[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
Thank you for your thoughtful response :) 2009/6/16 Benjamin M. A'Lee <bma-lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > 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. To simply answer the question, I would doubtlessly cut state education first, as I firmly believe it's responsible for more harm than good. My retrospective now, informed by studies of developmental psychology and education, confirms the impression I had when assigned to the stupid gulag: that schooling was only detrimental to my learning. See these links for more information: http://www.johntaylorgatto.com http://www.deliberatedumbingdown.com http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unschooling > 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. Taking the example of British Rail (cherry-picking again :P ), it seems to me there is no competition. The price of tickets is the same regardless of what service provider you use. All companies are subsidised heavily. This is not true privatisation, and there is no free market, so no incentive to provide better service at a lower price. The pricing scheme, whereby a single ticket costs, for instance, £40 and a return costs £40.50, I find especially to be an affront to reason. > 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 I didn't realise that was random - what a fabulous coincidence! Why exchange a public tyranny for a private one? I do see the point being made, and I've enjoyed reading Eric Blair's work, but I must respectfully disagree. Incidentally, I also disagree with him about the form of future scientific dictatorships. The way I see the world going is far closer to Brave New World than 1984, though with a different technological implementation: instead of soma we have anti-depressants; instead of exposing the foetuses to alcohol we inoculate our young with vaccines that contain mercury and other substances that attack the brain, put aspartame (an excitotoxin that was on a Pentagon list of biochemical warfare agents) in food, and fluoridate the water supply (as done in Nazi concentration camps); instead of the almighty Ford we have a pantheon of corporate deities. The future is not a jackboot stamping on the face of humanity, in my opinion, but rather an array of techniques that induce people really to be happy in their servitude. Getting back to the subject of monopolies in the free market, I encourage you to watch this video from a modern and perspicacious philosopher: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQms0-jSYqM I can provide you with textual references if you don't enjoy or prefer not to watch his presentation :) > The government is accountable (through elections) to a far greater > extent than private companies are. Companies could be restrained by the courts rather than government. If enforcement were in the hands of private individuals, lawsuits would quickly make companies bear the costs of production, such as pollution. That's accepting your assertion that the government's responsive and accountable, which I don't particularly find to be the case. Have you seen the declassified history of testing biological weapons on the British public? There was a good Grauniad article on it: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,427%203,4398507,00.html Do you approve of such testing being carried out on you and your family? Do you believe such tests are no longer ongoing? Who is accountable, again? >> 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). Yes, I agree absolutely - with freedom comes responsibility, and with rights come obligations. In fact, I believe rights can be seen as mutual obligations. > 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). Division of labour is not predicated upon membership of groups. What are you saying here? > That’s a rather extreme view of things. You appear to be equating the > welfare state with Soviet Russia. Well, my views are rather extreme in this prevailing political culture of Fabian socialism. I do equate big government and collectivism with inevitable tyranny. When there's a monopoly of force and power in a society, it seems to attract the worst deceitful psychopaths around, which I can back up (as if that were necessary) with this LA Times article someone just serendipitously posted to facebook: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/06/politicians-and-serial-killers.html By the way, did you know that Gorbachev actually referred to the EU as the "New European Soviet"? >> […] >> 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. Obama works for Wall Street and moneyed interests, not the people (like all those at the head of socialist regimes). Have you seen the film "The Obama Deception"? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAaQNACwaLw Do you know what Nazi stands for? In case you don't, it was shortened from National Socialism. Mussolini said that fascism should, more properly speaking, be called corporatism as it's the merger of state and business power. It was found by Norman Dodd working for a congressional committee in America in 1953 that the tax exempt foundations (Ford, Carnegie, Rockefeller, etc.) were working to comfortably merge the systems of capitalism and communism. http://www.supremelaw.org/authors/dodd/interview.htm There's a whole world beyond the version of reality given to you by school and the mass media, where the ruling families that own everything of consequence control (albeit incompletely) what happens both in the business world and our puppet democracy. The study of how secret networks and intelligence agencies covertly manipulate our society is called parapolitics. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parapolitics It has a far more respectable ring to it than "conspiracy theories", wouldn't you agree? ;) > 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. So the government's never engaged in strike-breaking, occasioned with extreme violence? I believe I can provide examples to the contrary... > 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.) That's an interesting perspective. I do believe in healthcare for all, but I don't think the current system is giving the best service possible. I'd sooner see a system closer to that in France, where the insurance is public, but citizens are empowered to some extent to choose where they get their health care in a market. http://lpuk.org/pages/manifesto/health.php Well, my brain hurts now so I'm going back to good, safe, you-know-where-you-are coding :) Cheers, Ralph. -- 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