Disproportionate representation of ideologies on boards.

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

I've noticed since I started posting in the politics forum that various ideologies are disproportionately represented here. For example there are a great number of Libertarians here whereas I know few if any libertarians in real life. I also notice there are very few posters with far left views. I just think its interesting, and I wonder if theres any reason for this- are the demographics of boards likely to fall into certain ideologies?

Slouch

Libertarianism tends to be disproportionately represented on the web as a whole. I suppose it makes sense, since they have ideological reasons to love the Internet. Then again, so do socialists.

I don't know why there are so few far left contributors on boards. There seem to be several on other Irish politics forums (especially that other one I dare not mention here). They're normally among the most active contributors too. However, the ones that post on-line are usually from the educated middle class.

Lockstep

I'd probably be very left by the Politics section standard but would be a social democrat.
Boards itself is quite varied but the politics section attracts small but vocal groups (such as libertarians, unionists and republicans)

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Thats probably true to a certain extent, but I do associate with people of many different political persuasions and I think I have have only met one individual in person who describes himself as libertarian. Perhaps there simply aren't many such individuals in my college or my hometown (The latter not being surprising as there are few people there who aren't Fianna Fail or Fine Gael supporters).

SupaNova

Libertarianism tends to be disproportionately represented on the web as a whole. I suppose it makes sense, since they have ideological reasons to love the Internet. Then again, so do socialists.

I don't know why there are so few far left contributors on boards. There seem to be several on other Irish politics forums (especially that other one I dare not mention here). They're normally among the most active contributors too. However, the ones that post on-line are usually from the educated middle class.

I think there might be some confirmation bias, i am reasonably new to posting here, but i only recognize about five or six names that are of Libertarian views. Maybe its just because they are long term regular posters that you are giving them more weight.

As for far left contributors, check out threads on ULA, Communism, Joe Higgins etc. They definitely far outnumber Libertarian's. I think they stopped posting after realizing supporting Communism or the ULA is a complete embarrassment to themselves or at least i hope they have realized this.

Most posters don't have an ideology from what i have seen.

20Cent

It can seem like there are more libertarians because they post more. Libertarianism is not found very often in real life. The internet is great for them because they are ignored everywhere else.

Soldie

20Cent wrote: »

It can seem like there are more libertarians because they post more. Libertarianism is not found very often in real life. The internet is great for them because they are ignored everywhere else.

That's a really great explanation!

Bottle_of_Smoke

20Cent wrote: »

It can seem like there are more libertarians because they post more. Libertarianism is not found very often in real life. The internet is great for them because they are ignored everywhere else.

I'd disagree. I think many people are libertarians but don't use a label. People often think it means "liberals" which often means pro-abortion

You can be completely against abortion as a libertarian if you consider the unborn child to have equal rights to any other human, but people who are strongly anti-abortion won't call themselves libertarian due to the confusion with liberals.

The only general discussion forum I know of with many far left posters is irishrepublican.net. Real red-tinted glasses and overlooking the realities of socialism. They don't get challenged because they'll pull the "james connolly was a socialist" card and imply people opposed to socialism are by default pro-british rule.

Obviously that's not an issue here so socialists would get torn to shreds.

Lockstep wrote:

I'd probably be very left by the Politics section standard but would be a social democrat.

I don't think so. Social democrats are more right wing than left wing in my opinion. By that I mean they're a lot closer to Fine Gael than they are to the Socialist Party. I'd say social democrat would also be the most common type of poster here.

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

The only general discussion forum I know of with many far left posters is irishrepublican.net. Real red-tinted glasses and overlooking the realities of socialism. They don't get challenged because they'll pull the "james connolly was a socialist" card and imply people opposed to socialism are by default pro-british rule.

Politics.ie has loads of socialists. In fact politics.ie has loads of people with every opinion, the place is mad altogether. I always wonder how many of the people with Fianna Fail avatars are trolls.

I don't think so. Social democrats are more right wing than left wing in my opinion. By that I mean they're a lot closer to Fine Gael than they are to the Socialist Party. I'd say social democrat would also be the most common type of poster here.

