the cato institute explains why young people should be pissed off

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

Let me put it differently then.

That's better (well as an alagory) .

Allegory. Pet peeve, don't you know....

[Berzerker]

Agathon -

Yes, but you can't sue polluters unless they violate your property rights or harm you in some fashion - so measuring it at the source won't work. And you can't sue them unless you identify them. Now, am I ever going to be able to determine just whose car emissions are harming me?

Cars pollute and since they are used on public roads, the public has the authority to regulate their emissions without any determination of "guilt". Agathon, we all pollute, it isn't about tracking down every source of pollution and filing lawsuits against everyone and everything. If some inordinate amount of pollution is released by someone, we track it down and prosecute the offender - now. That won't change under libertarianism...

No. That means no proper Libertarian compensation mechanism can function.

How do we find polluters now? Do we require compensation from them? The compensation mechanism is the same we use now.

The best we can do is have the state measure the pollution overall and think up some sort of tax to pay into a public fund from which payouts are made to those harmed.

Better idea, find the polluter and make them compensate the harmed...

But that is starting to look mysteriously like a public health campaign. Oh no!! We're all turning into communists!!

Much of what you say is mysterious , do you consider police enforcement of traffic laws a public health campaign? Chernobyl is an example of your beloved communism. And what did the victims get? That warm and cozy radioactive feeeling of knowing communism deals with polluters better than the rest of the world except when the polluter is the state which owns the means of production?

This sort of problem arises for most things which are considered a "commons".

You're a communist, damn near everything is a problem for the "commons".

Yes, but Libertarians will leave it unchecked to such a degree as to ensure we spend our lives grovelling in the dirt.

Proof would be nice.

But "freedom and rights" will leave us with no police, no army and a world in which everyone attempts to free ride (in the economists sense).

Why?

Here you've totally ignored the argument for what must be the hundreth time on this forum.

Read the argument very carefully. Of course having a police department is in the interest of virtually everyone, but having a police department which everyone else but me pays for is even more preferable, since I get what I want and keep my money.

Well now, if I totally ignored your argument, why did you quote it below? Btw, your "response" to my counter argument below was vague and...well...non-responsive.

Once again, if I know the other people will pay, it is in my self interest not to since I will be better off; if I know they won't pay it is again in my self interest not to pay.

Either way, it is in my self interest not to pay. This is a deductively valid argument, you can't escape it without denying one of the premises. But all you do is deny the conclusion without attacking the premises.

I attacked your premise and left in smoking ruins.

There's a difference between a user fee and a coercive tax. Libertarians do not support the latter. But it doesn't matter in the police case because even if you don't pay the fee you still "capture some of the value" because the mere presence of a policeman in the community will ward off criminals.

All taxes/user fees are coercive, you want the service you get to pay for it. But according to you, there won't be any police because it's not in your self-interest to pay. Then you say, well, it is in the interest of others to have police so they will pay, but not you. But your refusal to pay somehow means they won't pay either and there won't be any police - it's all very circular.

But these people are also stuck in the prisoner's dilemma, so it wouldn't happen if people were rational.

What wouldn't happen? That was one sorry response to my proof that it is in the interest of virtually everyone to support the police. I'd think you'd devote more effort to countering my main argument against your PD.

Anyway, what would happen in such a case is that non-payers would form a clique of non-payers. And there's nothing you could do.

And what would happen when these people are provided no police protection? Umm...yes...they'd seek police protection! Hell, we have police now and there are plenty of people who buy private protection to supplement it. Why would they do that when according to you, it's not in their interest? Because they've decided it is their interest inspite of your attempt to speak on their behalf.

Again, you have ignored the deductive validity of the argument. It is not in your interest to pay, whatever the others do.

I'm not ignoring your "deductive validity", I've explained why it isn't valid. And this was your response:

"But these people are also stuck in the prisoner's dilemma, so it wouldn't happen if people were rational."

Whatever that means...

But they can't in the case of the police. Merely having a cop around is sufficient to deter criminals. So the non-payer reaps some benefit from the police service even though he doesn't pay for it.

