This is a statement the average S’porean might readily agree with, and not without justification. He enjoys a higher income than the average Indian, and probably better healthcare, education, and housing. On top of that, take into account the massive inequality in India, and we might conclude that the average S’porean appears to have better opportunities and something of a headstart in life. The freedom to fulfil one’s potential, and thus become a more productive member of society, is not to be underestimated; it might even outweigh the value of some political rights.

A major problem arises, however, when a person views political freedoms and economic growth, and hence the rights gained from economic growth, as mutually exclusive. And yet many Singaporeans suffer from this malady, the result of years of indoctrination through the media and schooling system. The blind acceptance of this argument espoused by the government is a symptom of the rigid thinking which has led to the frequent view that Singaporean are mere automatons. The average Singaporean probably has no idea, or a very poor one, of the political freedoms that he would be entitled to in true democracies, and is often inclined to toe the line drawn by the government. Contrast this with the vibrant democracy in India, where the average Indian has the latitude to express his views and choose a party or candidate he thinks will adequately represent his interests. The Indian government is accountable to its people, whereas the S’poreans seem to be accountable to their goverment instead. In terms of independence of mind and opinion, the average Indian is probably freer than the average S’porean.

On balance, it is difficult to decide whether living in S’pore or India would be better. But that is not the question at hand, because happiness is not the equivalent of freedom. But speaking purely in terms of freedom, I believe that the Indian is freer. As opposed to the S’porean, who lives in semi-ignorant bliss, the Indian is fully aware of what he deserves as an individual and is free to think as an individual.

This is a statement the average S’porean might readily agree with, and not without justification. He enjoys a higher income than the average Indian, and probably better healthcare, education, and housing. On top of that, take into account the massive inequality in India, and we might conclude that the average S’porean appears to have better opportunities and something of a headstart in life. The freedom to fulfil one’s potential, and thus become a more productive member of society, is not to be underestimated; it might even outweigh the value of some political rights.

A major problem arises, however, when a person views political freedoms and economic growth, and hence the rights gained from economic growth, as mutually exclusive. And yet many Singaporeans suffer from this malady, the result of years of indoctrination through the media and schooling system. The blind acceptance of this argument espoused by the government is a symptom of the rigid thinking which has led to the frequent view that Singaporean are mere automatons. The average Singaporean probably has no idea, or a very poor one, of the political freedoms that he would be entitled to in true democracies, and is often inclined to toe the line drawn by the government. Contrast this with the vibrant democracy in India, where the average Indian has the latitude to express his views and choose a party or candidate he thinks will adequately represent his interests. The Indian government is accountable to its people, whereas the S’poreans seem to be accountable to their goverment instead. In terms of independence of mind and opinion, the average Indian is probably freer than the average S’porean.

On balance, it is difficult to decide whether living in S’pore or India would be better. But that is not the question at hand, because happiness is not the equivalent of freedom. But speaking purely in terms of freedom, I believe that the Indian is freer. As opposed to the S’porean, who lives in semi-ignorant bliss, the Indian is fully aware of what he deserves as an individual and is free to think as an individual.

Other people are not your property. …They are not yours to boss around. Their lives are not yours to micromanage. The fruits of their labour are not yours to dispose of.

It doesn’t matter how wise or marvelous or useful it would be for other people to do whatever it is you’d like them to do. It is none of your business whether they wear their seatbelts, worship the right god, have sex with the wrong people, or engage in market transactions that irritate you. Their choices are not yours to direct. They are human beings like yourself, your equals under Natural Law. You possess no legitimate authority over them. As long as they do not themselves step over the line and start treating other people as their property, you have no moral basis for initiating violence against them – nor for authorising anyone else to do so on your behalf. …

Nor is this requirement lifted merely because you happen to be a police officer, or an elected legislator, or a member of a majority of citizens casting their votes.</blockquote

Other people are not your property. …They are not yours to boss around. Their lives are not yours to micromanage. The fruits of their labour are not yours to dispose of.

