijk in Den Haag sometimes, I bet you’ll find enough poor people there. I think Belgium has it’s share as well.

EDIT: I see you updated your post ;). Anyway, the statistics for The Netherlands are off. The % of unemployment is too low by a couple of percentage points: there are a lot of people in WAO (government benefit in case of incapacity for work) who should actually be in WW (unemployment). Same goes for many other countries, and it can work both ways (like people in WW who in other countries would be in WAO). Never fully trust statistics.

So does poverty and a bad health care system. Why else would so many Dutch go to Belgium to enjoy the fruits of our wonderfull health care, payed by the BELGIAN taxpayer (this is not yet EU).

Clearly because of the bad organization and over-bureaucratization of the Dutch health-care system, which lead to sky-rocketing costs, paid for by the (heavily-taxed) Dutch taxpayer. Alas, the ‘remedy’ chosen by the Purple government in the ninties was not to ‘budgetcontrol’ heealth-care, instead of doing away with all the bureaucracy. Don’t pretend everything in Belgium is perfect though. I’ve been there a couple of times (Brussels last year), and things weren’t all that bright in Belgium.

Again, some very outspoken words. There’s nothing mentioned about democracy in the US Constitution (much like in any constitution), only some basic rights and liberal ideas, copied from John Locke and Montesqieu. The EU-institution is a monster because it’s not based on philosophical ideas (unlike the US, French or Belgian Consitution) but on political agreements. Therefor it will not work.

The US constitution is indeed based on some philosophical ideas, which, mind you, are the very philosophical ideas modern democracy is based on. However, if you read the text, you’ll see sufficient references to democratic ideas, such as elections. Also, at least the US constitution gives the US population rights of all kinds. I don’t believe the EU constitution does that. Instead, we have a lengthy document (175 pages!), prepared by bureaucrats (Eurocrats actually), where no specific rights are granted to the people, no human rights or any such things. Most of the document in about the EU, not about it’s citizens. The influence of citizens in the EU is kept to a bare minimum, that is, almost none.

Indeed, and interpretation can vary a lot, according to circumstances. Not very ideological I think, not?

What, do you really think this differs in any way from the continental system? Do you have any idea how much interpretation and creation of law is occurring in the courts in countries with a continental system? Indeed, it is not very idealogical, but that’s the way it is. With such legal complexity, and so many laws with lots of vague terms, this is bound to happen.

]The gov’t should not FORCE people to get children, they should REWARD people. There’s a big difference between these two words. So people who don’t want children should contribute to the state financially.

There you have it. You see, you are now in contradiction. On the one hand you say the state should reward people for getting children, on the other hand you want to increase taxes for those that don’t have children. I consider that punishment, after all you’re getting taxed for not having children. This, in my book, is trying to force people to have children.

A state should not interfere in people’s private life, I agree, but somehow, I should still be able to influence individuals. Otherwise, what’s the use of a state.

The use of a state is to protect it’s citizens, not to mingle in their lives. Again I ask the question, what next?

private life, I agree, but somehow, I should still be able to influence individuals. Otherwise, what’s the use of a state. Do you want the American system, where the gov’t is a mere bureaucratic service who decides when to go to war or not, but during peacetime, doesn’t protect its citizens against the terror of capitalists?

The terror of the capitalists? As opposed to the peace of what? Eurosclerosis. You know I live in the EU (actually in a country north of you), where the people are kinda protected against the ‘terror of the capitalistst’. The result: now that the EU economy is collapsing our economy is going down the drain FAST! And the ‘protection’ doesn’t work, do you know why? Because it cannot provide the necessary services due to the economic situation. OTOH, the heavy tax burden is only increasing the problems, making everything, from labor to materials expensive. Thank you for protection against those eeeevil capitalists :roll:. IMO it is just facade.

think many Americans suffer more from poverty than from terrorism.

Provide me the numbers, then we’ll talk. And bear in mind that terrorism threatens the very fabric of society.

And these actions are not “against” the liberal state. There are differences between the Anglo-Saxon and the Continental approach to liberalism. On the continent, the national constitutions put limits on individualism, unlike the Anglo-Saxon world. Continental Europe is economically as liberal as America or Britain (free trade), but politically and constitutionally there are big differences, which does not mean that the continent is less democratic.

The EU is certainly less democratic than the US, I can guarantee you that. Have you seen that new monster of an EU constitution?

In fact, Britain is constitutionally not democratic because there’s no seperation between the legislative and juridicary tranch. The “common law” system lets the judges decide what’s right or wrong instead of the elected parliament.

That is incorrect, parliament in the UK produces laws, the judiciary interprets them. Common law however is a whole different league, and I think the British members can better explain it. Besides, itis also off-topic. 😉

IMO, a governments should be as small as possible, and intrude into people’s lives as least as possible. Almost forcing people to have children, a thing I consider a personal choice, is an intrusion that is going too far. Perhaps under certain circumstances such action an be considered, but we’re noweher such extreme situations. Actually, the actions you describe are going against the liberal state. Don’t you think it is strange to ‘protect’ the liberal state by making it less liberal, over such a trivial issue, which isn’t going to be solved this way anayway, as the reasons for having kids or not are not so much financial, but much more differential?

So now the state is going to decide how people should run their lives. Great, what next on the slippery slope to a totalitarian state?

Hey, at least Bush is not nuking small islands also known as colonies 😀 😉

But Arthur, there may be a reason why there is so much foreign investment in the US… 😉

er, Geforce…

You forgot two options:
3. The Iraqis were not able to use them, due to speady advance, Coalitions tactics etc.
4. Iraqi soldiers decided not to use them, as they know who was gonna lose, and they decided they’d rather live.