No, it will make the non-payer less safe because the criminals will indentify those without protection and focus on them. That's why many criminals attempt to evaluate potential victims' ability to resist, criminals are like water, seeking the path of least resistance. The schoolyard bully avoids the students who know how to fight and go after the dweeb who can't fight. But even if you were right, so what? The fact you may benefit from my actions doesn't mean I no longer benefit from my actions too, therefore it is still in my interest to have police protection regardless of what you're doing.

It's in our collective interest. Everyone is better off if they settle for second best.

You still don't appear to me to understand the subtlety of the prisoner's dilemma. No one is arguing that it wouldn't be better for everyone, if we had police. But it doesn't follow from that, that paying for a police force is in everyone's individual interest if that is defined as what benefits solely them.

I understand your argument, Agathon, I'm showing why it doesn't work. If I need police protection, your decision to not pay doesn't translate into me no longer wanting police protection.

Again, it's clear that I'm better off if I don't pay because if the others pay I get the protection and keep my money, and if they don't I still shouldn't pay, because if I did, I would be worse off with no protection.

It isn't clear for the reason I just offered, you may (actually will) be in more danger. If I have mean looking dogs in my yard, would you seek to burglarise my home or someone down the street without dogs? My dogs made me safer and my neighbor less safe...

But we all agree to settle for second best then everyone is better off. But if payment is made voluntary, people will reasonably conclude that they shouldn't pay. So we need someone to have the right to force people to pay. That "person" is the state. The state prevents us from realizing the bad consequences of our individual self interest when we face problems of collective action.

First, "we" didn't agree to settle for second best. Second, you've failed to show that there won't be police if funding is voluntary. If that were true, there wouldn't be any private protection firms which are funded voluntarily. Third, rights belong to individuals, not "states", and if the "state" has a "right" to force people to hand over money for a service they don't want, then the state is nothing more than a bigger and badder Mafia. If I lack the authority to force you to pay for my services even though you don't want the service, then the state lacks that authority too since the state obtains it's authority from the consent of the governed.

But hardly anyone does. And the reason is another prisoner's dilemma.

Wait a minute, according to you, no one should donate time and money. So why do they? Because people are individuals, and you cannot ascribe to me or them what is in our self-interest because you don't know. And don't give me that "hardly anyone does" nonsense, MOST people donate time or money to charities.

As I said, there are always some good people around who put their self interest aside, but these people are being taken for a ride by the selfish.

Did you ever think people donate to charity because it IS in their self-interest?

Here's why:

Oh goodie, another roadtrip thru "Logic"land.

Let's take homelessness as an example. No one likes walking though groups of drunken lunatics on their way to work. The world would be improved for everyone if this problem was solved.

Charities exist by voluntary donation. Is it in my self interest to donate. Here's the possibilities:

1. I don't donate, everyone else does. Result: no homeless people I keep my money.

2. Everyone donates. Result: no homeless people, I lose my money.

3. I don't donate, no one else does. Result: no change, I keep my money.

4. I donate, no one else does. Result: virtually no change, I lose my money.

I, personally, am better off not donating: no matter what others do.

Guess what Agathon, most people don't run thru those calculations when deciding how to act. If they did, charities would not exist - and the common refrain from those who don't donate money is "I pay taxes for that". And they're right, but taxes haven't solved the problem. Why? Leftists would argue not enough taxes, but they have to ignore the incentives a welfare state creates by handing people money for continually engaging in irresponsible behavior just as you have done in your example. Fund drunkenness and don't be surprised to see more drunkenness...

If I do donate, then the non-payers benefit from the donations of me and others for free. That's a free lunch - who in their right mind would turn it down.

But even you say you donate to charities. Are you not in your right mind?

I do, but that's because I am not very selfish. It irks me that non-givers are free riding from my generosity, but when the revolution comes, it's re-education camps for them.

Better hope you're in power or you may be joining them. And it looks bad for practicing Christians when you come to power because Jesus told them to keep their charitable deeds secret so they won't be able to prove themselves worthy when you launch your "virtue police".

But you just destroyed your own argument, you do give to charites as most people do, yet, according to your logic, only people who aren't "selfish" donate to charities. But most people donate to charities, so most people ignore your PD when deciding how to act. That makes your PD irrelevant. You're selfish Agathon just like most people, but people constantly do things to help others because that makes them feel good. Die so another may live and that will prove to me you aren't selfish...

