Time to get rid of the nanny state?

silverharp

I dont know what moments of clarity people have had during this crises but given that we are at the start of a 10 to 15 year event , I'll call it a depression, what seemed important to people a couple of years ago will not seem so now. The best thing people could do is accept that faith in gov is misplaced and the best thing gov. could do in many areas is step aside and let people get on with their lives in peace.

Given that crime is going to rise for instance, how about decriminalising drugs. Being a heroin addict is no different from being an alcoholic. How many billions have been spent criminalising people where the net effect is that everyone that has wanted to become a drug addict has become so anyway.

Another area is the Irish language again I'm a big boy and responsible parent , can I please be allowed to raise my kids with the values I deem important? its a small ask.

Sports , again enough with the social engineering, step aside and allow people to be self motivated instead of having to have their "bottoms wiped"

feel free to add your own............

seamus

silverharp wrote: »

Given that crime is going to rise for instance, how about decriminalising drugs. Being a heroin addict is no different from being an alcoholic.

It's very different. Namely to say that heroin is countless times more addictive than alcohol. There's also far less of a social aspect with heroin than with alcohol. It's purely about the high and nothing else. It's socially damaging.
Although we say that people "choose" to become addicted to drugs, most people's first exposure to them is in their teens, when a person's choices can be questionable and sometimes downright dumb. We've all been teenagers and we've made stupid teenager-ish decisions. If heroin was legal, you'd only compound this problem and all you'll manage to do is redirect funds into the pockets of whoever's importing/supplying the heroin.

However, I would be in support of decriminalising other less addictive and more sociable drugs, such as hash, in the interests of saving Garda time.

Another area is the Irish language again I'm a big boy and responsible parent , can I please be allowed to raise my kids with the values I deem important? its a small ask.

I'd be in agreement.

Sports , again enough with the social engineering, step aside and allow people to be self motivated instead of having to have their "bottoms wiped"

Motivating people to do things isn't nannyism and the ultimate aim is to improve the health of the nation, not to mention the cultural and social benefits that are reaped from a thriving sports scene. If you were legally required to do a certain amount of sports/exercise, I'd agree with you, but I would say that we're not doing enough to motivate people to get off their arses.

Irlbo

silverharp wrote: »

I dont know what moments of clarity people have had during this crises but given that we are at the start of a 10 to 15 year event , I'll call it a depression, what seemed important to people a couple of years ago will not seem so now. The best thing people could do is accept that faith in gov is misplaced and the best thing gov. could do in many areas is step aside and let people get on with their lives in peace.

Given that crime is going to rise for instance, how about decriminalising drugs. Being a heroin addict is no different from being an alcoholic. How many billions have been spent criminalising people where the net effect is that everyone that has wanted to become a drug addict has become so anyway.

Another area is the Irish language again I'm a big boy and responsible parent , can I please be allowed to raise my kids with the values I deem important? its a small ask.

Sports , again enough with the social engineering, step aside and allow people to be self motivated instead of having to have their "bottoms wiped"

feel free to add your own............

Heroin is a totally different kettle of fish compared to alcohol,in my view its a curse,and should not be made more available through legalisation,its a very ignorant and general view that its in the same catagory as alcohol,heroin should be erradicated from this country and its possible because we are an island,so more closely monitered coasts and ports could stem the flow dramtically,to be prefectly honest I despise drug addicts and have no sympathy for them,they are a menace to society and a danger to upstanding people,and this is not an ignorant view,its from experience growing up in a working class area and through heroin addiction in my family

Serenity Now!

Irlbo wrote: »

Heroin is a totally different kettle of fish compared to alcohol,in my view its a curse,and should not be made more available through legalisation,its a very ignorant and general view that its in the same catagory as alcohol,heroin should be erradicated from this country and its possible because we are an island,so more closely monitered coasts and ports could stem the flow dramtically,to be prefectly honest I despise drug addicts and have no sympathy for them,they are a menace to society and a danger to upstanding people,and this is not an ignorant view,its from experience growing up in a working class area and through heroin addiction in my family

For sheer scale alone, nothing has broken more families up, caused more abuse, contributed to psychiatric illness and led to more deaths than alcohol abuse.

I would agree with you in taking umbrage at what seems like the original poster is belittling heroin abuse however but as far as a damaging substance/drug goes, I'd say alcohol is a massive detriment to Irish society.

seamus

Serenity Now! wrote: »

For sheer scale alone, nothing has broken more families up, caused more abuse, contributed to psychiatric illness and led to more deaths than alcohol abuse.

