Atlas Shrugged

Permabear · 17-06-2010 10:24pm

This post has been deleted.

robindch · 17-06-2010 10:38pm

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Just like Russia did after it implemented these type's of reforms in the early 90's, yeah.

Here's how some of those reforms worked out.

Yegor Gaidar was the principal architect of the 1992 "shock therapy" in Russia. During this therapy, the Russian state divested itself of many of the companies and assets with which it had been bequeathed by the Soviet Union upon its dissolution at the end of 1991. Granted that many of these companies were economic basket cases, but many others -- my environmentally homicidal friends at the smelters of Norilsk being as good an example as any -- were immensely valuable and controlled and exploited vast natural resources.

Gaidar's government ordered that shares in the state's companies be issued and distributed amongst the employees of each company roughly in proportion to the seniority and length of service of the recipient. Control and ownership of the companies would thereby pass to the people working and managing the places, a perfectly reasonable idea in principle. However, the government didn't explain what these shares were for, nor what the recipients could do with them, now what they were worth, so almost everybody just stuck them in drawers and forget about them.

Needles to say, the asset stripping went down poorly with the Russian banks most of which were controlled either by the state or by, er, private бизнесмен (lit businessman, ie, "Q: What business are you in? A: None of your business, man", as the joke went). So many banks turned off the money supply, leaving people without the paper money to buy food and the other necessities for life. Inflation sky-rocketed almost overnight, dispossessing anybody who had savings under the mattress. The banks and 'businessmen' then hired people to go door-to-door buying up the share certificates that had been issued for the previously state-owned companies and paid for them, at derisory rates, either with vouchers for food shops, or with stacks of increasingly worthless rubles (if the citizen was sufficiently naive, which many were), and frequently with threats or actual violence.

From the perspective of the private citizen, Gaidar's therapy was little different from theft. From the perspective of the oligarchs, it allowed them to take control, perfectly legally, of enormously valuable assets for -- it's been estimated -- somewhere usually between 1% and 10% of their market value. If you visit Russia today, you can still find the odd share certificate from the 1992 pillage, yellowing away peacefully in the occasional drawer. And people still don't know what to do with them.

Remember that the next time that Chelsea FC shows up on telly.

robindch · 17-06-2010 10:48pm

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

In broad terms, somebody is "liberal" if they believe that the government and society in general has a useful, moderating role to play in a wide range of social and economic issues, including health, education, social services etc.

This is the primary modern usage, though it's also known as "social liberalism", to distinguish it from the much older "classical liberalism" which you are arguing for in this thread. The two describe positions which are pretty much polar opposites.

Classical liberals tend, in my experience, to be zero-summers and demonstrate a marked propensity for believing at a fundamental psychological level that for oneself to gain, everybody else has to lose.

Social liberals, on the other hand, view life as a non-zero sum game and tend to co-operate with whatever trust systems are available, even if there's no immediately obvious payback.

Permabear · 17-06-2010 11:22pm

This post has been deleted.

sponsoredwalk · 17-06-2010 11:42pm

While our current form of society is grossly inadequate, morally bankrupt, wasteful, harmful, extortionist, murderous, coercive, etc... etc... the people do generally strive against this kind of governance given to them by their leaders put in place by this system, it does have boundaries & it does have to take into account ordinary people & is not solely governed by money & the desire thereof to make more.

Libertarianism, while positive in aspects of everyday life like not caring about one's sexuality, one's choice to do X,Y,Z, one's method of making a living, one's clothing, has me quite confused about something.

You've just admitted that society would be constructed so as to encourage people to save for their pensions;

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

now, while that is a noble thing in itself, to encourge people to take care of themselves when they get older, I think it's fair to examine the language more closely as it will give us insight into this ideology.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Here we encounter something strange, you want to indicate to people that, although they are free, if they do not follow some course of living they will suffer for it because our society is so constructed that you cannot just spend your money on whatever you want, you must modify your freedom to bend to our way of life.

This sir, is contrary to basic libertarian principles. Already we have a contradiction, you're not free to do whatever you want so long as it doesn't impinge on others rights, you must save for the future as our society doesn't care to cater for you should you fall down on your luck, or have just spent your money on flash cars and housing...

Now, it's obvious that one would have to save for their future, especially if they lived in a system that wouldn't care for them when they were older, but why are you telling us that you need to indicate to people that the must do X,Y,Z with their money when libertarianism is all about the freedom of the individual to choose???

I think it's fairer to say;

donegalfella wrote: »

Libertarianism solves the problem by indicating to telling younger people that they have a responsibility to save for their own retirements, rather than splurging their earnings on houses, cars, and holidays (doing what they want with their money), and planning to throw themselves on the mercy of the state when they turn 68. The answer, in short, is to cultivate a culture (Make them live our way or else! While propagating a facade) of individual (including financial) responsibility.