It depends. Labour would generally be a party described as social democratic, some people in Labour might as well be in Fine Gael, but some are so left-wing I wonder why don't join the ULA. Perhaps they want to get another militant tendency going.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Duffy the Vampire Slayer wrote: »

Politics.ie has loads of socialists. In fact politics.ie has loads of people with every opinion, the place is mad altogether. I always wonder how many of the people with Fianna Fail avatars are trolls.

Strange. I think we have one in leixlipred, and he only posted during the election. Do they have rules there about expected standard of posts like this forum?

It depends. Labour would generally be a party described as social democratic, some people in Labour might as well be in Fine Gael, but some are so left-wing I wonder why don't join the ULA. Perhaps they want to get another militant tendency going.

out of interest who would you consider that left wing, and why?

Lockstep

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

I'd disagree. I think many people are libertarians but don't use a label. People often think it means "liberals" which often means pro-abortion

You can be completely against abortion as a libertarian if you consider the unborn child to have equal rights to any other human, but people who are strongly anti-abortion won't call themselves libertarian due to the confusion with liberals.

The only general discussion forum I know of with many far left posters is irishrepublican.net. Real red-tinted glasses and overlooking the realities of socialism. They don't get challenged because they'll pull the "james connolly was a socialist" card and imply people opposed to socialism are by default pro-british rule.

Obviously that's not an issue here so socialists would get torn to shreds.

Strongly disagree here. Libertarians are a minority, both in Ireland and abroad. The state having no role in wealth distribution, market involvement and mass privatisation isn't something most people seem to support, given who they vote for.

Unless you've any proof at all that most people are libertarians.

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

I don't think so. Social democrats are more right wing than left wing in my opinion. By that I mean they're a lot closer to Fine Gael than they are to the Socialist Party. I'd say social democrat would also be the most common type of poster here.

I'd say most Politics posters are centre-right (socially and economically liberal)
Social democracy is on the centre left, not the centre right. THe SOcialist party are on the far left whereas FIne Gael are on the centre right. It's unsurprising that social democrats (as centre leftists) have more in common with them but neither does it mean that social democeacy is a right wing ideology.

Lockstep

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

out of interest who would you consider that left wing, and why?

In the Dáil: Tommy Broughan.
In the councils, Cian O'Callaghan and Dermot Looney spring to mind.

Seloth

To be honest its very hard to have a true political discussion overall on boards about Irish politics.

I'd best elaborate before I start heh.

For instance if your average person saw a thread with the title with say something about either a Irish Political party,The government in general,A minister or a Department then they will give their view and defend it with a passion,arguing even when they know little truly on the subject.

But said average person would over look a title such as yours or one with a title that has which ever political branch or name you have in place as they have neither care or knowledge of what that maybe.

Basically what I'm saying is the average joe thinks they know enough to post in one and while they say think the same as another they are no bothered to even click on it.More so I think its due to the recent years in Irish politics that people believe they know enough from tabloid headlines to have a factual intelligent opinion when in fact its little more than an ill informed one.

I know is a bit off topic somewhat but the principals kind of the same.


But we are in a European state so even are Right is quite Left so that may account to why there are more left.But even so seeing as its the internet you do get the extremes of people.I suppose the main problem with boards...well the internet in general is that its full of people who think they understand and know politics/government which reminds me of that saying that people who claim to understand politics have the same understanding and misinforming view of politics as those who claim to hate it.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

SupaNova

Strongly disagree here. Libertarians are a minority, both in Ireland and abroad. The state having no role in wealth distribution, market involvement and mass privatisation isn't something most people seem to support, given who they vote for.

We vote for packages in a democracy. I have heard the same logic thrown around regarding default. The people had a chance to vote for Sinn Fein or ULA but didn't therefore nobody wanted default, ignoring the fact the ULA are economic illiterates and extreme left where a lot of their voters want a revolution and a Socialist regime. Sinn Fein are also extremely statist in mentality. It baffles how intelligent posters who make good posts most of the time see this as good logic.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Lockstep wrote: »

Strongly disagree here. Libertarians are a minority, both in Ireland and abroad. The state having no role in wealth distribution, market involvement and mass privatisation isn't something most people seem to support, given who they vote for.

Unless you've any proof at all that most people are libertarians.