Can you say that's proportionally true though?

That is, if 99% of Irish people are regular drinkers, and say 40% of those have experienced social, emotional or psychiatric trauma (not counting normal stuff like falling over when drunk), then what proportion of regular heroin users have suffered the same?

You might say that 100 people die from alcohol abuse every year (I know it's higher) and only 10 die from heroin abuse (no idea what the figure is), but if you've 2 millions drinkers and 10,000 heroin users, then that makes heroin 20 times more lethal than alcohol.

Irlbo

You cant get HIV from drinking alcohol,just one major difference between heroin and alcohol,also the way in which both are sold is vastly different,one is through legalised regulated establishments that make money,the other is through a very shady underground that make money but occaisionally people end up dead

Serenity Now!

seamus wrote: »

Can you say that's proportionally true though?

That is, if 99% of Irish people are regular drinkers, and say 40% of those have experienced social, emotional or psychiatric trauma (not counting normal stuff like falling over when drunk), then what proportion of regular heroin users have suffered the same?

You might say that 100 people die from alcohol abuse every year (I know it's higher) and only 10 die from heroin abuse (no idea what the figure is), but if you've 2 millions drinkers and 10,000 heroin users, then that makes heroin 20 times more lethal than alcohol.

You're referring to proportions. As I said in my post, I'm referring to scale and if I wasn't I would be deeming heroin to be not as damaging to a user as alcohol. This isn't what I said.
I said sheer numbers of people whose lives have been f**ked up in one way or another over alcoholic abuse is massive in Ireland and ridiculously so.

seamus

Serenity Now! wrote: »

You're referring to proportions. As I said in my post, I'm referring to scale and if I wasn't I would be deeming heroin to be not as damaging to a user as alcohol. This isn't what I said.
I said sheer numbers of people whose lives have been f**ked up in one way or another over alcoholic abuse is massive in Ireland and ridiculously so.

Sorry, I did kind of miss your second paragraph in that post, but actual values are irrelevant when comparing two items. Proportion is all that matters.

Yes, alcohol can do a lot of damage when it's abused, but that's not the issue here. The issue is that heroin abuse would do massive amounts of more damage if it was decriminalised or even legalised.

Irlbo

I think its a cope out to suggest alcohol and heroin are as bad as each other,common sense shows us that heroin is far far far more dangerous,its like saying 'hey instead of going for a pint of guinness after work in the pub,lets go down a lane and intrvenously inject heroin into our veins'

Het-Field

I firmly believe in some Drug legalisation. However, I am against the entire legalisation of heroin. It is a drug that costs society more than any other. I am not talking about the mental and physical problems it causes. It is one of the few drugs which cannot be enjoyed recreationally, the industry is funded by the state (the dole), or crime, and it removes people from society to that point that they are incapable of acting in a manner that is at all beneficial to ociety. Not that I do not understand the OP's point, and conider it valid. Prohibiting stuff like marajuana is simply maintaining a cosy drug cartel which cripples society.

Other areas in which the "Nanny State" could be abolished is in the field of alcohol consumption. 24 hour licencing, 24 hour cafe bars etc should all be legalised.

Kama

Way to ignore Serenity's 'sheer scale' argument...actual values are anything but irrelevant imho.

The issue is that heroin abuse would do massive amounts of more damage if it was decriminalised or even legalised.

Justify? Would you agree that alcohol would do more damage if it was illegal, as during Prohibition as the standard argument? Imo, the negatives of illegality outweigh the positives, whether we are talking harm minimization (drug addiction being a medical/social problem rather than being best dealt with under a criminal aegis), the economic argument on lost revenue and providing massive profits for organized crime, or the argument on more libertarian grounds (nanny state etc).

And yeh, tbh the sooner we take softer drugs out of the net, or take the harder out of a illegal profit-maximising system the better for all concerned. The profits are too large to believe the 'complete interdiction' argument, at best its supply decrease, leading to higher price or lower quality. Elimination is a utopia, fleeing.

seamus

Kama wrote: »

Way to ignore Serenity's 'sheer scale' argument...actual values are anything but irrelevant imho.

How so? The issue here is, "Alcohol does contribute to societal problems. Will heroin be any better?". And in order to formulate any kind of answer, you must rely on proportions derived from actual values. The actual values alone cannot be used.

Justify?

My first post gave my reasons:

It's very different. Namely to say that heroin is countless times more addictive than alcohol. There's also far less of a social aspect with heroin than with alcohol. It's purely about the high and nothing else. It's socially damaging.