Note the idea here, we must foster some belief in order to get people to believe it, because if they are free to choose we are afraid their choices won't be in our interest.

Complete contradiction, I thought you were all for people choosing to do what they want?

It's okay, as long as it doesn't interfere with state money...

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Here we have it, some basic ignorance...

I'll have to come back and answer this one more detailed below, stay with me

Catsmokinpot wrote: »

but you left out the drop in 2010 of over 9% back to 2008 levels (€196.50)

Very consciously

He also left out the revoked christmas extra... It's related to the above, stay with me!

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Here we are, grade A ignorance of the facts.

Here we see the increase in the consumer price index from 2002-06, it increases quite a bit.

Here we see the increase in 2007-9, if you look inside the documents here showing the monthly breakdown, you'll see that nearly every month it's higher than the end months & the average estimate showing it's mostly high.

The point is that he gives figures as if they exist in a vacuum, state benefit's increase to accomodate the standard of living of a country.

How are people supposed to live on the same standard figures from 2003 when the Irish economy has gotten so expensive compared to 2003???

However, in England it costs at least £13,000 a year, at least. That's for a single person, I'm sure pensioners can go on less :rolleyes:

This and this one goes into U.K. students, and it's from 2008 which isn't too bad, you can swing it around that figure backwards and forwards in time and be pretty close for the U.K. It showed that most students must live on less than 13,000.

The point is, the U.K.'s price of living is below Ireland's, Ireland was the second most expensive in Europe in 2008

Using some vacuum argument;

donegalfella wrote: »

The basic old-age pension in the UK is is £95.25 a week for a single person and £152.30 for a couple.

is just preposterous.

This is the level of argument, pulling out other countries, and the fact that you lived on less than X when the country allowed it as justification for your points...

Here is a nice summary:

Despite rising unemployment and debt, Ireland remained the second most expensive place in the EU during 2008, at 25 per cent above the average.
Only Denmark was more expensive, with prices at 38 per cent above the average cost of living.
But it’s not all negative.
Last year, Ireland had the second-highest rate of third-level education across the EU. Some 42 per cent of the population aged 25 to 34 had completed third-level education, well above the EU average of 30 per cent.
We also had the second-highest levels of reading literacy when it was last measured on an EU-wide basis in 2006.
Some things never change, however. We still had one of the highest pupil-teacher ratios across the EU with one teacher for 20 students. Ten EU states had a pupil-teacher ratio of less than 13 students per teacher at primary level.

(I dare you to find out which link this came from).

Why don't you go off on angry tirades about the surplus of teachers to save money, instead of just docking their pay...

Why don't you go off on tirades about the Irish government spending on PRIVATE education, when in the 70's these schools chose to break off ties with the government - they still get from the government when it could go to paying for healthcare or education, things that were cut....

We paid e100 Million in 2008.

The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) has found that in 2005 Ireland was spending 1.2% of our national income on third-level education, a decrease from 1.5% in the year 2000. They also found that our euro-for-euro spending was below the international average. As for the pitiful Student Grant, which is aimed at helping ordinary families send their children to college, it doesn’t even cover the cost of rent in the main university towns.
here

You simply don't look at any facts unless they agree with you, you self-select things to appease this elitist view that taking from the state is bad & these people are slouchers who don't want to do this, or that....

You'll insult teachers and unemployed people from your high horse & aske them to live on less but you wont start threads asking to use the money designated to go to public education to be actually used for the public instead of private institutions...

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Excuse me, haven't these politicians cut social welfare recently, haven't they cut teachers pay, haven't they neglected the public education system and ignored the healthcare system?

What world is this you live in where the politicians fight for the wage state?

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Yes, when society was so constructed as to allow you to do so. Things did not cost as much as they do now. One would have thought this would be obvious factor contributing to why you could live on less than 200 a week but no, it's not in favour of your argument, despite it being true, so you just brush it aside.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

You're free not to save furiously for that pension & if you're job is such that you don't make enough then tough luck buddy, sorry: out of order, please insert funds....

Under this system, you don't have a right to live unless you make money, that's the view these people want to foster as a workable model of society.

This is taking the Nietzschean view of empathy as immoral to it's crazy extremes. Socrates is not the only perverter of the youth, the welfare state is too!

Nevermind the fact that other animals naturally feel empathy & show it, nevermind tht humans naturally feel empathy and show it, no - empathy for other people is fine, you'll say,as long as it does not cost government money...

donegalfella wrote: »

Few libertarians believe that their proposed philosophy of governance will wipe out all social ills. People have always acted in ways detrimental to their fellow man (and woman). They always will continue to do so. This is a basic fact of human nature.

