dapf

More important that what you are mentioning is the fact that a ban does nothing. Is actually the opposite of doing, it's the prevention a certain type of action.

OK, you are going to ban the use of fuel-powered cars, where is your alternative? What did you exactly do with the ban? Did you create a different massively feasible type of personal transportation?

This kind of actions make me sick. They provide nothing, they accomplish nothing, they just pretend that they can waterboard creativity out of people.

How about significantly reducing taxes for everyone? Say, no more than 5% of anyone's income?

Awful idea, and also wrong.

The only two true rights are freedom and property.

You are born with free will, and you can do whatever you want, unless someone actively prevents you from doing it.

You are born with your body, which is yours, your original property, and is the source of all other property you may gain through your life by using your body (including your brain) as a tool to obtain it.

Those two rights are yours by origin, you were born with them, society doesn't need to give them to you, all the other rights are just corollaries of those two, and whatever infringes these rights are not true rights.

The right to life is derived from the respect others should have for your will to live, and the fact that they shouldn't damage your body (property).

In your comment you are painfully confusing right with a warranty. There is no warranty for anything. Even in the midst of civilized society there is no warranty you'll live, what you do have is the warranty that society will do its best effort to punish those who killed you.

My question is who cares more, which you didn't answer.

Also, more qualified? What makes the bureaucrat more qualified? Does the bureaucrat know the child better? Is the bureaucrat better equipped to make decisions about the child future having limited to none information about the particular child? Doesn't the caring part have a huge impact on how carefully the decisions are made?

I see the rightful role of the bureaucrat only as one more source of information for the parent, to supplement any lack of knowledge the parents may have. But, the decisions, an ultimate responsibility, lies with the parents.

I sense a certain underestimation on your part towards non-college educated people, or maybe an overestimation of what college educated people can do. Correct me if I'm wrong.

It's all about getting that 51%.

This is why a democracy without a very strong republican and individual rights constraints is nothing but soft-core communism.

Exactly. Is a very loose and ambiguous definition.

Even in this not-so-good system, in which some people get taxed for a service they won't use, there is the assumption that if you have children than you have the right to be supplied with state-provided education.

Is the state decides not to grant you the service, for whatever reason, then it should give you the money it would otherwise have spent in order to provide you with said service. Else you are subject to discriminatory treatment by the state, based on your personal decisions.

The parents don't approve giving their child a vaccine they consider experimental/risky/unnecessary, they do this in full use of their reason and with the children best interest at heart. The State decides no to provide educational service to the child, but the child still needs an educational service. The right course of action would be for the State to give the parents the amount money it would hav spent, so the parent can contract the services of a private educational institution that would give the child the education the child needs.

Ups, sorry, English my first language is not.

Thanks for letting me now.

So, other people has the right to demand what you inject in your veins.

The point of freedom is to be free to take decisions about your life, including injecting substances in your veins.

Would you agree with that?

Yes, that is a beautiful example of freedom...

It presupposes that some bureaucrat in Berlin should be entrusted with the educational decisions has the kids best interest at heart. The bureaucrat cares more about a child than the child's parents.

It makes total sense. You shouldn't be taxed if you don't use a service.

We have an easy way to deal with roads: tolls.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turnpike_trust

You never had a right to eat your neighbours. Neither Homo sapiens nor other animals.

Your human rights are yours because you are human, they don't derive from any social contract, they are not granted by society. Society can only respect them or violate them, not give them to you.

You might wonder what are your human rights then? The answer is easy, is what you were born with: Freedom and Property.

Freedom because you have a will, and you can do what you want if no-one hinders you. Property because you were born with your body, it's your to do with it as you please.

Any other so-called rights that violate these two fundamental rights are false rights. The "right to eat your neighbour" could never be a real right because it presupposes that you can eat them no matter what, you wouldn't need their consent in order for you to eat them and that would violate their freedom.

Actually, there is a bunch of other false rights that are in the same line as your "right to eat your neighbours": the right to food, the right to health-care, the right to housing, the right to anything that requires someone else's labor. Saying that such things are a right imply that someone else has to labor in order to grant said false rights to you. The "has to" part violates someone's freedom. We have a name for that: slavery.

So we must surrender our rights?

That would be fine if the Czech government returned said families the taxes they took from them to finance public education.

No service, no charge.

The whole thing doesn't make sense:

> "The measures could be regarded as being 'necessary in a democratic society,'"

What does vaccination has to do with democracy?

Also, freedom is the most basic human right. It's a pre-condition to every other right as almost every single one is a corollary to freedom. The right to live is the right to respect your will to live.

So, how can you put "human right" and "compulsory" on the same sentence?

This looks like direct quotation out of the pages of Atlas Shrugged.

You're right.

I find these kind of "initiatives" quite condescending.

They have had the good sense of not taking away http://reddit.com/.compact