help legalise drugs - support this LDP this election

[Luke Skywalker]

Uh, so we should get rid of governmental taxation which is essentially enforced altruism to enable unenforced, (and unenforceable) altruism?

 

The rich don't get rich by giving large amounts of money away ya know....

[dukker]

edit- double post Edited September 28, 2007 by dukker

[dukker]

So you're saying a charity should run healthcare by being paid by the government or simply by those who donate?

 

The benefits of socialised medicine are long and easy to point out. The only reason there are any "problems" (and there are entirely too many people winging about our health system, it's second to none amongst first world nations) with the health system, particularly in funding, is that the government pays substantial benefits to those who use private cover, and those who chose it aren't obligated to use said health cover.

 

American health care is not something to model a health system on. It fails miserably at the job it's supposed to do, and that's look after the health of its citizens.

 

There should always be minimal interference in the market, but if it's demanded or in the interests of society (particularly those on the bottom economic rungs) then regulation is the only way to ensure that services are given. If you think the free market can supply cheap, affordable and effective health care to the poor you are very, very sorely mistaken. If it did, you wouldn't have millions of uninsured people in the US.

 

Health, water, electricity (to a lesser degree) and public housing aren't just benefits of a welfare state, they're fundamental to inclusive and effective care of those both well and worse off in society.

 

Free markets are all well and good, but fundamentally we live in a society, not an economy.

 

The US doesn't have free market health care. It has mountenous volumes of government regulations that favour a model of health insurance being provided for through employers - which is a really bad system. It's actually a form of corporatism - that of government favouring corporations. They also do have a public health insurance called medicaid, but it's different to what we know as medicare in australia.

 

I don't have any problems with the good intentions of socialised medicine in providing free or cheap healthcare, but the practice of the system is not the best way to achieve these objectives.

 

You might argue that the government should prevent starvation - surely this is part of living in a society, not an economy?

But what if the government took control of food production and distribution, like it does with healthcare? There would be huge inefficiences - access to food would drop and quality would drop. They had free bread policies in the Soviet Union and everyone loses - even the poor. But in a free market where there is competition, prices always go down and quality always go up. In the West the government never tried to distribute bread itself and everyone could afford bread, even those on minimum wage could afford more than they could eat.

 

Look at anything provided for by the free market without government regulation - 10 years ago DVD players were $500. Now you can pick one up at target for $40. But healthcare is still expensive. Why is it any different to any other good that has become more affordable in the market?

 

When people say libertarianism can't work in the realworld - just look around you. The reason you can have a computer and internet access in front of you is because private companies competing against each other have reduced the price to such an affordable level - and they're only getting more affordable. True freemarket healthcare would have easily allowed virtually everyone to afford private health insurance, at a standard better than what you would get in a private hospital.

[dukker]

The benefits of socialised medicine are long and easy to point out. The only reason there are any "problems" (and there are entirely too many people winging about our health system, it's second to none amongst first world nations) with the health system, particularly in funding, is that the government pays substantial benefits to those who use private cover, and those who chose it aren't obligated to use said health cover.

 

public healthcare in this country is good, relative to other countries no doubt there are few 'problems'. Then again if you give a trained monkey a few billion dollars it could build you a bunch of hospitals and let people in for free. Australians have access to all basic healthcare, but don't you think it should be better?

 

A few weeks ago I fractured my wrist playing basketball. I had to wait two hours in the waiting room until I was even spoken to by a nurse because the lines were so long. I am not saying I am not grateful for being an Aussie and if I were living in Rwanda I'd have to wrap it up myself and get on with life, but my view is that if we didn't have an inefficient, universal system, all of us, including the poor, would be much, much better off and I would have been seen much sooner for a price well within my means.

[Al Fish]

Libertarian Rivers

(And forests, bush and oceans)

 

The reason for the global problem of deteriorating rivers is simple. Who owns the rivers? In reality – the State. There will be some who proudly cling to archaic, almost mythic notions of rivers being held by the State on trust for the people, but the people do not care, as in reality they know that the State ‘owns’ the rivers. The problem lies in the non-economic ownership arrangement, the corollary of which is that it is not in any individuals interests to concern him- or herself (except for a yearly ‘feel good’ media ‘Clean Up Australia’ event)!