This is the crucial point here, libertarians do not offer any solutions to any problems. They just give a select bunch in society the right to make money & those that do not have the wherewithall or external circumstances are either to be at the beck and call of their economic masters or screwed.

That is, unless some libertarian patriot
finds it in his heart, or his interests,
to set up this famous soup kitchen...
(Notice that his interests will undoubtedly
be biased due to the enormous
economic losses he would encounter if he did
not set up a profitable soup kitchen...).

This is the way it went down in Russia in the early 90's with their brand of libertarianism, this is the way it went down in Britain in the 1980's with their bran of libertarianism, this is the way it went down in Chile in the 1970's, this is the way it went down in ....

All taking in libertarian ideals of privatisation & free trade-ish when it's about money and the economy.

I'm sure you're going to argue they weren't true libertarianism but it took the libertarian philosophies to make these things work. It also took violence to hold these measures in place, it's also true the majority of these people's under this rule did not want it...

If we're going to ignore that little tidbit then you have to be willing to concede that Leninism & the soviet's were not real Marxists or actual communists, they were perversions of that ideology, that Pol Pot was merely a denigration of pure Marxist philosophy & it only forces you to apologise about your slanderous Allende bashing with the derrogatory reference to his 'Marxist basketcase'-ed-ness.

But what really annoys me is that you flout basic biology, psychology and anthropology;

donegalfella wrote: »

People have always acted in ways detrimental to their fellow man (and woman). They always will continue to do so. This is a basic fact of human nature.

How so????

How is this a fact? It's true that in the past humans have been violent, but have you ever read a single piece of contemporary psychology?

Here, watch this, it's Steven Pinker & he talks about studies about violence, how it's declining & lower than you'd think. How are we to trust someone who uses deterministic arguments to further their ideology, in fact claims it to be a basic part of this philosophy, when the evidence shows this assumption to be flatly false...

People are nicer to each other and to strangers now than they were historically, how does that fit into your cold view of humanity???

sponsoredwalk · 18-06-2010 12:01am

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Seriously? Despite the completely elitist & classist prejudices seeping out of your liberal-minded self, do you know anything about basic markets???

If we redistributed wealth like that, how do you expect everyone to come out singing???

If 'average joe' were to strategically invest himself, and Warren buffet does likewise, and everyone else were to do the same somebody has to come out losing, if everyone could just invest & invest then where would they get the excess money from?

This is a basic capitalist fallacy just given the name liberal, the system of money is designed to have losers & winners so not only do you illustrate a lack of basic economic theory you also show us how you view the average joe.

As if it wasn't obvious already.

donegalfella wrote: »

Taxing wealthy people to provide for the needs of the poor only redresses the exploitation that created the imbalance of wealth in the first place, and thus brings about "social justice."

Seriously???

Taxing wealthy people just redressess the exploitative nature of our system? Oh, why not just throw away that 42% upper tax bracket then, why not sure...

One would have thought the fact that around 10% of the population own about 85% of the wealth in the world was exploitative, but sure I don't have my libertarian principles to explain away these probable Marxist lies...

Permabear · 18-06-2010 12:36am

This post has been deleted.

Valmont · 18-06-2010 1:16am

It's a shame that people have such a cynical view of humanity in that they expect and actually demand that the government plunder one group in order to give to another. Is it really that far beyond anyone's comprehension to think that voluntarism actually works? And has worked in the past?

When Alexis de Tocqueville visited the United States in the nineteenth century he spoke of the "extreme skill with which the inhabitants of the United States succeed in proposing a common object to the exertions of a great many men, and in getting them voluntarily to pursue it."

Wicknight wrote:

Because it goes against our instincts that have evolved to favor community and altruism

You said it yourself, our instincts have evolved to favour community and cooperation. So I would ask you again, why do we need the government to forcibly expropriate wealth from private citizens for charitable projects when they can do it themselves just fine?

The Mad Hatter · 18-06-2010 1:28am

Valmont wrote: »

You said it yourself, our instincts have evolved to favour community and cooperation. So I would ask you again, why do we need the government to forcibly expropriate wealth from private citizens for charitable projects when they can do it themselves just fine?

Because of our tendency to be altruistic only towards people we can see.

It's easy to kill people, if you don't know who they are.

Catsmokinpot · 18-06-2010 1:29am

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

The only way to get Ireland out of this mess, is to stop relying on foreign companies for business that they can just as easily pull out of the country, Invest in education and home grown businesses.

Valmont · 18-06-2010 1:38am

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

It's easy to kill people, if you don't know who they are.