ITs a real shame the PDs fell apart. I honestly think that was a lot more to do with being FFed than their policy.

Unfortunately tribal politics is a huge issue too. PDs even did their best in their first election when they carried tribal baggage from members who joined from FF/FG. And what Permabear said too.

I'd say most Politics posters are centre-right (socially and economically liberal)
Social democracy is on the centre left, not the centre right. THe SOcialist party are on the far left whereas FIne Gael are on the centre right. It's unsurprising that social democrats (as centre leftists) have more in common with them but neither does it mean that social democeacy is a right wing ideology.

I know social democracy is lefty but I still think its a lot more similar to even the PDs than it is to the likes of Eirigi or the socialist party. Social democracy seems to me an attempt to make the most of capitalism but still provide some services at a state level.

Scofflaw

SupaNova wrote: »

We vote for packages in a democracy. I have heard the same logic thrown around regarding default. The people had a chance to vote for Sinn Fein or ULA but didn't therefore nobody wanted default, ignoring the fact the ULA are economic illiterates and extreme left where a lot of their voters want a revolution and a Socialist regime. Sinn Fein are also extremely statist in mentality. It baffles how intelligent posters who make good posts most of the time see this as good logic.

It's based on the point that in a democracy, there is always a political advantage to be gained by supporting a popular and strongly held view. Therefore, if we assume that the political landscape of a democratic country is a marketplace of policy, there should be, as they say "no cash left on the table" - in other words, if a policy genuinely has widespread support, and political parties or individual politicians have any reasonable chance of carrying it out - that is, the policy is not insane, and they might find themselves in a position to implement it - then political parties can gain by publicly supporting that position.

From that, and the observation that only parties with no reasonable expectation of forming the government supported a policy of default, we have to come to the conclusion that either: (a) a policy of default was not actually widely supported; or (b) the policy was insane.

The arguments against that conclusion are basically: (a) that political parties are ignorant of real public opinion; and/or (b) that political parties of the 'establishment' conspire to prevent certain policies from appearing in any of their manifestos.

Of the two arguments, the first is trivially dismissable, because political parties that are genuinely ignorant of real public opinion don't last, because they will always lose to parties who aren't - and politicians are professionally dependent on real public opinion, so they make it their business to determine what it is as closely as possible. They don't always get it right, but as a profession they are more closely aware of real public opinion than any others, including the media, whose jobs do not depend directly on real public opinion.

The second argument has a little more weight, and shouldn't be dismissed simply because many of the people who advance it believe in conspiracy theories of history and events across the board. However it begs the question of why establishment parties would choose to 'suppress' a particular policy option by jointly leaving it off all their manifestos, unless, again, they are all convinced that the policy is insane, and could not reasonably be implemented in government. And if their reason for conceiving of the policy as insane is supposed - as it often is - to be purely concern for their personal power, that leads us back to the point that a policy with genuine widespread support offers a huge electoral advantage to the party that breaks the consensus, which would in turn lead to an increase in the personal power of the members of that party. So that explanation tends to fall apart as well.

Similarly, in the long term, if there is a genuine widespread interest in political theories such as libertarianism or communism, parties or political candidates will appear in order to take advantage of that interest, as the Tea Party has done in the US. If there is, in the long term, no libertarian party in Ireland, then it follows that - short of libertarian parties being the subject of state repression as per neo-Nazi parties in Germany - there is insufficient interest in the public promotion of libertarian policies to form such a party. Yes, tribal politics do act as a brake on the formation of new parties, but that hasn't stopped the creation of new parties with other interests - someone who strongly believes in libertarian policies is unlikely to be voting tribally, just as someone who has strong Green views will break their tribal allegiance in order to vote Green.

I appreciate that "sorry, you're in a very small minority" isn't a very flattering explanation of why no party represents your views, but it is the only really probable explanation. As a Green in Ireland, I'm well aware of this.

cordially,
Scofflaw

SupaNova

I appreciate that "sorry, you're in a very small minority" isn't a very flattering explanation of why no party represents your views, but it is the only really probable explanation. As a Green in Ireland, I'm well aware of this.