Would you agree that alcohol would do more damage if it was illegal, as during Prohibition as the standard argument?

No I wouldn't. Define "more damage"? Yes it would take up an inappropriate amount of Garda time and would add funding to criminal gangs, but at the end of the day it would still just be alcohol. As a society, we'd have a few less drinkers and a few more dangerous criminals. That's about all prohibition would do.
Decriminalising Heroin would basically be a green light for kids to go ahead and try it because there are no consequences. Even in this country, it's informally accepted that the Gardai won't do much if you're caught with cannbis, but if you're caught with heroin it's a whole other ball game, so there's less incentive to try it.
So we'd have a shedload more junkies screwing up their day-to-day lives and tying up the health system.

thebman

Agree with legalising Hash and its production here TBH. Could form a good domestic industry

And save the police time saying don't be doing that to kids when their parents should be doing it in regards to something like Hash.

Don't smoke so not just a dope head. It just makes sense and it has fook all affect on people in the long term in small doses. It really only gets questionable if you become a complete dope head.

On sport, I don't know if I'd agree with a cut but we could certainly do with reallocating funds within sport. How much of it goes to GAA still? The sport doesn't need help TBH and there are more worthwhile causes.

Mr.Micro

To go back to the OP, Time to get rid of the nanny state?

That is not going to happen anytime soon. Look around the world post 9/11 and see how many countries like the US, UK have become more intrusive into people's lives. Ireland will follow the rest albeit when we get round to it.

AlekSmart

On the OP`s wider topic of the Nanny State there is little doubt but that the current level of Social Welfare supports cannot be maintained for much longer.

The biggest contributory factor to this collapse is the sudden contraction in the numbers contributing TO the SW pot combined with a commensurate increase in those seeking to claim from it.

Nobody appeared to question the sheer scale and extent of the DSFA`s benefit`s machine.
The ease with which a generation of young,healthy and productive people were able to opt-out of the entire notion of workin-for-a-living did cause many to stroke their chins,but those nay-sayers were usually dismissed in a flurry of high-pitched comments about "knowing-your-entitlements"

The theory and practice of "Entitlement" became reason enough to hop on board and the ever compliant Department of Social and Family affairs facilitated this by largely abandoning the notion of housekeeping or exercising any level of oversight on its own schemes.

The result is we now face a very real threat of total collapse as the Money runs out (Rapidly).

The thousands of young co-habiting couples along with their children who had quite easily availed of the unmonitored state of the DSFA`s systems to combine Lone Parent,Jobseekers and Private Rented Accomodation Allowances and the various child related add-on`s now represent a very real problem as internal audits start to highligh the anomalies so easily disregarded in Times of Plenty.

Yet,even in these straightened times we see a ray of hope,as surprisingly madcap suggestions of Local Authorites "distress purchasing" large blocks of vacant private housing stock in order to "allocate" these units to "qualifying" housing list applicants are given credence.

Thus,for many, the natural progression from State Assisted private rented accomodation into State Subsidised Local Authority housing is maintained.

Yet in some cases I am familiar with,it is the €35 per week element of personal contribution which has to be constantly followed up on by the Landlord as of course the State Payment simply rubber stamps in each week,hail,rain or snow !

The availablity of these State Supports/Relief`s to a substantial number of claimants who have NO long term history of making contributions INTO the system represents the rather basic and fatal flaw in the entire DSFA machine.

I seem to recall an old textbook describing the basic principle of all insurance as being:

"The contributions of the many thus funding the needs of the Few"

Sounds SO Victorian......far to commonsensical a motto for a country roaring ahead on the crest of a never ending wave ?

Where will it all end ?

I suspect we are all going to find out far sooner than many currently think !!

silverharp

Mr.Micro wrote: »

To go back to the OP, Time to get rid of the nanny state?

That is not going to happen anytime soon. Look around the world post 9/11 and see how many countries like the US, UK have become more intrusive into people's lives. Ireland will follow the rest albeit when we get round to it.

I cant see it happening either , and the public will vote to keep their bread and circuses and long as possible. However there is a day of reckoning coming where there will be some serious breakdowns in what people think the state will do for them so there is an opportunity for people to claim back responsibility from the state now.
All I can see is a gov. in typical fashion trying to stay alive for aother day instead of people admitting that they have gone down a cul-de-sac. Is being a citizen of this state an asset or a liability? the pendelum is swinging into the liability side from my point of view

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Dannyboy83

Irlbo wrote: »

You cant get HIV from drinking alcohol,just one major difference between heroin and alcohol,also the way in which both are sold is vastly different,one is through legalised regulated establishments that make money,the other is through a very shady underground that make money but occaisionally people end up dead

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1727532.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7755664.stm
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1112672


Your confusing Cause and effect.