It's easier to rob them too.

sponsoredwalk · 18-06-2010 1:46am

Valmont wrote: »

It's a shame that people have such a cynical view of humanity in that they expect and actually demand that the government plunder one group in order to give to another. Is it really that far beyond anyone's comprehension to think that voluntarism actually works? And has worked in the past?

When Alexis de Tocqueville visited the United States in the nineteenth century he spoke of the "extreme skill with which the inhabitants of the United States succeed in proposing a common object to the exertions of a great many men, and in getting them voluntarily to pursue it."

You said it yourself, our instincts have evolved to favour community and cooperation. So I would ask you again, why do we need the government to forcibly expropriate wealth from private citizens for charitable projects when they can do it themselves just fine?

I'm curious, what do you mean by the government plundering one group to give to another?

robindch · 18-06-2010 7:26am

Valmont wrote: »

why do we need the government to forcibly expropriate wealth from private citizens for charitable projects when they can do it themselves just fine?

Because some people sincerely believe that taxes are equivalent to theft and if taxes were optional, these people almost certainly wouldn't contribute their fair share towards the running of the state?

pH · 18-06-2010 9:27am

Valmont wrote: »

It's a shame that people have such a cynical view of humanity in that they expect and actually demand that the government plunder one group in order to give to another. Is it really that far beyond anyone's comprehension to think that voluntarism actually works? And has worked in the past?

Oh come one now, the entire history of humanity has been pretty much one of a rich elite living alongside a poor underclass, a system maintained in perpetuity, with little or no transfer of wealth from the upper to the lower, nor any real chance of social movement between the two.

For a modern view of what's been happening for centuries have a look at Rio's 'favelas', where 1/3 of the population live in slums surrounding the city, the modern equivalent of the peasants living in shacks around a castle.

There's NO evidence that this changes over time without government intervention, yes some bored idle rich might throw a few crumbs to the poor to make themselves look good in the eyes of their peers, but the basics remain the same, across many societies and all time periods.

Permabear · 18-06-2010 10:32am

This post has been deleted.

sponsoredwalk · 18-06-2010 4:01pm

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

What is this figure given to us for? What is your intent?

You're doing the exact same thing again, I called you on this in my last posts, which you're consciously ignoring, but you're still at it.

Pulling figures out of a vacuum to conform to your perverted view of economics.

Lets look at the economy, shall we?

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Exchequer capital expenditure will be €5.5 billion in 2004, an increase of

€3.5 billion since 1997. Capital expenditure is currently running at

historically high levels at around 5% of GNP and is now twice the rate of

public investment spending in the EU generally. Next years capital

investment includes €1.6 billion for Transport (up €1.3 billion since 1997),

over €1 billion for Housing (up €766 million since 1997), €509 million for

Health capital (up €342 million since 1997) and €491 million for Education

capital (up €327 million since 1997).[/FONT] *

*I dare you to play find the source*

That is from 2004, it's funny how other things have increased as well as the education budget, (not that you'd know this from reading your diatribe).

The Science Budget:
€1.88 billion in 2003 Here
€2.06 billion in 2004 Here [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]€6.5 billion for Education Here[/FONT]
€2.22 billion in 2006.Here Education Budget €7.2 billion Here
€2.40 billion in 2007.Here
€2.65 billion in 2008.Here
(The graphs in the documents show the steady increase from 1999)

I just want to show you how things increase, them figures increase as part of the education budget, and we could save a good bit of money by cutting off the private subsiies that you just so happen to forget to mention...

lets look at transport;

€2.65 billion on Transport in 2005 Here (up from €1.3 billion in 1997)

Budget 2006 has set out the capital spending levels for the first half (2006-2010) of Transport 21.
Budget 2006 has also unveiled that for next year, an additional €115million has been allocated for transport, bringing total transport investment for 2006 to €1.87billion. The 2006 allocation also provided an increase of €11million for regional airports, bringing regional airport investment to €15million next year.
Under the spending plans outlined in Budget 2006, transport investment will double in the period 2006 to 2010, the first half of Transport 21 (details below).
Commenting on Budget 2006, Minister for Transport, Martin Cullen TD said: "Transport 21 was launched a month ago with a ten year roll out horizon and a €34.4 billion investment cost. This is an unprecedented commitment on the part of government and recognises the importance of a world-class public infrastructure in securing and enhancing the economic and social gains made in this country since 1997.

2006 2010 Capital funding allocation for Transport

2006 - €1,870
2007 - €2,270
2008 - €2,538
2009 - €3,550
2010l - €3,705

http://www.transport.ie/viewitem.asp?id=7185&lang=ENG&loc=1850

Needless to say that's not what happened as a result of the economy, but this just illustrates the increase, real and perceived, of the economy while things were going good. Must I pull out all of the other figures?

