[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 07:21:42PM +0100, Ralph Smithen wrote:
> Now I must somewhat shame-facedly admit that I've only read a couple
> of articles by Friedman, so I don't claim to support him in all
> things, but this quote seems to stand on its own merit - that is,
> unless you claim that government spending is the most efficient
> possible use of our money (including the 175 billion pounds they pass
> to their mates on QUANGOs each year?).
Less government spending means fewer public services — like the NHS and
emergency services, state schools, rubbish collection, public transport
(still a public service in some places, like Plymouth Citybus, owned by
the council and much cheaper than the private First busses), road
maintenence, and so on. Which of these would you like to cut spending
on first? If anything, most of them could do with more funding, not
less.
The answer isn’t privatisation, either: I’d argue that where services
have been privatised (British Rail, BT, water, gas, electricity) the
service has gotten worse, not better; the competition in these sectors
leads to loss of quality, not lower prices, and without competition,
private companies have no incentive to provide a better service.
> Friedman may have been used as a rationalisation for Thatcherism, and
> the collection of similar policies introduced in America at the same
> time as Reagonomics (though of course only coincidentally and not as
> part of a greater scheme), but the reality was far from his ideals.
> The world has never seen a truly free market.
The quote that came up randomly in my sig earlier might apply here:
“…a return to ’free’ competition means for the great mass of people
a tyranny probably worse, because more irresponsible, than that of
the State.” — George Orwell, in a review of The Road to Serfdom
(1944) by Friedrich Hayek
The government is accountable (through elections) to a far greater
extent than private companies are.
> > […]
> > 3. Individuals is a meaningless concept. All individuals are part of
> > larger groupings with which they have common interests
>
> Wrong way round! Individuals are primary - I can point them out.
> Groups are abstractions that *should not* be afforded rights that
> trump those of individuals.
>
> Show me a group and I'll show you a collection of individuals.
I won’t argue against individual rights, but I would argue that
individuals also have a responsibility to society. An individual has the
right to free speech, for example, but also the responsibility not to
misuse it (the cliché of shouting “fire” in a crowded cinema, for
example). Further, these groupings and common interests are the basis of
modern society; civilisation depends of groups of people working
together for the common good (which is why, for example, some people are
doctors and some are farmers, rather than everybody having to rely on
themselves to do everything).
> > 4. Loads of clauses anti-foreigner, anti-welfare state inc Health
> > service. (BTW the welfare state was not not designed as a bare minimum
> > safety net)
>
> Could you provide me an anti-foreigner quote?
>
> I know the welfare state, which has not been around very long, was not
> designed to be a bare minimum safety net. It's designed to grow and
> grow until the state is our all-mother, all-father and we are all
> landless serfs working for the state-corporate combine. This is not my
> ideal societal system.
That’s a rather extreme view of things. You appear to be equating the
welfare state with Soviet Russia.
> […]
> Big business is aided and abetted, and indeed simply couldn't continue
> to squeeze the poorest sectors of society, without the help of
> government. The wealthiest ruling families, the ones that have their
> money in international financial institutions and tax-exempt
> foundations, love socialism!
Strange, because it seems to me that in the USA, big business has a much
stronger foothold than here, and they have that foothold because of
Reagan-era (and earlier) free-market capitalism — certainly not
socialism of any sort (look at all the uproar because Obama is perceived
as being ‘socialist’, for example). I honestly can’t see how you get the
idea that socialism is in favour of big business.
One of the roles of government, in my opinion, is to protect individuals
from big business — making sure that they have decent wages and working
conditions, and go on strike if necessary to get those things without
fear of retribution. The welfare state exists in part so that people
aren’t slaves to big business profiteering, and don’t need to worry
about where money and healthcare will come from if they lose their job.
(I’ve heard it suggested that the lack of socialised healthcare in the
USA is stifling business, because people don’t dare quit their job and
start their own business because their job likely includes health
insurance for them and their family, which they wouldn’t have if they
were self-employed.)
--
Benjamin M. A'Lee || mail: bma@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
web: http://subvert.org.uk/~bma/ || gpg: 0xBB6D2FA0
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
-- The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG http://mailman.dclug.org.uk/listinfo/list FAQ: http://www.dcglug.org.uk/linux_adm/list-faq.html