Originally posted by WajomaIn a debate with someone as opinionated as i am on a topic i would prefer your articulation of an argument, not some tired old link.
The measure of a civil society is the extent to which people deal with each other voluntarily.
It's no big deal kmax, you believe you're better at running other peoples lives than they are themselves. People can't be trusted to help their fellow man so that's where you step in, you think you're better at it.
As it is with alcoholics the first step is t ...[text shortened]... t:
http://www.jonathangullible.com/mmedia/PhilosophyOfLiberty-english_music.swf
The only control freaking out here, is your inability to differentiate between what your modus operandi looks like, and a sustained multi aspected argument that you prefer not to engage with other than to deflect by ad hominem and the posting of links.
Its disingenius to suggest that the real problem is actually rules and the enforcement of those rules. Listening to you one would be inclined to conclude that if left to their own devices, people the world over would just work it out and there would be no reason for any friction to exist in society.
Well show me where your system works and then you might be making a point. But it has been a long time since you made a point on this topic.
1 edit
Originally posted by kmax87Alleged "inability to differentiate..." = control freaking?
In a debate with someone as opinionated as i am on a topic i would prefer your articulation of an argument, not some tired old link.
The only control freaking out here, is your inability to differentiate between what your modus operandi looks like, and a sustained multi aspected argument that you prefer not to engage with other than to deflect by ad homine ...[text shortened]... n you might be making a point. But it has been a long time since you made a point on this topic.
It's like we're speaking two different languages. Who is being controlled and by what means?
I have offered a concise definition of freedom i.e. to live life free from force threats of force and fraud. I make no utopian claims (re:"...people the world over would just work it out and there would be no reason for any friction to exist in society.") There will always be threats to freedom, there are two ways to deal with your fellow man, voluntarily or through force. You believe in the second method kmax, if it upsets you, do something about it - butt out of other peoples lives.
I have previously pointed out the difference between charity and state mandated welfare. You used to try to fog them together and if the one thing that comes from the discussion is that you no longer do that then it has all been worth while. Charity can only ever be voluntary, the number one killer of charity is the welfare state. It is founded on the mistaken idea that men can not be trusted to help others in need, it goes onto mould men into exactly that. As the welfare state grows, increasingly people become uncaring. See someone sick, old, poor, the reaction becomes "Ahhh forget it, the gummint will look after them"
The DPB was introduced into NZ in the 70's, the people claiming it numbered in the hundreds, it's budget was $4 million (already adjusted for inflation). Today there over one hundred thousand claiming this benefit, it's budget is 2.8 billion, and there are third generation beneficiaries coming through the system now. Three generations of wasted lives. Welfare breeds dependancy.
Originally posted by WajomaYou say you are not making utopian claims, but in order for your 'freedom' to exist requires some utopian society to be established surely.
It's like we're speaking two different languages. Who is being controlled and by what means?
I have offered a concise definition of freedom i.e. to live life free from force threats of force and fraud. I make no utopian claims (re:"...people the world over would just work it out and there would be no reason for any friction to exist in society.") ...[text shortened]... to freedom, there are two ways to deal with your fellow man, voluntarily or through force.
You acknowledge that their are two ways to deal with your fellow man, voluntarily or through force. So how would you propose to establish a free society amongst people where no peace exists or where large economic disparities are present?
I dont see how you could have your freedom free of force in the midst of unstable social conditions.
Look at South Africa. After years of fighting for political equality, once the apartheid regime collapsed and the majority where empowered and took office, when the expectations of freedom where not met, people living there experienced a rise in lawlessness and increasing threats to their person and their property.
The only way I can see a free libertarian system as defined by you being established, is if you have a fair and equitable balanced society to start with.
This is why I reject your debate. Not because it wouldn't be nice to have, but because it is an impractical proposition.
TO counter balance the experience of welfare in NZ maybe you should compare it to welfare in Scandinavian countries where everyone pays exorbitant tax rates, but where if on welfare you end up with a high proportion of the income you would have had should you have still been in work. Different societal expectations exert subtle motivating forces that encourages people back to work, so even though the Scandinavians have a welfare system that looks a paradise when compared to other democratic socialist nations, the growth of welfare recipients is not exactly a national concern.
1 edit
Originally posted by Wajoma...and here's what happened when they dismantled the welfare state and installed some libertarian economic ideals in the 80s.