I agree that is the likely explanation, but wasn't the point i was trying to make. I was trying to point out the poor logic i see expressed. Maybe I shouldn't have used default as the example. But i see the similar logic regarding it being the voters fault for voting fianna fail into power repeatedly while they brought the country to its knees. But what were the other options at the time, there were no real voices of restraint. We are always choosing between different packages, we choose the one that we agree with the most.

I find we are doomed to repeat the process as we head down the same path of voting for the least bad of a bad bunch. I find politics revolting at times, politicians pandering, and everyone trying to get something at the expense of someone else or 'something for free', everyone ripping off the system and breeding an ever bigger bureaucratic government. That's one of the biggest reasons i believe in a limited government with limited power. A government without the power to give special interest groups what they want at the expense of others.

Scofflaw

SupaNova wrote: »

I agree that is the likely explanation, but wasn't the point i was trying to make. I was trying to point out the poor logic i see expressed. Maybe I shouldn't have used default as the example. But i see the similar logic regarding it being the voters fault for voting fianna fail into power repeatedly while they brought the country to its knees. But what were the other options at the time, there were no real voices of restraint. We are always choosing between different packages, we choose the one that we agree with the most.

I find we are doomed to repeat the process as we head down the same path of voting for the least bad of a bad bunch. I find politics revolting at times, politicians pandering, and everyone trying to get something at the expense of someone else or 'something for free', everyone ripping off the system and breeding an ever bigger bureaucratic government. That's one of the biggest reasons i believe in a limited government with limited power. A government without the power to give special interest groups what they want at the expense of others.

To my mind, that there was no-one to vote for who advocated restraint during the boom is the important point about the Irish electorate on the whole being complicit in the lack of restraint - because again, had there been any appetite for restraint, there would have been votes on the table to be picked up.

That's why it's "the voters fault for voting fianna fail into power repeatedly while they brought the country to its knees" - not because the voters voted specifically for Fianna Fáil, but because their preferences were so clearly not in favour of restraint that Fianna Fáil were just one of the choices on a menu of unrestrained spending. In that sense, the succession of Fianna Fáil governments are a symptom of the poor choices of the Irish electorate - which makes their pro-cyclic choices in government the responsibility of the Irish people.

Had there been a real counter-cyclic policy platform put forward by another party, whom Fianna Fáil then narrowly defeated, then we could talk about tribalism as the vote decider, or differences in spend, etc. As it is, nobody put forward a platform of restraint (not even Independents) because there were no votes in doing so - and that means the public wanted what they got, which was pro-cyclic policies that blew the boom into a bubble and wrecked the economy.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

Lockstep wrote: »

In the Dáil: Tommy Broughan.
In the councils, Cian O'Callaghan and Dermot Looney spring to mind.

Declan Bree, a ULA candidate in Sligo-North Leitrim, was a Labour member until comparatively recently.

Lockstep

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

My apologies, I didn't mean to make it sound like I didn't view libertarians as having no concern for the poor, merely that they would view private charity as the chief means of helping those in need rather than state intervention.

However, the minarchist state model of the libertarian is most likely a minority view within Ireland and society in general. Political parties operate as a marketplace of ideas. Yes we vote for parties who don't correlate with our own views but on the whole, it's a reasonable assumption that the most voters broadly agree with the party that they vote for.

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

I know social democracy is lefty but I still think its a lot more similar to even the PDs than it is to the likes of Eirigi or the socialist party. Social democracy seems to me an attempt to make the most of capitalism but still provide some services at a state level.

Yeah, that's probably true. It is still a centrist ideology after all so it would have more in common with the centre right than the NATIONALISE EVERYTHING/TAX THE RICH ideology of the far left.

SupaNova wrote: »

We vote for packages in a democracy. I have heard the same logic thrown around regarding default. The people had a chance to vote for Sinn Fein or ULA but didn't therefore nobody wanted default, ignoring the fact the ULA are economic illiterates and extreme left where a lot of their voters want a revolution and a Socialist regime. Sinn Fein are also extremely statist in mentality. It baffles how intelligent posters who make good posts most of the time see this as good logic.

It's not that *nobody* wanted default. There are definetly some who do it's a stretch to say they are anything more than a minority.
The central issue of this election was the economy with the bailout being central. Voters largely voted for parties who pledged to renogotiate the bailout and who opposed defaulting.