I don't condone or support heroin use, however, the ready people die and contract HIV is precisely because it is sold FROM the underground.

I don't believe many of the Swiss methadone users have died.

Also, the biggest danger from the drug, when sold medically, is overdose.
Aspirin has more dangerous/less forgiving overdose potential

silverharp

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

This is the nub of it, there is a fallacy out there that if the gov doesnt do/provide something it wont exist, this is just not true. The best thing the gov could do right now is think of ways of getting money back into peoples pockets, they should be looking along the lines of getting rid of the TV licence for example. Why have this transfer of wealth from lower income people to the likes of people like Tuberty who I guess is creaming a six figure salary, and if you have the audacity not to pay his salary you will most likely end up in jail.

gnxx

Unprotected sex often occurs when people are drunk.

Irlbo wrote: »

You cant get HIV from drinking alcohol

Bottle_of_Smoke

your chances of contracting it through shared needles is far higher than unprotected sex

djpbarry

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

What level of sport are we talking about here? Kids, amateur, professional?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Offalycool

While the state will have to contract to some extent as a result of the recession, it's not going to disappear over night. This is fine by me. I have no desire for the libertarian 'utopia' that some people think will solve all the worlds problems. I think the views expressed in this short article encapsulate my views on the subject.

silverharp

Offalycool wrote: »

While the state will have to contract to some extent as a result of the recession, it's not going to disappear over night. This is fine by me. I have no desire for the libertarian 'utopia' that some people think will solve all the worlds problems. I think the views expressed in this short article encapsulate my views on the subject.

Nobody is talking about a libertarian utopia however the libertarian warning is watch out, an interferring gov. will gerryrig the markets for short term gain and at some stage they risk collapsing the system under a mountain of debt, hmm... where could that apply today.
As far as I can see here there was a consensus of opinion that things were "grand" since 96 until recently. Maybe extreme left wing groups or the Greens would have had reservations at the way society was going but Liberals or most mainstream thinking would have supported in the US say, Greenspan's policies. Needless to say he had "devil" status from a Libertarian perspective and I think its case closed:D

Offalycool

It would seem to me that the lack of government interference in the the US has caused this recession. If the market collapsed in a libertarian system who is going to bail out society? Obviously not the libertarian.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Offalycool

I'm not an economist, but it would seem to be the general consensus.

silverharp

Offalycool wrote: »

It would seem to me that the lack of government interference in the the US has caused this recession.

I dont think so, the US Fed was heavily involved with "managing" the market after the dot bomb and 911, had they left the markets alone back then the US would have come out of that recession by now and the credit bubble since 2000 would not have happened, needless to say China would not have grown as much and we wouldnt have had to live though a mini commodity bubble to boot. The Fed policy was really to blow up a new bubble after a previous bubble had collapsed all at the alter of increasing nominal growth all the time regardless of the long term consequences.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

SeanW

I agree with all lot of what has been said in this thread so far. There are certain excesses of the Nanny State that I think we simply can no longer afford.

My perspective on this is I am a left-wing-Libertarian. I value firstly the principle of live and let live (social liberties), free markets and Austrian School Economics sound like a good idea, but I'm not sure it has all the answers. On economic matters, I think we should give an Austrian economist a fair hearing. I also do not drink, do not smoke tobacco and NEVER use hard drugs. I got my first - and last - real hangover at the age 21 and at that point I decided "Well, if this is what people who drink go through, I think I can have more fun staying in control of my faculties."

So I'm not some stoner looking for the government to decriminalise my pasttime, rather I'm approaching this from an "I'll mind my own business and let you get on with your life if you will do likewise" standpoint.