 

Vague sepia toned notions of ‘government (State) ownership’ are destroying what little we have left! The State bureaucrats who can control the rivers cannot reap for themselves any capital value on the market. Hence, they have no economic incentive to preserve the (capital) value of rivers. Rivers are then in an economic sense ‘unowned’ allowing officials and bureaucrats to preside over their pollution, corruption and destruction.

 

If B.H.P. owned the Hawkesbury River and polluted it they would be destroying their ‘future income’, otherwise derivable from the river! This is a big economic ask! Take some time to think through the implications of this. If other individuals or entities owned parts of the river they would sue B.H.P. out of existence, just like you would obtain injunctions and sue them now if they dumped stuff in your backyard! Currently and because rivers are ‘unowned’, there is no one to rise up and protect these precious resources from attack!

 

If B.H.P. owned the Hawkesbury River you can rest assured that stiff ‘effluent’ torts would be assessed on individuals and entities (including B.H.P.) if pollution prevented the maximization of profits for other river owners (i.e., drinking water, recreation and commercial fishing). This would extend to the seas and oceans that polluted rivers could damage.

 

If, as history sadly proves, no one ‘owns’ the rivers then technology need not be less polluting, indeed economics would dictate - and simple observation confirm - that it be as polluting as possible.

 

Common law in both Britain and the U.S.A. originally protected property owners from pollution. With the advent of the (filthy) Steam Engine, legislation was passed to over ride the Common Law and we have the sort of Statist, Corporatist system of which people just can’t seemingly get enough!

 

Rivers could be distributed to the people by auction, lottery, gifts, trust arrangements, etc. The people may wish to vote and give special preference to established environmental groups. I do not know what the people want, but I would like there to be a vote so we could all find out and perhaps our precious, dwindling environment(al recourses) saved!

 

If the States of the world continue with their current and ‘cartoonish’ agenda we are all of us doomed – sooner probably than later!

[larfin1]

I will make one comment re the welfare state. Many people reject libertarianism because they think its a harsh, survival of the fittest regime that depends on the market to provide for the most vulnerable. However, the free market does not mean profit is the number one driving factor for all individual decisions. A free market means you are free to do what you want with your money and no one, including the government, should be able to coerce you to spend your money in a certain way.

If I did a poll on this forum, or anywhere in this country, asking 'would you like to live in a society where the destitute, disabled, vulnerable, sick, etc are provided for and taken care of?' I guarrentee you that at least 99% of Australians would reply 'yes, of course'. Currently, on average, Australian's pay $10,500 in tax per year. If you answered yes to the poll, then wouldn't you do something with that money to make sure we live in that society?

Because there is a market for welfare, instead of a government monopoly, welfare will become more efficient and everyone, including the poor, will benefit.

How will welfare become more efficient under a free market?

Currently, the government has a virtual monopoly on welfare. If you don't like the way free public hospitals are run, then too bad - there is no competition that you can choose to give your money to instead, and if you don't pay your taxes, the government will imprison you.

But if charities competed for your money, you decide which ones are being run better and use your donations better, or are more aligned with your own principles.

 

[/url]

 

 

Hi Dukker no offence mate but really Miltons ideas were for a previous generation, a previous century. We need new ideas, new forms of government , new forms of political democracy. We claim to have democracy we have none, we claim to have freedoms we have none.

Your ideals or his, re poor, homeless and destitute just wont work as the current system isnt and the current govt actively tries to force people incapable of working back into inappropriate employment using duress, threats and even smear campaigns against those incapable of defending themselves in a media savvy society.

 

 

Australians would demand a fair system one that is fair for those who exist on such handouts. Note the word of exit because believe me it isnt living.

 

But overall Australians want freedom of individual choice , the choice to smoke s joint or not.

 

That has been removed while alcohol manufacturers and tobacconists, and car manufacturers, reap billions every year while killing our young.

 

Your also incorrect in thinking the govt has a monoply on welfare. The other great parasite of our society, religion loves to rip our tax dollars while asset building, all in the name of welfare.

[Nooby]

I don't think its a big assumption. We have had a welfare state forever, and we live in a democracy. This means that the majority of the population has continually elected representatives that promise to tax us, and spend that money on things like universal health care and a social security. I would also argue that the vast majority of Australians do place a high value on these things - I would say the bigger assumption would be that most Australians are selfish and wouldn't part with a dime even if the poor were starving to death.