As an aside, a friend of mine (former Libertas member and libertarian) voted for Sinn Féin precisely as they advocate default. While he abhors all their other policies, his logic is that if we default, the massive spending cuts that would be needed once the finance markets stop lending to us would lead to a smaller state).

Scofflaw

As an aside, a friend of mine (former Libertas member and libertarian) voted for Sinn Féin precisely as they advocate default. While he abhors all their other policies, his logic is that if we default, the massive spending cuts that would be needed once the finance markets stop lending to us would lead to a smaller state).

If it ain't broke, you can't fix it, I suppose.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

In the last European elections a lot of transfers went from Declan Ganley to Pearse Doherty and vice-versa. Now I know one persons logic for liking both.

Incidentally I'm not sure how a Libertarian would support Libertas... They had a confused mash of policies, many of which were most definitely not libertarian.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Libertas#Profile

SupaNova

Scofflaw wrote: »

To my mind, that there was no-one to vote for who advocated restraint during the boom is the important point about the Irish electorate on the whole being complicit in the lack of restraint - because again, had there been any appetite for restraint, there would have been votes on the table to be picked up.

That's why it's "the voters fault for voting fianna fail into power repeatedly while they brought the country to its knees" - not because the voters voted specifically for Fianna Fáil, but because their preferences were so clearly not in favour of restraint that Fianna Fáil were just one of the choices on a menu of unrestrained spending. In that sense, the succession of Fianna Fáil governments are a symptom of the poor choices of the Irish electorate - which makes their pro-cyclic choices in government the responsibility of the Irish people.

Had there been a real counter-cyclic policy platform put forward by another party, whom Fianna Fáil then narrowly defeated, then we could talk about tribalism as the vote decider, or differences in spend, etc. As it is, nobody put forward a platform of restraint (not even Independents) because there were no votes in doing so - and that means the public wanted what they got, which was pro-cyclic policies that blew the boom into a bubble and wrecked the economy.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I agree with this, so i guess you have changed my view somewhat. I'm not sure i would put it as "the public wanted what they got" regarding a boom bust though.

Scofflaw

SupaNova wrote: »

I agree with this, so i guess you have changed my view somewhat. I'm not sure i would put it as "the public wanted what they got" regarding a boom bust though.

To be fair, I presume the majority didn't realise that those policies would result in a crisis...despite the fact that they invariably do.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Lockstep

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I wouldn't disagree at all: I doubt any sensible person would view State welfare as being preferential to family and community support and other forms of private charity. The difference between myself and yourself would be our views on the usefulness of state charity as an alternative or last resort.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

For sure. His view being that defaulting would lead to massive spending cuts (as it'd be difficult for Ireland to get any money) and as we're running a €19bn a year deficit it'd be impossible for Ireland to maintain this before bringing in austerity measures that would be punitive.

Duffy the Vampire Slayer wrote: »

In the last European elections a lot of transfers went from Declan Ganley to Pearse Doherty and vice-versa. Now I know one persons logic for liking both.

Incidentally I'm not sure how a Libertarian would support Libertas... They had a confused mash of policies, many of which were most definitely not libertarian.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Libertas#Profile

Yeah, I know where you're coming from. My own experience of Libertas being they attracted the Catholic/social conservative vote. However, there were also a few libertarians I know who supported them based on Libertas Ireland's perceived pro-market policies.

I'm not a Libertas supporter though so I can't comment too heavily on how the mindset works.

On the subject of transfers, The Christian Solidarity Party transferred 12 votes to Ivana Bacik. Personal votes aside, that's the weirdest transfer I've seen.

Scofflaw

Lockstep wrote: »

I wouldn't disagree at all: I doubt any sensible person would view State welfare as being preferential to family and community support and other forms of private charity. The difference between myself and yourself would be our views on the usefulness of state charity as an alternative or last resort.

Oh dear - apparently I'm not sensible! There are a lot of reasons why state welfare is very much preferable to family and community support and other forms of private charity.