[Agathon]

Hopeless. Again...

It doesn't matter even if most people occasionally engage in unselfish behaviour. As a matter of fact they do, but not nearly enough to solve the problem to everyone's satisfaction due to the temptation to free ride.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Caligastia

This is all I need to read to know you are an economic ignoramus. It's left-wing loonies like you that ran NZ into the ground pre-1984. But only socialists are REAL New Zealanders.

Yeah, like Muldoon, leader of the conservative National Party.

You ought to check your facts before stepping into such obvious holes.

That fact that you believe that tired old story tells me enough. As I said, NZ is better off without you, as the voters have so admirably demonstrated in the past two elections.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Most philosophy is. However, it is essentially what you are arguing.

No, it's in part what I'm arguing wrapped up in 17th century beliefs that are no longer respectable. Of course this was the context in which Hobbes was arguing, but we no longer share all the same beliefs.

One can still hold the central point of Hobbes' account without buying into the additional stuff.

Same goes for Locke - one can be an empiricist without buying into his material on essences.

[Berzerker]

Hopeless. Again...

It doesn't matter even if most people occasionally engage in unselfish behaviour. As a matter of fact they do, but not nearly enough to solve the problem to everyone's satisfaction due to the temptation to free ride.

Why do you keep claiming that charitable deeds are "unselfish"?
Don't you feel good when you help someone? Of course you do, so self-interest doesn't automatically translate into a "me and screw everyone else" view of the world. And the fact a problem isn't solved to your satisfaction is beside the point, your solution is not exactly well thought out to begin with... Just look what welfare has done to out-of-wedlock birth rates, so let's not pretend throwing other people's money at some problem translates into a solution.

Btw, how do you like the way I shot down your "freeloaders are safer" argument? If I refused to support the police, I sure would be worried if someone published a ist of people who did support the police. That would be an open invitation to criminals...

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Berzerker

Why do you keep claiming that charitable deeds are "unselfish"?
Don't you feel good when you help someone? Of course you do, so self-interest doesn't automatically translate into a "me and screw everyone else" view of the world. And the fact a problem isn't solved to your satisfaction is beside the point, your solution is not exactly well thought out to begin with... Just look what welfare has done to out-of-wedlock birth rates, so let's not pretend throwing other people's money at some problem translates into a solution.

People don't necessarily do charitable things for selfish reasons. Sometimes it might make me feel good, but it is a moot point whether I could make myself feel better by indulging in something else. Some people perhaps do it to score Brownie points with God.

But most people who do this stuff do not do it because of any particular sentiment, but because they think it is right. Consider people who work their whole lives for things they know they will not live to see. How can they possibly be benefitted by such things?

Now I haven't said that charity doesn't exist, but I have claimed that it does introduce free rider problems and this is one reason why homeless people still stalk the streets even though almost nobody likes it.

Think about it this way - almost nobody likes seeing homeless people and it would cost very little per person to do something about it if everyone gave. Why then don't people give? They want the result, they have the means to pay for it at little cost, but they don't. Why is that? A good way of thinking about it is that these people are trapped in a prisoner's dilemma. Since we have no way of being sure what others will do, we stand a strong possibility of becoming suckers.

The truth about charity is that in a large number of cases the immoral free-ride off the moral, since they benefit from other people's sacrifices. Charity rewards bad people.

Btw, how do you like the way I shot down your "freeloaders are safer" argument? If I refused to support the police, I sure would be worried if someone published a ist of people who did support the police. That would be an open invitation to criminals...

That's besides the point. The mere existence of a police force is enough to lower overall crime rates. I may be less safe than I would be if the police had my name, but I am still safer than I would have been if there were no police.

Moreover, making the police only take note of certain houses or persons introduces mass inefficiencies since the means of keeping track who is paying and of going out to calls where payingpeople have seen prowlers who yet don't burgle them, etc. etc.

It's the same as if my neighbourhood has a security guard. Everyone benefits, even if they don't pay (that's why condo associations make payment compulsory). There is a problem with these sorts of goods in that it is impossible to secure that benefit is related to payment.