 

Hi Dukker,

 

Thanks again for your reply. As a member of that voting majority I can tell you quite plainly that I dont vote for someone on the basis that they are going to tax the crap out of me. In fact the way the whole two party preferred system is set up merely provides the illusion of democracy. I the guy I vote for doesn't get in then my vote ends up going to someone I wouldn't vote for anyway. Sure, I can number the candidates individually and that might overcome the problem to some extent I guess.

 

But yes, if the govt. is going to take the majority of my earnings in tax then they SHOULD be using it to provide services that benefit the country at large. God knows they sure waste a lot of it.

 

As for most Aussies (or anyone else with wealth for that matter) being consistently altruistic? I dont see it, sure I suspect that most of us would help out if we KNEW about someone starving to death. But then again there are plenty of organisations that feed starving kids, both here and abroad who are perpetually running on a shoe string budget. Basically there's too many people starving to death and too little people in wealthy countries willing to 'part with a dime'. When faced with buying a wide screen TV or sending money to help people you dont even know, I would suggest that 'most' people would do the former. Lets face it for a lousy 30 bux a month you can feed, clothe and school a kid in a poor country, but how many people do? Sure, there are always some and that's great, but what you are suggesting would take 'most' and I just dont see it.

 

As for Churches and charities running health care, obviously you dont hang around the Church scene too much (I suspect, apols if I'm wrong). The ones that are doing alot in those areas are always poor themselves the ones that have heaps of money (Hillsong, TBN type Churches)are usually based on a selfish perversion of the gospels anyway. But even if they weren't, faith based organisations just dont have the resources to provide national health care. And what happens when the little congregation down the road starts getting hit with litigation (which is inevitable)? A government can afford it, charitable organisations cannot. Unless you mean that the govt. was going to give them the money to do it? But then that would kinds defeat your point I think. Also keep in mind that Australia is largely a secular nation, sure we have around 70%-ish of people aho claim to be Christians but the huge majority of those NEVER attend Church regularly and alot of them never at all outside of weddings and funerals. To raise the kind of donations you are talking about would take a huge influx of people to the Churches and I dont see that happening either.

 

One of the fantasies of the enlightenment was that when the masses become freed from the ancient superstitions (thanks largely to 'science') then they would finally be able to rise to their true natures, free of the oppressive shackles of manipulative religious organisations . Of course this hasn't happened and all that the failed enlightenment experiment has yielded up is world full of broken and lonely people. This, for maybe no other reason is why the style of libertarianism you propose will not work, it's been tried before and it has failed. The challenge as I see it is how do give the masses back their freedom and yet guarantee safety and security for everyone at the same time? I haven't been able to come up with a govt. based answer for that one, you can give a man his freedom but you can't make him WANT to play nice.

 

Do you have any ideas in this regard?

 

Cheers

[Al Fish]

"Hi Dukker no offence mate but really Miltons ideas were for a previous generation, a previous century. We need new ideas, new forms of government , new forms of political democracy."

 

Like what?

Pray tell!

 

Does anyone ever check out the White House web-page? Very interesting stuff about the coming political systems.

[Al Fish]

Democracy comes in many forms: most of these being sham!

 

The Swiss have a form of government that is older than the great parliament of Westminster. The Swiss nation was not engaged in either world war and remains one of the more prosperous communities.

 

Direct democracy was last used in the Greek City States – but only for free men. National direct democracy today would be as easy as an inexpensive conversion of ATMs to function also as voting machines and permanent Voting Stations (like the numerous electoral offices) where people who are ashamed of how they vote can vote in anonymity. Every citizen would be entitled to vote on every bit of proposed legislation and government action.

 

The alternative is Liberty after the next war of the big nation states. The price will be civilization but no price is ever too high to pay for Liberty.

[Frazz]

Dont start bringing filthy, dirty charities into this ... so called charities work for the Government delivering welfare every day of the week and they are so greedy and corrupt ....

why even the filthy dirty rotten scum-sucking Salvation Army was forced to pay back 9 Million fucking dollars to the Government last year that it had illegally managed to siphon off the good Aussie tax payer...

that used to be called theft, but because these 'soliders' are agents delivering welfare for the dessicated coconut Howard well that is somehow tolerated ....