It's people like you who'll pounce on the supposed weaknesses of the economy using lies to further your personal agenda.

Why don't you answer some of the questions I put to you in my last thread about not going for private education, or about the outrageous government travel expenses etc... etc... ?

But no, according to you we're self indulgent pigs, splurging on keeping our militant teachers in stunningly high paid jobs;

donegalfella wrote: »

What have we received for all this investment? Wealthier teachers, mostly. Our teachers earn 54 percent more than teachers in Finland, which has the best education system in the world, per the OECD's Program for International Student Assessment (PISA).

But wealthier teachers do not necessarily produce better educational outcomes. Ireland's PISA scores are average in math and science. And while every Finnish teacher is required to have a masters degree, our better-paid teachers are not necessarily qualified at all: A recent study showed that 48 percent of post-primary maths teachers in this country do not have a maths teaching qualification. For teachers under 35, the figure increases to 60 percent.

Taken in the vacuum, the womb-like place he loves to retreat to, this sounds crazy, until you do 5 seconds of research into his claims that is;

Ireland spends less on education, spending only 4.7% of it's GDP in educaiton, comparied to an average of 5.7% across 30 OECD countries.

At second level only one country in the EU, the Slovak Republic, invested a lower proportion of its GDP on students in secondary school.

Irish primary schools have the 2nd largest class size than all the other EU countries surveyed.

There are 4 more pupils in Irish classes than in other EU countries.
Only Britain has larger class sizes in the entire EU.

Only Britain, Japan, Korea an Turkey have bigger classes than Ireland.
Although these statistics are grim the situation in reality is much worse because statistics are gathered from the Department of Education and Science skews its statitics on class size.

And things are about to get worse: class size is set to increase next year. Perhaps 2000 teachers will lose their jobs as a result of budget cuts.

In special education the situation is dire. Cuts are proposed in Language Support teachers, the closing of special education classes (with no extra supports provided in the mainstream), reducing the number of Special Needs Assistants and increases in class size at both primary and secondary level. These changes will have a negative impact on the lives of many children.

Let's give one clear example:

Children with autism and Asperger's Syndrome who are leaving primary school and entering secondary school have considerable difficulty finding a school that will accept them. Enrollment policies at second level are stacked against people on the autistic spectrum. The situation is even worse when it comes to those few secondary schools that have dedicated autism units becuase the entry rules most often state they will not accept a student with significantly below average intelligence. So often there is simple no where for these children to be educated. As a result they suffer, their families suffer and ultimately society suffers.
Things are bad and getting worse!
http://ezinearticles.com/?Irelands-Education-Shame&id=2901788

Also, if you bothered to check, Finland has only recently become more expensive that Dublin, (Helsinki), but throughout the better part of this decade Ireland has remained well above it in terms of cost of living.
Finland don't seem to have a huge surplus of teachers, or constant threats with their budgets, or to be paying for things they shouldn't have to (private education).

Also, I love the fact that you mention Finland.

The Finnish education system is an egalitarian Nordic system, with no tuition fees for full-time students. Attendance is compulsory for nine years starting at age seven, and free meals are served to pupils at primary and secondary levels, where the pupils go to their local school. Education after primary school is divided into vocational and academic systems.
As the trade school is considered a secondary school, the term "bumfacking" refers to facking one in the bum. Therefore, you lose the game. The tertiary level is divided into university and higher vocational school (ammattikorkeakoulu) systems, whose diplomas are not mutually interchangeable. Only universities award licentiates and doctorates. Traditionally only university graduates may obtain higher (postgraduate) degrees. The Bologna process has resulted in some restructuring, where vocational degree holders can qualify for further studies by doing additional courses. There are 20 universities and 30 polytechnics in the country.

The Education Index, published with the UN's Human Development Index in 2008, based on data from 2006, lists Finland as 0.993, amongst the highest in the world, tied for first with Denmark, Australia and New Zealand.[1]

from wikipedia

How does this answer your diatribe post on restoring college fees???

In Finland have the best system in Europe as they use the free tuition scheme, how does that mean we should re-instate tuition fees???

Maybe we just need to reform the system in a way that benefits everyone instead of your type of gut-reactionary blundering to take take take from everyone

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Wait a minute, so better scores on exams actually means dumber people because a few guys tell us this is the case?

donegalfella wrote: »

Tom Boland, chief executive of the Higher Education Authority, said in April that "he was disappointed that key education issues like Leaving Certificate reform scarcely got a mention at this week's teacher conference where debate will focus on pay and conditions."