And to that end, I utterly oppose the ban on cannibis in particular, and a lot of other pointless laws, regulations and red tape in genral. I believe the prohibition of cannibis is directly comparable to the prohibition of alcohol in the U.S. in the 1930s. In terms of social cost - we're prepared to put up with the mass drunken exodus from the bars and clubs, but a few people getting high on weed are horrible evil dangerous monsters that have to be put away for the good of society? I'm sorry, I don't buy that. The ban on alcohol was the most widely flouted law in American history, and that situation let to a mass increase in criminal activity, including giving rise the Al Capone gang.
This is inevitably what happens when you take a business out of the hands of honest brokers and give it to the criminals. That is semi-related to why for example the handgun ban in the U.K. has made noone safer except the criminals, who by their nature can have all the guns they want.
The second problem with pointless prohibitions is that the consumer has to go through illegal channels, and in doing so not only are they funding criminals - like the Al Capone gang in the '30s and the drugs gangs today - but they have no protection in consumer and contract law. Back in the Prohibtion era, "Bad hooch" was a major cause of injuries and deaths among drinkers. Today, most illegal drugs are either fine tuned for maximum effect, or cut with *anything* E-tabs are often spotted with heroin to make them addictive, cocaine comes in wildly varying strengths cut with anything from sugar to washing powder, and pot, under the "skunk" variety, anything from straw to battery acid.

Whatever about ones views on the "War On Drugs" clearly even supporters must admit that a sensible battle line must be drawn. Or not, after all I'm sure there were plenty of people in the '30s who thought that the prohibition of alcohol could work with a lot more enforcement ...

How about we legalise some of the softer drugs, like cannibis, non-crack cocaine and maybe Es, under very firm regulation (limited availability, no under 21s, and a very high tax rate), get rid of all the gangs (they may not go away quietly, but much of their business will have dried up), and kill 3 birds with one stone - let the guards and the courts have more time to deal with real criminals, give consumer protections and new freedoms to people who never had them before, and help the public finances by replacing costs with revenues?

Sooner or later, we are going to have to consider getting the government out of peoples lives, and limit their meddling in the markets. Either now, while we're still in some kind of shape as a country/world, or later when we're a lot worse off.

thebman

The real problem is you need someone to regulate the markets to have stability. You can say the market will sort itself out and it will but the problem is the market getting out of shape in the first place (although economists will probably disagree but the population that is the problem as they want a stable economy so they know their job is there tomorrow).

The problem is unregulated companies will sacrifice stability in the long term for short term gain because the people running the company at that time generally won't be staying around for 20 years. They will come in, maximize profits and leave just before the mess they've left behind collapses in on itself same as politicians. The maximization of profits means they'll easily get another job in another company because it looks like they are great and then the process starts again at the next company.

So before you have a free market, you need a solution to that problem. You can argue that the free market economist shouldn't have to come up with that solution (and again your probably right) but the system you want, can't/won't exist until the problem is solved. You'll just change the person responsible for artificially fooking with the market.

So I'd like to see a proposal on how you guys would prevent the above. Otherwise I get the idea of the free market but you've got to prevent people fooking it up because if you can't then we already have that system, your just changing the job role of the person fooking up the system.

djpbarry

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Ok, so absolutely no public funds should be spent on sport? You don’t think that is likely to limit the sporting options available to kids in particular?

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I’m all for taking responsibility for one’s own welfare, but the majority of people in this country want government regulation of markets and all that it entails. There were protests in Waterford yesterday calling on the government to intervene to save jobs. Students protested in Dublin, calling on the government to increase spending on education.

SeanW wrote: »

…the handgun ban in the U.K. has made noone safer except the criminals, who by their nature can have all the guns they want.

So should all firearms be legalised to level the playing field?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Daroxtar

SeanW wrote: »

How about we legalise some of the softer drugs, like cannibis, non-crack cocaine and maybe Es, .

Sorry seanW but non crack cocaine is in no way a soft drug. It is savagely destructive.You cant even begin to compare E's or weed to coke- body count, addiction levels and expenditure alone show that coke is on a different level. Even in places like peru and bolivia where the plant is part of the local heritage and economy and you can buy kilos of the leaves for a dollar to chew or make tea it causes huge problems medically- heart attacks, strokes, cancer of the mouth and nose and severe shortening of lifespan coupled with chronic ill health in later life. Less than 200 people have died from ectasy in the british isles since 1988. I'm sure the figure from coke is at least 20 times that.

RedPlanet

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

So, in your view it was what: the government or governments conspiring to prevent those bankers from self regulating?
This has already been brought to your attention on another thread. It's like you accept that bankers and investors behave as greedy, selfish children but somehow feel that's the governments fault for either too much regulation or not enough.
You likened setting low interest rates was like putting candy in-front of hungry 5-year olds, but why should we accept that bankers should behave as 5-year olds? And apparently, the government should presume that bankers behave as 5-year olds?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

RedPlanet

Well obviously you can blame bankers and investors because it's their responsibilty to insure that their books are in order and their business is sustainable.
The government wasn't forcing banks to be over-exposed to particular markets.