Look - I'm not saying this just to piss all over Libertarianism. It's a real problem that all sorts of doctrines, including anarchism have to face up to and deal with.

[MrFun]

[Agathon]

Originally posted by MrFun

Come on, this is a pretty civil debate.

[MrFun]

Don't take that post of mine too seriously.

[Berzerker]

Agathon -

People don't necessarily do charitable things for selfish reasons. Sometimes it might make me feel good, but it is a moot point whether I could make myself feel better by indulging in something else. Some people perhaps do it to score Brownie points with God.

And therefore it is illogical to say charity is unselfish, I suspect most people do gain something they consider tangible from acts of charity and that means they aren't saps and they do violate your PD. Why should they give when some people don't?
According to you, they wouldn't give...but they do anyway...

But most people who do this stuff do not do it because of any particular sentiment, but because they think it is right. Consider people who work their whole lives for things they know they will not live to see. How can they possibly be benefitted by such things?

Leaving the fruits of their labor to their offspring? And now you're telling me most people don't give to charity because it makes them feel good? C'mon, if it made them feel bad would they still give. And why is doing what is right not translate into good feelings about oneself? You've merely replaced feeling good with doing what is right and ignored that doing what is right feels good.

Now I haven't said that charity doesn't exist, but I have claimed that it does introduce free rider problems and this is one reason why homeless people still stalk the streets even though almost nobody likes it.

Charity violates your PD, you've argued that I should not give to charity because of freeriders and yet millions do give to charity. Now you're claiming charity doesn't solve the problem you've identified instead of defending the "logic" of your PD. But charity doesn't exist in a vacuum, it is also illogical to look at a welfare state and draw conclusions about the efficacy of charity to solve problems. Remember, "I gave at the office" or "I pay taxes for that" sentiment? You can't take half of what people make then point to their level of charitable giving to indict charity...

Think about it this way - almost nobody likes seeing homeless people and it would cost very little per person to do something about it if everyone gave.

Darn near everyone does give now via charity and taxes, but we still have the problem. Why? Because when you subsidise irresponsible behavior, you get irresponsible behavior, you don't solve it. That's why charity is a better mechanism, while it doesn't prevent subsidising irresponsible behavior, it sure cuts down on it because the givers have a closer relationship to the recipients and they can better tell if the recipient is just using the money to buy drugs than some bureaucrat off in Washington.

A good way of thinking about it is that these people are trapped in a prisoner's dilemma. Since we have no way of being sure what others will do, we stand a strong possibility of becoming suckers.

Then charity would be non-existent. I don't know why you think people look at someone else to see if they are giving before they decide if they should give, it simply doesn't matter to me what you're doing when I give to charity.

The truth about charity is that in a large number of cases the immoral free-ride off the moral, since they benefit from other people's sacrifices. Charity rewards bad people.

And morality should be legislated? How do you square that with the immoral means of funding of a welfare state? Charity typically rewards the giver and the recipient, others not involved receive nothing. They don't get the feeling of doing what is right and they don't get the money...

That's besides the point. The mere existence of a police force is enough to lower overall crime rates. I may be less safe than I would be if the police had my name, but I am still safer than I would have been if there were no police.

But those overall crime rates would only be lower because of the people who are no longer the victims of crime because they support the police, the people who refused to support the police would make up the bulk of the crime statistics. Sorry, but I sure wouldn't want criminals knowing the cops won't lift a finger to help me. In fact, I would be less safe because the cops would focus their attention on all the people who do support the police. That shrinks the victim pool mainly to those who don't support the police... Instead of criminals having the entire population to choose from, they have a select "few" thereby making that smaller group a magnet for criminals. Hell, you'd end up spending more on home security etc than it would cost to support the police...

Moreover, making the police only take note of certain houses or persons introduces mass inefficiencies since the means of keeping track who is paying and of going out to calls where payingpeople have seen prowlers who yet don't burgle them, etc. etc.

Mass inefficiencies? You're just making stuff up now. If I call a phone company that doesn't serve me, they'll simply tell me I'm not a customer. Yes, it cost them a little to answer the phone and punch my name into a computer, but that's the way supporters can morally convince non-supporters to see the light...