Yes beause that's what the debates were scheduled to discuss :rolleyes:

You don't go to a theoretical physics conference discussing the latest advances in understanding the fetal neuronal map... :pac:

donegalfella wrote: »

Mr Boland tactfully puts his finger on the problem. We have a state-run and heavily unionized schooling system in which vested interests reign. Teachers are concerned with their own pay and conditions, but not with the quality of education that they deliver. And the government is more concerned with appeasing unions and "keeping up appearances" than it is with meaningful educational reform. The Irish Times recently noted that "A proposed revamp [of the Leaving Cert] tabled by the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment – which could cost €100 million – has been shelved."

This is so bloody similar to Margaret Thatcher in 1982 before the bloody clashes with the coal workers unions that it's scary...

Blame the unions for your governments mismanagement, yes...

Maybe there is a problem with facts such as half of Ireland's math teachers being unqualified instead of the unions fighting to stop gut-reactionaries lusting over cuts to their pay since the 70's...

As I've said, it's reactionaries like you who go for the easy options because you think you know it all while you neglect to address the real issues that can actually make a difference in the world.

It's all about going for the money...

donegalfella wrote: »

In short, we are nowhere close to producing the caliber of graduates who can foster an indigenous "knowledge economy" in this country. Given our militant teachers' unions, prospects for educational reform look dim. And with multinationals already unhappy with the quality of Irish education, the outlook is gloomy on that front, too.

More of this elitism. Our students are generally idiots, not smart enough for you and your skillful research :rolleyes:

Zombrex · 18-06-2010 4:35pm

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

The welfare state is a system of insurance. We all pay tax and if you are unlucky to become sick or unemployed the collective pool pays for you. It is mandatory insurance, you have to pay tax. And in fact things like job seeker benefit is based on how much PRSI you have paid.

As for people becoming "dependent" of this system how would it be any different to private insurance? If I become unemployed the state pays benefit. If I paid private payment protection insurance and become unemployed I would get those contributions.

How do I become less "dependent" on private system?

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I'm happy to listen to alternatives but I very wary of people presenting alternatives when they can't answer pretty basic questions as to what happens in the alternative systems when certain things happen.

You have consistently deflected difficult questions put to you as to what happens in a Libertarian system when X, Y, or Z happens, which to me would make me wary of any such system.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Unemployment benefit provides basic necessities to people who could not manage without them and would have no money. Health care provides basic health care to those in need of it. Hosteling and social housing provides basic shelter services to those who would other be homeless.

You have yet to explain how a libertarian system would provide these serves beyond the rather vague notion of charity.

sponsoredwalk · 18-06-2010 4:45pm

Wicknight wrote: »

You have consistently deflected difficult questions put to you as to what happens in a Libertarian system when X, Y, or Z happens, which to me would make me wary of any such system.

As well as amassing quite a lot of mischaracterizations & lies while slanderously labelling everyone/thing from Salvador Allende, Average Joe, capitalism, basic libertarianism with contradictions, the Irish workforce, teachers, unions, and more I'm sure...

This is what you get from a reactionary, labels bandied about left, right & center while being unable to address a challenge without ad hominem attacks & to cogently show their interlocutor why they believe X,Y &/or Z.

There's no way this man can defend himself after digging this deep, yet he'll continue to start threads in the politics section attacking the poor & the unions.

Sure, he can't even read one of my posts without being scared off by the size. They are only as big as they are because they have to account for all of the things he blithely neglects...

Zombrex · 18-06-2010 4:49pm

Valmont wrote: »

It's a shame that people have such a cynical view of humanity in that they expect and actually demand that the government plunder one group in order to give to another. Is it really that far beyond anyone's comprehension to think that voluntarism actually works? And has worked in the past?

Assuming that faith in humanity means faith in every human is naive. We could all be helpful to each other, but relying purely on this happening with no structure is rather ridiculous. If that was the case then systems like Communism would work fine. In fact big government would work fine (sure why would someone be corrupt, isn't corruption against human nature).

For example the BP spill. If you look at the outrage at the BP spill it would seem that it is in human nature to value the environment and to wish to protect it. Large amounts of people are outraged at the damge the BP spill has done.

Does that mean we don't need government regulation in oil safety because everyone will have such a high regard for the environment. Of course not. The existence of the BP spill itself demonstrates the flaw in assuming that a general human principle (we like the environment and wish to protect it) will be present to such a degree in the mind set of every single human that such regulation is necessary.

It is all very well to appeal to the kindness of people in general, but it is foolish to assume therefore that everyone is kind.

You can easily imagine a Libertarian society that relies solely on charity simply not have enough support for said charities or not have the people with the motivation be the same people with the money.

