The framework for a minimum state

[onenatcons]

As someobody who subscribes to classical liberal beliefs, I naturally believe in a smaller government.

A minimum state only needs a limited amount of taxation to support it. The emphasis of such taxes are based on the purchase of goods and services (,i.e. regressive/indirect taxes) as opposed to progressive/direct taxes. The limit of the state would be a civil service to implement governmental policy, a police force to maintain public order, an armed forces to defend the sovereignty of the nation and a legal system to enforce and interpret legislation.

Public services would incorporate private finance or be privatised themselves. Healthcare would primarily be provided by the private sector. Ideally all media organisations (be they newspapers, TV stations, etc.) will be privately owned.

Social freedom is logically paramount within a classical liberal structure. Pornography (which contains consenting adults, regardless of whether the nature of these images are 'soft' or 'hard' in nature) would be legal. Prostitution would be legalised and citizens shall be permitted to establish and administer brothels. Soft narcotics, such as cannabis, will be lawful yet subject to one obtaining a licence to sell such substances. ALL sexual acts pertaining to the conduct of consenting adults (providing they do not infringe on the liberties of others) would be fully legal. Homosexuals and transsexuals would possess civil rights relating to marriage and the legal recognition of relationships.

The economic policies of the government would be concerned with the maintenance of low inflation, minimising the state's role in regulating free markets, the repeal and abolition of minimum wage legislation and the reduction of ALL direct taxation for ALL members of the workforce. In addition, the tax burden of the state (,i.e. the level of tax collected within a fiscal year as a proportion of GDP) will remain below 35-40%.

The state's foreign policy would be limited to adhering to existing treaties and seeking military co-operation within NATO only. All instances of peacekeeping overseas would be discouraged.

[Toadborg]

Thats lovely but your points still lack a vital aspect........

The point of most political philosophy is to show why one system is better than another...........

You have never explained why your 'classical-liberalism' would be of benefit to society or would be superior to anyother system. Have you actually thought of this or is your belief simply intuitive?

I suggest you go and read some liberal political philosophy, I recommend Rawls and Nozick.............

[onenatcons]

I've already read some liberal philosophy. Of course, Locke, Rosseau, Mill and Bentham are of little consequence in that regard. :) ;)

The role of the state should be to grant as much social freedom as possible to its citizens.

You have never explained why your 'classical-liberalism' would be of benefit to society or would be superior to anyother system. Have you actually thought of this or is your belief simply intuitive?


And few here have ever explained why their socialist ways are of benefit to society. My system is superior in that it allows one to pursue their way of life without hinderance.

[Toadborg]

Originally posted by onenatcons:
The role of the state should be to grant as much social freedom as possible to its citizens.
why, why, why, why, why, WHY?

Socialist state justification = threshold utilitarianism, there you go.............

[onenatcons]

Not a good enough justification..:D

Who says that equality should be eliminated? Why is inequality important?

I believe in freedom because ultimately ALL humans seek freedom in some regard. The right to be 'free' is considered a natural right (as advocated by Locke).

OK, look at it this way. If the state regulated what times you could use the internet, or drive your car or whom to date, would you tolerate that? If freedom is so bad, then can slavery be reinstituted? If freedom is bad, then I have the right to own people, no? :) ;)

Also, utilitarianism is concerned with creating the greatest happiness to the greatest number. Who says that owning the means of production creates happiness? ;)

[Toadborg]

Just a suggestion, a utilitarian would argue that because of marginal utility that equality is increases the happiness of people and that the states sole purpose should be to maximise the happiness of everyone, you not agree?

You will admit that freedom must be curtailed for the good of society i.e laws thus why not impinge other freedoms if they are for the good of society and if they do not impinge our human rights?

[onenatcons]

The only limit to freedom should be when one's person freedoms infringe on those of others.

And?