help legalise drugs - support this LDP this election

[Al Fish]

Are you referring to eleemosynary organisations?

[dukker]

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 ....

 

 

??? I'm not entirely sure about these claims, maybe they are true but I've never hear of them before. But your argument is exactly why choice is a powerful tool. If you don't like the salvo's, they can't force you to give them money - unlike the government. If there is a demand for a secular, non-religious organisation providing welfare to the poor, then the market will create it.

Who said all charities were religious?

 

 

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

 

I would argue the reason australians don't spend much on feeding and housing those in the third world is the same that for the majority of Australians, overseas aid is NOT a major political issue. We spend less than 0.7% of our GDP on overseas aid, yet I don't think if Howard starting campaigning to promise to double that number, his poll numbers would start shooting up.

My argument wasn't that without taxes; who would pay for our overseas aid and take care of the third world's poor and destitute? it was that even without the government, those in our own society would be taken care of.

You can't argue that without a government in australia people in Africa will starve and go without healthcare - because that's what's happening now.

But I do think that the role of government as it currently stands to provide a safety net in society would be replicated by a free market - and I would argue, provided in a much more efficient manner, where everyone - including the poor, would be better off. Australia has a massive welfare state. I'm a uni student and I get paid $400 a fortnight in auststudy payments. I know I don't deserve it. I could easily get a part time job and contribute to the economy, or I could borrow money from my parents, but why should I if the government is handing out free money? Anyone looking at my situation objectively would know I shouldn't be paid anything.

I am not saying there are truly deserving people - those that because of circumstances cannot, or are severely disadvantaged in a free labour market. Off the top of my head - the disabled, victims of abuse, those from disadvantaged backgrounds, the elderly.... But for each one of those, there are A LOT of people in this country that are more than capable of working and don't have any excuse than life is simply easier to take welfare payments that are designed to maintain a minimal standard of living and not have to work.

In a free market the former group - the truly deserving, would attract all the welfare, while the undeserving, those that take advantage of a bloated government bureacracy seeking populist votes, would no longer be able to.

[Frazz]

It puts my mind at rest to hear that you are receiving a university education dukker

 

[Al Fish]

A Myopically Concise History of Western Medicine

 

In about the mid-nineteenth century, the Rockefellers invested in Medical Schools in America. They also set the pharmaceutical curriculum for those schools. As they and their friends also owned the new pharmaceutical companies, their investment in medical schools soon paid off.

 

Initially they got the government to get rid of the ‘snake-oil salesmen’ (who actually sold stuff that worked, but that’s another story). The same interests maintain their economic opposition to cannabis.

 

After WWII, the drug companies decided it was easier to convince government ministers to hand over taxpayers’ money to subsidise ‘expensive’ drugs than it was to keep prices down and garner support in the marketplace. Medical Doctors have always been a pharmaceutical company salesman’s wet dream – they’re just so easy.

 

Both welfare recipients and pharmaceuticals have a positive supply function and who can deny that a liberal and compassionate social policy has bred all sorts of unforeseen, unanticipated and perverse consequences?

 

Bet you can’t purchase bitter almonds and you haven’t heard about vitamin B17, but don’t worry, because a drug company is working on a patent. Cancer is such a lucrative industry.

[Nooby]

??? I'm not entirely sure about these claims, maybe they are true but I've never hear of them before. But your argument is exactly why choice is a powerful tool. If you don't like the salvo's, they can't force you to give them money - unlike the government. If there is a demand for a secular, non-religious organisation providing welfare to the poor, then the market will create it.

Who said all charities were religious?

I would argue the reason australians don't spend much on feeding and housing those in the third world is the same that for the majority of Australians, overseas aid is NOT a major political issue. We spend less than 0.7% of our GDP on overseas aid, yet I don't think if Howard starting campaigning to promise to double that number, his poll numbers would start shooting up.

My argument wasn't that without taxes; who would pay for our overseas aid and take care of the third world's poor and destitute? it was that even without the government, those in our own society would be taken care of.

You can't argue that without a government in australia people in Africa will starve and go without healthcare - because that's what's happening now.

But I do think that the role of government as it currently stands to provide a safety net in society would be replicated by a free market - and I would argue, provided in a much more efficient manner, where everyone - including the poor, would be better off. Australia has a massive welfare state. I'm a uni student and I get paid $400 a fortnight in auststudy payments. I know I don't deserve it. I could easily get a part time job and contribute to the economy, or I could borrow money from my parents, but why should I if the government is handing out free money? Anyone looking at my situation objectively would know I shouldn't be paid anything.

I am not saying there are truly deserving people - those that because of circumstances cannot, or are severely disadvantaged in a free labour market. Off the top of my head - the disabled, victims of abuse, those from disadvantaged backgrounds, the elderly.... But for each one of those, there are A LOT of people in this country that are more than capable of working and don't have any excuse than life is simply easier to take welfare payments that are designed to maintain a minimal standard of living and not have to work.