And once you start pooling resources together to form large charity organisation that everyone participates in but only a few run then you are talking about fairly representing the many through the few and you basically have a democratic government at this stage. So why not just have a government?

Valmont wrote: »

You said it yourself, our instincts have evolved to favour community and cooperation. So I would ask you again, why do we need the government to forcibly expropriate wealth from private citizens for charitable projects when they can do it themselves just fine?

The answer to that is hinted in the question and it's use of "forcibly". A lot of people simply don't want to give their money to project to help their fellow man (such as tax to pay for welfare systems). Or are prepared to give to some charities but not to others.

You end up with a situation where these charities in a Libertarian system could simply not have the money to provide the services required to prevent the large number of social issues that come from things like unemployment and deprivation.

Libertarianism appears to have no solution to that other than to throw the hands up and say that is tough.

robindch · 18-06-2010 5:01pm

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

As well as amassing quite a lot of mischaracterizations & lies while slanderously labelling [...]

<cough>, <cough>

Keep it nice please.

Permabear · 18-06-2010 5:52pm

This post has been deleted.

sponsoredwalk · 18-06-2010 6:11pm

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

No sir, no latin coinage can expunge the claims you've been making throughout this thread.

I've actually taken great pains to show any reader that what you've been claiming is all false & questionable & I have not simply thrown a barrage of facts at you I've meticulously questioned your statements & given links of evidence to show the contradictions.

First you claimed a lot of things about the Chicago school of economics to which I have completely dismantled, then you claimed all of these things about Salvador Allende & Chile to back your claims up - again I gave you 2 years of documentary evidence to refute this so you changed the subject. No, sorry, you clung steadfast to one truth - that there were problems in Chile late 1972/early 1973 & in your characteristic method you used the arguments from the vacuum - argumenta in vacuo - to show you were right :rolleyes:

Nevermind the page of evidence I gave to explain this & the fact that this also undermined your entire argument, no just bandy about slurs & then change the subject...

Now you've been claiming things about the welfare state, about cutting funds & about how bad Ireland is & I've given you links, figures, quotes all refuting your nonsense but you want to duck this one as well.

You can't even acknowledge the contradiction in your lbertarian argument, I took great pains to point out the contradictions but you wont concede/acknowledge it.

This is the standard method of rheteoric a reactionary uses, namely that of appearing to know what they are talking about but shulking responsibility when questioned.

It's a facade, & you are wading free in the the space that all this lack of evidence gives you.

If you're unable to defend your arguments cogently, and continue to attempt character assasination techniques by twisting my evidence in your favour that's fine, but I can only hope the people reading your sham stories aren't unlucky enough to blindly accept your rheteoric.

Zombrex · 18-06-2010 6:21pm

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I grasp them fine but they are irrelevant to you explaining how Libertarianism will deal with all the potential social issues.

You should be able to answer questions about how Libertarianism works in given situations without constantly returning to simply attacking the current system.

donegalfella wrote: »

By 2050, Europe as a whole will have 75 pensioners for every 100 workers. Low-birthrate states such as Spain and Italy will have a one-to-one ratio of retirees to workers. That means that every worker will have to pay for a pensioner's benefits and health care—as well as paying the benefits, health care, and other "entitlements" of unemployed people, sick people, disabled people, single mothers, new mothers, children, and so on. And that's just welfare. Don't forget all the other things that have to be paid for, too, under the big-government model.

The maths don't add up.

And?

How does that answer the questions and concerns about Libertarianism and all the problems it would seem to create and all the weaknesses in the solutions it attempts to put forward?

If you cannot explain how your alternative is better (or even works) then it isn't an alternative. I've no problem discussing all the issues with the current system, but as it stands Libertarianism is light years way from being a viable alternative.

Permabear · 18-06-2010 6:40pm

This post has been deleted.

Zombrex · 18-06-2010 7:23pm

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

If there is not enough working people to currently support those retiring through taxation this doesn't magically change in a private insurance based system, in fact it gets a lot worse because as soon as you change to a private based system you lose a good proportion of the people who would otherwise be paying tax.

You end up with a situation where it is unprofitable for insurance companies to provide welfare like payments to retiring people.

The only way to offset this is to increase pension fund investment into risky markets in order to gain greater returns. And we all know how wonderful that is.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

And if they don't/can't?

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

But they can be funded by bankrupt banks and insurance companies?

You are not providing an alternative you are just doing what always happens, falling back on the magic of the markets to some how (never explained) solve all these problems.

As you like to say the maths doesn't add up. You are going to remove a large number of people from this system (since many will choose to simply not take the insurance route) and reduce the amount the remaining people pay into the system (since most would not pay as high as they pay in taxes) yet magically the system is going to produce better levels of output?