To mention the most obvious:

- private charity is totally inadequate, rarely amounting, even in the most charitable and least welfare'd nations, to a tenth of what welfare does (yes, I appreciate that's something some people think of as a good thing)

- private charity allows the benefactor the exercise of social and religious control over the recipient

- private charity allows the donors the exercise of social and religious control over the charity, and by extension over the recipients

- charity is also obnoxious to the recipient, who is put in a position of dependence and forced posture of gratitude

- charity is unreliable

- private charity is inefficient, failing to benefit from any economies of scale, and requiring a much larger effort from society than welfare

- private charity is much more susceptible to misuse, both by the charities themselves, and by the donors

Those are just the issues that come immediately to mind.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Lockstep

Scofflaw wrote: »

Oh dear - apparently I'm not sensible! There are a lot of reasons why state welfare is very much preferable to family and community support and other forms of private charity.

To mention the most obvious:

- private charity is totally inadequate, rarely amounting, even in the most charitable and least welfare'd nations, to a tenth of what welfare does (yes, I appreciate that's something some people think of as a good thing)

- private charity allows the benefactor the exercise of social and religious control over the recipient

- private charity allows the donors the exercise of social and religious control over the charity, and by extension over the recipients

- charity is also obnoxious to the recipient, who is put in a position of dependence and forced posture of gratitude

- charity is unreliable

- private charity is inefficient, failing to benefit from any economies of scale, and requiring a much larger effort from society than welfare

- private charity is much more susceptible to misuse, both by the charities themselves, and by the donors

Those are just the issues that come immediately to mind.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Fair points which is why I don't want state support to be abolished. If a friend or family member of mine is in trouble, I'd hope they'd come to me first to see what I could do for them. Likewise, if my parents needed help, I'd rather they moved in with me rather than going to a state care home.

When private charity isn't sufficient or capable then this is where the state needs to step in.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

SupaNova

http://www.economicsjunkie.com/us-poverty-rate-how-the-great-society-programs-reversed-its-decline/

Poverty was declining sharply in the US before they began their war on poverty. Maybe you can come to different conclusions other than social welfare doesn't work. Rather than admitting failure the more likely response to any failure of Welfare will be to call for even more resources and where does it stop.

- charity is also obnoxious to the recipient, who is put in a position of dependence and forced posture of gratitude

Welfare creates dependence(maybe more so), without the gratitude.

- private charity is inefficient, failing to benefit from any economies of scale, and requiring a much larger effort from society than welfare

Private charities today may not be on the scale they would be precisely because we have welfare.

- private charity is much more susceptible to misuse, both by the charities themselves, and by the donors

Has state charity a better record?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Scofflaw

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

'Transfer payments' covers a good bit more than social welfare spending, and that isn't an argument that charity is an effective replacement.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Because charities don't have to, and historically, many haven't. When charities are the only choice, there's more opportunity for them to exercise 'judgement' over who is 'deserving'.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Again, that's not a counter-argument. It's an anecdote which best serves to illustrate that the state does pay attention to who should get welfare - as opposed to your first contention that it's "out of control".

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

What you're arguing there is that if we allow charity to drop to the inadequate levels I first pointed out, then it would be cheaper despite having multiple charities all duplicating each others' efforts. That's true, but only if we're prepared to accept the inadequate levels of welfare provided by charities.

Tax collection, on the other hand, happens anyway, and having one set of PS workers dedicated to dispensing welfare is necessarily going to be much more efficient than having innumerable charities all duplicating each others' efforts.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

That's a fair point - at last! However, it need not be so.

I think your whole argument here boils down to "people get too much welfare". That may or may not be the case, but it's not an argument for replacing state welfare with a totally inadequate, inefficient, peculatory instrument of community social conformity.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

SupaNova wrote: »

http://www.economicsjunkie.com/us-poverty-rate-how-the-great-society-programs-reversed-its-decline/

Poverty was declining sharply in the US before they began their war on poverty. Maybe you can come to different conclusions other than social welfare doesn't work. Rather than admitting failure the more likely response to any failure of Welfare will be to call for even more resources and where does it stop.

Poverty changes in response to many factors - arguing either for or against welfare on the basis of such evidence is therefore rather weak.

SupaNova wrote: »

Welfare creates dependence(maybe more so), without the gratitude.

Not in the sense that charity does, precisely because there is no requirement to be grateful.

