|
The law applies equally to all.
If we were talking about them taking money off people who were found guilty of a crime, then yes this would be true. But when innocent people can still have money confiscated, then law is not being applied equally to all. Some people will have a higher chance of being (wrongly) investigated than others... especially given that the police have a vested interest in actually finding large amounts of money. Those who are more likely to have lots of legitimate money lying around the house would be more likely to be investigated. That isn't law applying equally to all.
I would not have faith in the police to act properly where they can confiscate money without being able to prove it's the proceeds of crime. Anyone who does is extremely naive.
How come everyone in Liechtenstein isn't dead then? This is a tiny country (61 square miles) in the middle of Europe. They have police and SWAT, but no military. Their constitution does allow for an army in times of war, but this has never happened. Yes, that's right, a nation the size of a city with no military that borders both France and Germany managed to stay neutral in two world wars. But you insist I couldn't survive if not for the protection that the British military offer me.
No nation is going to invade Britain, whether we have a military or not. How would that be in the interest of the invading nation? We have very few resources compared to larger nations, and the population would not accept the invaders, resulting in guerilla warfare. There's just no point. It would be an economic and humanitarian disaster for both nations
Militaries are not for the protection of the population, they are for advancing national economic and political interests around the world.
Did you miss my post on microeconomics?
When I read "microeconomics", I think "pseudoeconomics". The economics of chess applies only to chess. Therefore, it's not real economics. There is no production, no distribution of wealth. There is only an attempt to assign value to pieces in an effort to strategise more effectively. Is there an economic lesson to be learned there? Sure. But it's pseudoeconomics because there is no transfer of wealth.
What you are implying is unfair is already applied to food. Why is this fair when applied to food but not security?
But I can be deprived of food. I cannot be completely deprived of military protection. This is the difference I'm trying to point out. It's got nothing to do with what I think is unfair, and everything to do with the practical application of a military only for those who pay their share.
This is why a military cannot operate without some form of enforced payment from all. Either everyone pays their bit, or none do.
You don't pay taxes and the military protects you.
Of course I pay tax. Just because I happen to receive more off the government than I pay in tax, doesn't mean I'm free of the tax burden. My income is still deducted tax, I still pay VAT on anything I consume, I pay yet more tax on baccy and alcohol.
And I have worked in the past, it's only really the last five years or so I've abandoned the idea of working, so there is a very good chance that I'm still a net contributer to the public purse.
But this is besides the point. The tax system is (supposedly) applied equally to all... I know that if I work, I have to pay tax, and the more I earn, the more tax I pay. If I earn £100k a year, I pay the same tax as someone else who earns £100k. And (nearly) everyone is entitled to claim the benefits I claim if they are not working.
So while I might not currently be a net contributer, society assumes that I will be over my lifespan, and protects me.
It's certainly a better system that expecting those who want a military to pay for it, while allowing those who don't to benefit from its existence regardless (assuming there is a benefit, which I'm unconvinced of).
There is no "real" value. All value is perceived.
You're simply being flippant here. The "perceived" value of a chess piece is obviously a very different concept to the "perceived" value of a ten dollar bill. One has no actual value in the real world, while the other does. That is what I mean by "real" value.
The value of a ten dollar bill is very much real, at least at this moment in time.
|