How exactly?

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

And we stop living beyond our means in libertarianism why exactly? We all realize that actually massive credit card debt is bad?

You are assuming that if we remove all social safety nets people will stop taking risks. There is zero reason to believe this. It simply means people take risks without a safety net which leads to worsening social problems. That is in fact why the welfare state exists in the first place. People weren't all employed paying private health insurance 100 years ago.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Wow, what a revelation. The reality is rather more complicated that that, some what unsurprisingly.

For example a college student may find themselves unemployed after leaving college. Not simply unable to get a job in their field but not able to get a job at all (college graduates are often unable to get manual and service jobs because they are considered over educated for the positions and would find themselves bored and unproductive)

Having never had a job yet they are unable to possess payment protection insurance, so in a private system they are basically screwed. They have no money and no ability to survive. They could appeal to a charity but that assumes such charities exist which may not be the case.

Alternatively in a modern social democracy with a welfare system there is a realization that it is not a bad thing to provide Job Seeker benefit to this person as they are looking for work because in all likelihood this will be repeated from the tax the person will provide the State when they are employed.

We want to encourage people to take risks, such as getting trained and going to college, which Libertarianism doesn't do. Libertarianism only encourages an informal class system where those with families able to support their children allow for these children to take risks. If you don't start with a silver spoon you are instantly put at a disadvantage because society and the State provide no safety net for such risks. You get work as soon as you possibly can.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

How are you defining "entitlements" in that passage? Are imply that 3.8 million people in Ireland claim benefits?

I don't think that is true but even if it was again you have yet to explain how Libertarianism solves any of that problem beyond the age old magic of the market will sort it out.

If the State was a private company it would be bust by now.

How does that solve or even help the problem?

sponsoredwalk · 18-06-2010 7:30pm

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Sir, in the world more than 1/4 of the worlds population live on less than $1 a day, there are vast countries where things need to be set right & organised so that we can sustain life on this planet. 50 years ago things looked bleak in their own ways & things have vastly changed since then - gotten better for a lot of people (mostly in the West but we aren't the only people in the world).

Where is it set in stone that things will be as they are now in 50 years? If you'd studied any history you'd know how quickly things can change.

This is the last bastion, fearmongering. You're trying to use irrational fear to get people to implement freedom policies... This is the hypocrisy of libertarian principles - only through fear and shock tactics can you try to push forward these idea's.

If we fall into your logical trap we encounter a logical fallacy straight away - who says that in the 50 years before we're supporting all these pensioners that we will not implement policies to sustain things? Well, who says it cogently anyway

We can't adhere rigidly to anyone's dogmatic policies, especially those of a fantasy book written in response to communism that is outdated & whose biggest fans are rich bankers furthering the economic pillaging.

This is what these people are partially employed to do, it's up to the people to make these people do their job correctly if they fail or get rid of them.

donegalfella wrote: »

She told us that we can't keep on borrowing money and not paying it back.

You'd swear it would take an Ayn Rand to figure that one out :pac:

I found this quote online & felt it deserved it's place in this discussion;

-- There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.

Zombrex · 18-06-2010 7:37pm

Anyone who thinks we should hand over the country to Libertarian ideals should take a long cold look at the economic disaster that is Iceland, which Friedman once saw as his utopia.

Shockingly things didn't work out as the Libertarian theory said they would (funny that), people didn't act as Libertarian theory said they would and yet the government refused to regulate the banks and investment sector.

This is why I keep asking Libertarians what is the plan for when things don't go to plan. The quiet is deafening.

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2009/04/iceland200904?currentPage=4
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/iris-lee/libertarian-experiment-in_b_172961.html

sponsoredwalk · 18-06-2010 7:48pm

Wicknight wrote: »

You are not providing an alternative you are just doing what always happens, falling back on the magic of the markets to some how (never explained) solve all these problems.

No, you don't understand;

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Libertarianism is all about giving people the freedom to choose what they want to do, and in their choosing it will necessarily happen that everyone will be more productive and happy.

If that isn't the case;

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Nevermind that forcing people to do X,Y,Z is a contradiction with basic libertarian principles by making people do something they do not choose to & by constructing their external circumstances so that they will be absolutely screwed if they disobey.

Wicknight wrote: »

If the State was a private company it would be bust by now.

No, it'd be bailed out

danbohan · 19-06-2010 10:28am

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

The era of Bertienomics is ending. Welcome to objective economic reality, in which A=A.

that little fact is still been missed by 99% of the population i think .

Permabear · 19-06-2010 11:24am

This post has been deleted.

Atlas Shrugged

Comments