SupaNova wrote: »

Private charities today may not be on the scale they would be precisely because we have welfare.

They don't, in societies without welfare, approach the scale of welfare - or even anything like an adequate level to really alleviate poverty. Worse, charities, because they're usually community-based, don't provide social transfer - instead, wealthy communities have good charities, poor communities have poor charities. Of course, the lack of social transfers might be one reason why libertarians prefer them to welfare.

SupaNova wrote: »

Has state charity a better record?

Yes.

cordially,
Scofflaw

SupaNova

Poverty changes in response to many factors - arguing either for or against welfare on the basis of such evidence is therefore rather weak.

I did leave it open to other conclusions, there are other factors of course. But the point is these welfare programs, have grown and grown in scale without much success, i asked where do you stop?, that's one reason a private charity not producing results could never grow to the scale of our welfare system. That might point us to the conclusion that ever increasing charity and welfare are not the solutions to poverty?

Yes.

Any examples, a welfare system with ever increasing resources and funding without showing reductions in poverty is not successful charity.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Scofflaw

Hmm - I'd rather not get into a sneering match, since we both know where they lead. Nor, I think, should we get into a discussion where each is so likely to misrepresent the other's position. Charity has value, and there isn't anything in my posts that argues it doesn't, so your defence of it is superfluous. You dislike my off-hand dismissal of your counter-points, but I felt that most of them either misunderstood or misrepresented my points. And you feel I'm "returning to my usual condescension" - I feel you're, as so often, arguing with me as if I were some kind of stand-in for Joe Higgins. You haven't checked whether I view current levels of welfare in Ireland as excessive, you've simply assumed that support for the concept is support for the current system, including any flaws it may currently have, and which I may well disagree with. But I'm not Joe Higgins, I have my own views on the current welfare system in Ireland, and they have little or nothing to do with whether I support the concept in general.

You disagree with welfare systems as an alternative to charity, I disagree with charity as an alternative to welfare systems. You've given your reasons, I've given mine, and neither of us are likely to be even slightly convinced by the other, because we start from radically different conceptions of what society is and should be. The argument will go no where - the most value anyone could extract from it is if we cite references, but neither of us are likely to accept the other's references as authoritative, because with so many variables in play, conclusions are rarely constrained within worthwhile limits.

As such, we'll just leave it, I think.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

SupaNova

Sure we are probably coming from different views, Collectivism v Individualism, but I don't see why that should halt discussion or debate. You seem to be avoiding this question:

But the point is these welfare programs, have grown and grown in scale without much success, i asked where do you stop?

I was hoping you would reflect on this and realize that it is the increase in goods and services produced that reduce poverty. An ever expanding welfare system of taking people away from the production of goods and services into maintaining a faulty bureaucratic welfare system always wanting more resources in its redistribution attempt leads to a decreasing amount of goods and services produced.

I mentioned in other threads, about applying our current welfare system at local level, how long do you think people would support the local scroungers, or pay for someone who takes from a local medical fund to visit the doctor at the drop of a hat. You would probably conclude that i am making an argument for a more localized welfare system to reduce fraud and waste, or more bureaucrats are needed to eliminate fraud and waste. I would conclude that a welfare system will always be wasteful and inefficient. No amount of bureaucrats can solve the inherent fraud and waste.

oscarBravo

SupaNova wrote: »

I would conclude that a welfare system will always be wasteful and inefficient. No amount of bureaucrats can solve the inherent fraud and waste.

Now all you need to do is demonstrate that charities can't suffer from these problems.

SupaNova

Now all you need to do is demonstrate that charities can't suffer from these problems.

I'm not saying they don't so i don't need to demonstrate anything, but the difference is private charities can't ask for greater and greater amounts of resources without any results on the other hand welfare can through the state without results.

And if you take my local example, what private charity could ever raise money from hard working people to support unemployed lay abouts? What private charity could gain support to pay for healthcare of those that go to the doctor every time they get the flu? We have these abuses in our welfare system, no private charity would survive if it were open to such abuse.

Valmont

Scofflaw wrote: »

You haven't checked whether I view current levels of welfare in Ireland as excessive, you've simply assumed that support for the concept is support for the current system, including any flaws it may currently have, and which I may well disagree with.