It doesn’t matter how wise or marvelous or useful it would be for other people to do whatever it is you’d like them to do. It is none of your business whether they wear their seatbelts, worship the right god, have sex with the wrong people, or engage in market transactions that irritate you. Their choices are not yours to direct. They are human beings like yourself, your equals under Natural Law. You possess no legitimate authority over them. As long as they do not themselves step over the line and start treating other people as their property, you have no moral basis for initiating violence against them – nor for authorising anyone else to do so on your behalf. …

Nor is this requirement lifted merely because you happen to be a police officer, or an elected legislator, or a member of a majority of citizens casting their votes.</blockquote

Would all those of you who don’t want to pay income taxes please move to a country that doesn’t have them and STFU…..

This argument is circular. It assumes that the imposer of income taxes (the government) is the legitimate owner of the geographic territory that is called United States and has carte blanche discretion to impose whichever policies it pleases. This legitimacy is entirely what is in question; it cannot be shrugged off with a “like it or leave it” bromide without begging the question.

Look, you nitwits–we’re living in a democracy. A DEMOCRACY, capisce? If you don’t like the level of taxation that’s imposed get together with enough of your neighbors and vote to a) cut the programs, and b) cut taxes. If you can’t get enough of your neighbors to vote the way you want them to do, then tough noogies–go back to the drawing board and get better arguments.

Again, this is circular argument question begging. You are trying to justify the legitimacy of democratic decision making by appealing to… democratic decision making. Democracy does not justify itself.

What Libertarians are really bellyaching about is that not enough of their neighbors have the same view of government programs as they do.

Correct. The central libertarian insight is that Other People Are Not Your Property. They are not yours to boss around, even if you win an election.

Would all those of you who don’t want to pay income taxes please move to a country that doesn’t have them and STFU…..

This argument is circular. It assumes that the imposer of income taxes (the government) is the legitimate owner of the geographic territory that is called United States and has carte blanche discretion to impose whichever policies it pleases. This legitimacy is entirely what is in question; it cannot be shrugged off with a “like it or leave it” bromide without begging the question.

Look, you nitwits–we’re living in a democracy. A DEMOCRACY, capisce? If you don’t like the level of taxation that’s imposed get together with enough of your neighbors and vote to a) cut the programs, and b) cut taxes. If you can’t get enough of your neighbors to vote the way you want them to do, then tough noogies–go back to the drawing board and get better arguments.

Again, this is circular argument question begging. You are trying to justify the legitimacy of democratic decision making by appealing to… democratic decision making. Democracy does not justify itself.

What Libertarians are really bellyaching about is that not enough of their neighbors have the same view of government programs as they do.

Correct. The central libertarian insight is that Other People Are Not Your Property. They are not yours to boss around, even if you win an election.

“Would all those of you who don’t want to pay income taxes please move to a country that doesn’t have them and STFU…..”

Ah, the classic “If you don’t like President Bush why don’t you move to China” defense, beloved of brain dead redneck warmongers across this great land.

“What Libertarians are really bellyaching about is that not enough of their neighbors have the same view of government programs as they do.”

Well, yes. This is what any political group or ideology in a democratic country that does not currently have its program in place is “bellyaching” about. What antiwar activists are really bellyaching about is that not enough of their neighbors have the same view of war and militarism as they do. What socialists are really bellyaching about is that not enough of their neighbors have the same view of government ownership of industry as they do. What members of the organization Stop Prisoner Rape are really bellyaching about is that not enough of their neighbors have the same view of stopping people from being raped in prison as they do. Do you have some sort of point beyond “People who disagree with me should shut the fuck up”?

“Would all those of you who don’t want to pay income taxes please move to a country that doesn’t have them and STFU…..”

Ah, the classic “If you don’t like President Bush why don’t you move to China” defense, beloved of brain dead redneck warmongers across this great land.

“What Libertarians are really bellyaching about is that not enough of their neighbors have the same view of government programs as they do.”

Well, yes. This is what any political group or ideology in a democratic country that does not currently have its program in place is “bellyaching” about. What antiwar activists are really bellyaching about is that not enough of their neighbors have the same view of war and militarism as they do. What socialists are really bellyaching about is that not enough of their neighbors have the same view of government ownership of industry as they do. What members of the organization Stop Prisoner Rape are really bellyaching about is that not enough of their neighbors have the same view of stopping people from being raped in prison as they do. Do you have some sort of point beyond “People who disagree with me should shut the fuck up”?