The DPB was introduced into NZ in the 70's, the people claiming it numbered in the hundreds, it's budget was $4 million (already adjusted for inflation). Today there over one hundred thousand claiming this benefit, it's budget is 2.8 billion, and there are third generation beneficiaries coming through the system now. Three generations of wasted lives. Welfare breeds dependancy.
http://www.johnkay.com/political/158
http://www.commondreams.org/views/081500-106.htm
Rising crime, bankrupt farms, massive youth suicide rate, poverty, unemployment... all for a negative effect on the economy. No wonder there are so many claiming benefits since they've been reintroduced.
All that it lead to was someone else seizing what power that the state had, and they were left with even less accountability.
1 edit
Originally posted by mrstabbyHaha, dismantled the welfare state, oh man you be funny.
...and here's what happened when they dismantled the welfare state and installed some libertarian economic ideals.
http://www.johnkay.com/political/158
http://www.commondreams.org/views/081500-106.htm
Rising crime, bankrupt farms, massive youth suicide rate, unemployment... all for a negative effect on the economy.
All that it lead to was someone else seizing what power that the state had, and they were left with even less accountability.
Edit: Since it's inception the welfare state has never been dismantled in NZ, says so much about your sources though.
Originally posted by mrstabbyAnyone can play that game mcstabby:
...and here's what happened when they dismantled the welfare state and installed some libertarian economic ideals in the 80s.
http://www.johnkay.com/political/158
http://www.commondreams.org/views/081500-106.htm
Rising crime, bankrupt farms, massive youth suicide rate, poverty, unemployment... all for a negative effect on the economy. No wonder there ar ...[text shortened]... else seizing what power that the state had, and they were left with even less accountability.
http://www.reason.com/news/show/30006.html
Pre Rogernomics:
"...In 1984 New Zealand may have had the most tightly planned economy outside the Communist bloc. And the nation was a basket case. Public debt totaled 43 percent of national income, inflation was 6 percent, unemployment was 8 percent, and Finance Minister Roger Douglas said the country "was bankrupt--about to go into [International Monetary Fund] receivership..."
Originally posted by WajomaThat data is meaningless unless you show the statistics after the policy. See, when examining the effect of an economic system, you look at the state of the country before AND after the system is in place. See that article looked at the country's debt in isolation then the effect of the policy on one business... very sneaky.
Anyone can play that game mcstabby:
http://www.reason.com/news/show/30006.html
Pre Rogernomics:
"...In 1984 New Zealand may have had the most tightly planned economy outside the Communist bloc. And the nation was a basket case. Public debt totaled 43 percent of national income, inflation was 6 percent, unemployment was 8 percent, and Finance Minister ...[text shortened]... id the country "was bankrupt--about to go into [International Monetary Fund] receivership..."
http://www.commondreams.org/views/081500-106.htm
As for the debt in 1984, it was NZ$22-billion, but after 10 years of experimenting, it had doubled to NZ$45-billion -- in spite of the sell-off of NZ$16-billion in state enterprises. Today, it has finally returned to 1984 levels, but only through more Crown asset sales.
And economic growth? In the years 1985-92, average economic growth in the OECD countries totalled 20%, while in New Zealand it was negative, at -1%. The promised creation of enormous new wealth went into reverse: Real GDP in 1992, at 5%, was below the 1985-86 level. A burst of growth from 1993 to 1995 petered out, and the economy steadily declined until it dipped into negative territory in 1998, posting the fourth-worst growth in the OECD.
The transformation of the economy was supposed to spur foreign investment, but it mostly meant a feeding frenzy on domestic corporate assets. In 1993, the proportion of GDP in investments was just 70% of what it was in 1984.
The restructuring of the economy failed most dramatically on the unemployment front, and the country has never managed to get back to anywhere near the 1984 level of 4%. The "workless and wanting work" figure peaked at more than 18% in 1993. In 1999, that figure had been reduced only to 11.2%.
Apart from inflation show me the part where this economic policy made things better...
Originally posted by WajomaI exaggerated and used the wrong word. The spending has been drastically cut however.
Haha, dismantled the welfare state, oh man you be funny.
Edit: Since it's inception the welfare state has never been dismantled in NZ, says so much about your sources though.