RedPlanet

Occasionally in history free-market capitalism has been tried.
During the 1930's-40's residents of sunny Orange County, California saw large numbers of migrant workers flood into the county looking for work - "Okies".
They were employed to pick fruit as seasonal labour.
Thing is, there were excess labour demands (too many Okies).
Being believers in Free-market capitalism, the owners of some farms had a solution.
They'd reduce the pay of a day's work, from something like 10c to 5c. (no minimum wage laws)
This meant however, that a labourer was unable to make enough money to feed himself/herself.
Which meant they'd either fall ill of malnutrition or just die.
In the eyes of a free-market captialist, the excess labour would be reduced to a sustainable level and the farmer would eventually have to pay a sustainable wage.
It's just a simple matter of stepping over the dead bodies to get there.

djpbarry

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Eh, yeah, if said government is headed up by Fidel Castro.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I never suggested that they should. I merely pointed out that there are a great many people in the Waterford area (and probably throughout the country) who believe that they should.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

And I would agree. You seem to think that pointing out that a protest took place is equivalent to supporting said protest? Once again, I am not suggesting that third-level fees should not be reintroduced. I am merely pointing out that there are a large number of people in this country who feel that they should not be reintroduced.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Who was forcing financial institutions to pass on rate cuts?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

djpbarry

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I'm not sure which problem you are referring to?

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Has the price of fuel in this country decreased in proportion to the fall in the price of crude?

di11on

For me, by far the saddest thing in all of this is that after 10+ years of Celtic Tiger growth and prosperity we still rank lowest in Europe for many basic quality of life metrics.

- The state is still chronically dependent on religious institutions to sponsor basic primary education allowing schools, in the event of place shortages, to legally discriminate based on religion. We have come a pitiful way in Church/state separation.
- Teacher/child ratios are still bottom of Europe
- As of April 2008, Ireland had officially, the worst crime rate in Europe Linky
- We still lack a credible public transport option.

And this is Ireland at her peak and facing a, possibly long, depression. To those who credit the Bertie/McCreevy generation with anything positive at all for this country, you are all deluded. We had our chance and failed pitifully to invest in our future. Our leaders have let us down and left us bereft of anything to speak of after years of prosperity.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

djpbarry

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Because retailers wish to maximise profits? What's the big mystery?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

ChocolateSauce

silverharp wrote: »

I dont know what moments of clarity people have had during this crises but given that we are at the start of a 10 to 15 year event , I'll call it a depression, what seemed important to people a couple of years ago will not seem so now. The best thing people could do is accept that faith in gov is misplaced and the best thing gov. could do in many areas is step aside and let people get on with their lives in peace.

Given that crime is going to rise for instance, how about decriminalising drugs. Being a heroin addict is no different from being an alcoholic. How many billions have been spent criminalising people where the net effect is that everyone that has wanted to become a drug addict has become so anyway.

Another area is the Irish language again I'm a big boy and responsible parent , can I please be allowed to raise my kids with the values I deem important? its a small ask.

Sports , again enough with the social engineering, step aside and allow people to be self motivated instead of having to have their "bottoms wiped"

feel free to add your own............

While I agree that in many areas there is too much government involvement, generally speaking the things you brought up are the areas it should be involved in. In short, you over-simplify a very complex issue with sweeping statements. For example, in one paragraph you mention drugs. This is a complex issue, and you can't just say "legalise them all" (nor should anyone just say, hey they're drugs, lets ban them!).

In the US, the government is far less nanny-ish than here, and look what it got them: Private health care for all...who can afford it; banks that operate in ways which lead to what we're in now; a society that thinks choice is more important than security; a society where if you don't pay taxes, you're not worth helping, etc.

Like most things in life (work, fun, sex and drugs, rock and roll), government intervention is needed in moderation. Too much, you have commies and/or fascists. Too little you, have social Darwinism.

thebman

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

That would have been fine if they hadn't approved loans to people they knew would struggle to pay them back in hard times.

You'd expect banks to know hard times would have to arrive at some stage in the next 25 - 35 years that people will be paying these crippling mortgages over.

They should have refused loans so why didn't they?

--edit--
I actually saw a piece on tv that they outsourced a lot of the lending and these people were given bonuses the more loans they got on the books meaning they outsourced it with no accountability to the company if the loan could never be paid back.

This was about the US I think so not sure if it applies to the Irish banks.

djpbarry

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

...at the expense of future stability.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.