This is a frequent argument used by social democrats with which they try to ensconce their support for the 'concept' of the system as it stands whilst simultaneously distancing themselves from the injustice, waste, and madness that the very concept engenders in the first place.

Something about having cake and wanting to eat it too I think.

The collapse of the global economy, the not-so-distant bankruptcy of the western world, at what point do we start trying to find the absolute root cause of these problems? Some of your arguments here remind me of the brutally complex mathematical models that astronomers concocted to explain how the Sun moved around the earth which, eventually, when the 'concept' failed again and again and no fine tuning could fix it, no matter how complex or rational, they had to go back to root causes and start from scratch.

A vote for the very concept and ethical foundation of our system is a vote for the way things currently stand because it was and always will be a completely inevitable result from delegating just about everything to the mega state in the first place.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Now all you need to do is demonstrate that charities can't suffer from these problems.

Of course they can but if I find out that Oxfam are embezzling funds and providing an awful level of service to the people I'm trying to help I would simply exercise my free choice and find a new, more efficient charity, one that has a better record than Oxfam. Right now, I have no choice, I am taxed into the same monopolised charity program that squanders and wastes money all over the place. We have no choice and they have no real incentive to improve their services because their money is guaranteed regardless. I find that very wrong.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

johnnyskeleton

Duffy the Vampire Slayer wrote: »

Thats probably true to a certain extent, but I do associate with people of many different political persuasions and I think I have have only met one individual in person who describes himself as libertarian. Perhaps there simply aren't many such individuals in my college or my hometown (The latter not being surprising as there are few people there who aren't Fianna Fail or Fine Gael supporters).

Perhaps the issue is not ideology so much as the internet sometimes encourages people to label their views given that they are speaking to relative strangers most of the time. If I went into a pub and said I'm a libertarian and I think X I'd come across quite poorly to friends and acquaintances, whereas on the internet it seems more natural.

That, and internet topics are more likely to focus on what exactly is a libertarian/communist/environmentalist etc than real life conversations which tend towards a more current events type approach.

Scofflaw

This is a frequent argument used by social democrats with which they try to ensconce their support for the 'concept' of the system as it stands whilst simultaneously distancing themselves from the injustice, waste, and madness that the very concept engenders in the first place.

It would seem that if the "injustice, waste, and madness that the very concept engenders in the first place" is demonstrable, it should be possible for you to demonstrate it (indeed, given the strong language, the faults are presumably glaringly obvious by virtue of their heinous nature). That would then leave me convinced, unless I suffered from some irrational commitment to the idea that couldn't be shaken by evidence of how insane the whole thing is.

cordially,
Scofflaw

oscarBravo

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Perhaps, but that's not the argument that was made. It seems that it's being argued that charity is better than welfare because welfare has inherent flaws - it seems only fair to demonstrate that charity is immune from those flaws for the argument to carry any weight.

If charity is also susceptible to waste and inefficiency, then it's not better than welfare for those reasons, and other reasons must be sought. If the argument is that welfare is inherently susceptible to waste and inefficiency in ways that charity can't be, then I think a stronger case needs to be made for that argument.

Dob74

Duffy the Vampire Slayer wrote: »

I've noticed since I started posting in the politics forum that various ideologies are disproportionately represented here. For example there are a great number of Libertarians here whereas I know few if any libertarians in real life. I also notice there are very few posters with far left views. I just think its interesting, and I wonder if theres any reason for this- are the demographics of boards likely to fall into certain ideologies?

It's probably to do with the age profile of most posters.
I would say most people who post would be 18 to 35 and male. And have enough money to afford a board band connection.
So you wont hear to much crying about medical cards, pensions etc.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

RussellTuring

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Why must the fact that state welfare can be, and indeed is, used as a political bargaining chip not be seen as an indictment of the political system and its bureaucracy, being a symptom of a much bigger problem, rather than an inherent problem with welfare? In the same way that people decry the inefficiency and waste of the public sector while not necessarily believing that the functions of particular departments are unnecessary.

In other words, if welfare was better-managed and was independent of the control of politicians (and other special interest groups like the public service), would you support it, or are you fundamentally against it due to the involuntary source of its funding?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.