In a free market the former group - the truly deserving, would attract all the welfare, while the undeserving, those that take advantage of a bloated government bureacracy seeking populist votes, would no longer be able to.

 

 

Thanks Dukker,

 

You have raised one or two points there that I'll need to put further thought into. I agree with you that bludgers shouldn't be getting free money, the same goes for recent immigrants (IMO), but then I'm not sure how you would define 'undeserving'? In the type of free market economy of which you propose, I always the impression that worth it determined merely by earning capacity. What of the artists and poets and those people who dont 'fit' into the western capitalist model in terms of earning? Any society would be much poorer with them and yet they too need to eat and live?

 

In terms of welfare being provided by charities when the govt. doesn't, my point in bringing up 3rd world aid was simply to highlight an example of what happens when the gopvt. doesn't supply (much) aid and people have the CHOICE to help out, most of us dont. If the third world is a bit too removed then simply look at the number of poor and homeless in the U.S. Sure there are plenty of charitable organisations doing their best but the aid they provide is like a drop in the ocean compared to what is needed. I suspect in all of this that maybe you have a higher opinion of human nature than what is warranted?

 

There is good and bad in all of us, selfishness and altruism. History shows that for most of us, it is always the negative qualities that win out.

 

I still agree with smaller govt., less tax, more self defence and less involvement in other countries affairs.

 

Cheers

[jojothepotfiend]

I agree with Nooby. Altruism is largely dead, and you have far too much faith in humanity dukker(or maybe I'm just too cynical).

 

Personally I wouldn't donate to charity and probably wont until I'm fairly well off(fingers crossed). I think that you're ideas may make sense for the people you hang around(assuming uni students are fairly intelligent), but I think you'd find it hard to convince less intelligent people(who I assume would make up a larger part of the Australian people) that they should be giving money away to people they don't know nor care about.

 

Also whoever commented about all these tax breaks increasing inflation is completely right in my opinion. Look at all the credit card debt in Australia, if people have more money they will just spend it.

 

And dukker i think you're down playing your choice in healthcare, If you don't wanna wait in line for treatment you should get private health care, its not like you're paying tax and you claim you get far too much money anyway.

 

As for charity run hospitals, I don't know how much it costs to run a hospital but I think it would be out of the scope of any existing charities and would be amazed if this was even possible in Australia.

 

[Nooby]

When we have libertarian candidates like this in Australia I will not only vote for the LDP I will join them and run as a candidate myself.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WRi8tswSkB4

[Tom]

In a way I'm against the full legalisation of mj, if it is legalised then it will end up being taxed at the same rate as tobacco and alcohol, I would much rather get busted by the cops for cultivating an illicit drug than have the taxation department go through me for refusing to pay excise on something I produce myself. I think full decriminalisation would be a better option, low fines and no taxes to pay on the crop.

 

[freddie]

A Myopically Concise History of Western Medicine

 

You make some excellent points here. Totally agree.

 

Libertarian Rivers

(And forests, bush and oceans)

 

As it is extremely unlikely a corporation, business or private owner could own a river or entire river system then wouldn't private ownership of parts of waterways cause an almighty shitfight. To use the Murry Darling river system as an example; if the land owners in southern Queensland owned that part of the river then surely they would take as much water for cotton as they need which would result in those downstream missing out. If a whole corporation owned the entire river system whats to stop them holding the whole country to ransom as they would own Australias main food producing areas. Have you seen how mining companies have behaved in PNG? I don't understand the faith some of you have that people or companies will behave responsibly if governments leave them alone.

 

The price will be civilization but no price is ever too high to pay for Liberty.

 

The price may well be lives destroyed and I think some prices are too high to pay. Not saying that isn't occurring now but it is still the lack of a social safety net that is where I draw the line.

 

When we have libertarian candidates like this in Australia I will not only vote for the LDP I will join them and run as a candidate myself.

While i agree that the State should leave people alone and not legislate every part of peoples private lives I again don't have the faith Ron Paul has that most will act responsibly.

Edited October 1, 2007 by freddie

[Nooby]

Tom,

"In a way I'm against the full legalisation of mj, if it is legalised then it will end up being taxed at the same rate as tobacco and alcohol, I would much rather get busted by the cops for cultivating an illicit drug than have the taxation department go through me for refusing to pay excise on something I produce myself. I think full decriminalisation would be a better option, low fines and no taxes to pay on the crop."

 

But then fruit, veges and eggs are taxed and regulated too, but I grow my own. Well the chickens grow the eggs but you get my drift. So it doesn't have to be a case of getting ripped off by the ATO. ;-)

Edited October 1, 2007 by Nooby