On 5 June, 15:03, Cynic  wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Jun 2009 12:16:54 퍝, "Aidy"  wrote:
> >> Do you *really* think you own other people's bodies?
>
> >No, but the g'ment has a duty of care to its citizens.
>
> Ah.  That's why you think the way you do.
>
> You are wrong.  The government has a role in *protecting* its citizens
> from serious and *unwanted* harm, both from other citizens and from
> foreign invaders.  It has a duty to provide common services and
> facillities.  But it has no duty of care above those things.
>
> One of the big problems with the UK government is that it *has* come
> to see its role as a nanny rather than being primarily a managerial
> body.  Every adult should be free to decide for themselves what they
> want, regardless of how much other people may think their choice is
> unhealthy, unwise or morally reprehensible.  The only time that choice
> should be interfered with is if it involves causing unwanted harm to
> others.
>
> --
> Cynic

Unfortunately with a general disdain for history percolating into the
masses from the elected elite, the notion of nation state and
soveriegnty is basically lost on the general populus. The work done by
the great minds of the past to define and discuss liberty and
governance (Tocqueville et al) is lost on most.

*if* we defined what the nation-state was, and then it's roles and
resposibilities, we would come to the conclusion the UK system of
government is a bit of a mess. In my mind, the state should

1) protect it's citizens from other states
2) regulate trade internally and externally
3) provide a framework for it's citizens to govern themselves as they
choose

beyond that, then element (3) should drive infrastructure and criminal
justice.