It's the same as if my neighbourhood has a security guard. Everyone benefits, even if they don't pay (that's why condo associations make payment compulsory). There is a problem with these sorts of goods in that it is impossible to secure that benefit is related to payment.

They make it compulsory because they can, not because it's impossible.

Look - I'm not saying this just to piss all over Libertarianism. It's a real problem that all sorts of doctrines, including anarchism have to face up to and deal with.

Well, whomever you're trying to piss on, stop pissing upwind.

[Berzerker]

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Agathon


Yeah, like Muldoon, leader of the conservative National Party.

You ought to check your facts before stepping into such obvious holes.

Perhaps you should check yours. Despite the National party supposedly being 'conservative' back then their fiscal policies were socialist. Pre 1984 the National and Labor party economic policies were practically identical - overblown socialist spending and massive foreign borrowing. And it was the supposedly left wing Labor party that allowed Roger Douglas' economic policies to come to fruition.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Caligastia



Perhaps you should check yours. Despite the National party supposedly being 'conservative' back then their fiscal policies were socialist. Pre 1984 the National and Labor party economic policies were practically identical - overblown socialist spending and massive foreign borrowing. And it was the supposedly left wing Labor party that allowed Roger Douglas' economic policies to come to fruition.

I was there. I don't think Muldoon would have agreed that he was a socialist. (Dancing Cossacks, anyone?).

The Kirk Labour government was not as massive a spender as Muldoon, who started several energy megaprojects. If your point has any merit it is that both governments employed Keynsian policies. These are not necessarily socialist.

A large part of New Zealand's problems was not caused by domestic policy, but by being gradually shut out of the European Common Market, to which we had sold all our agricultural goods and which was the basis of our prosperity.

By 1984 it was clear that some sort of reform was needed to mark the new reality. Unfortunately, the government was hijacked by market fundamentalists who in one form or another embarked on a ten year slash and burn campaign of privatisation and deregulation, against the wishes of the majority of voters.

Instead of thinking carefully about where and what sort of reform was needed, these people were ideologues. What they did to the Electricity Department reads like a list of howlers. If you were actually paying a power bill at this time you would have seen it increase radically over the years because the market model simply wasn't working properly. Add to that the shortages and Auckland living in the dark for a month and it turned out really well.

Countries like Australia, that enacted less radical policies, came out of it a lot better than we did.

And if it was so great then why did New Zealanders get so annoyed that they changed their electoral system to prevent it happening again? And why oh why will the right never ever form another Government? They're finished in NZ, permanently.

Of course if right wing reforms were so great, this would never happen.

[Agathon]

Berz, it's become painfully evident to me that you don't even understand my argument, which is the sort of thing you can find in an introductory economics textbook. I suggest you read one.

If charity works so well, then why do I still see homeless people, despite the fact that nobody likes seeing them?

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Agathon


I was there. I don't think Muldoon would have agreed that he was a socialist. (Dancing Cossacks, anyone?).

No he wouldn't, but he's not exactly known for his firm grip on reality is he?

The Kirk Labour government was not as massive a spender as Muldoon, who started several energy megaprojects. If your point has any merit it is that both governments employed Keynsian policies. These are not necessarily socialist.

Whatever term you wish to use, the NZ govt generally pursued appalling economic policies pre 1984.

A large part of New Zealand's problems was not caused by domestic policy, but by being gradually shut out of the European Common Market, to which we had sold all our agricultural goods and which was the basis of our prosperity.

This is true, but things were going downhill way before that happened. During the 50s, NZ foolishly assumed that the boom in the wool market, and it's unique access to the British agricultural market would continue forever. The politicians were flush with the enormous amounts of money that came rolling in, and did what politicians do best - spend up large.

Of course, by the 60s, when conditions had changed (eg declining prices for agricultural products) all the politicians could think to do was borrow money so they could continue their spending spree.

By 1984 it was clear that some sort of reform was needed to mark the new reality. Unfortunately, the government was hijacked by market fundamentalists who in one form or another embarked on a ten year slash and burn campaign of privatisation and deregulation, against the wishes of the majority of voters.

Unpopular, but necessary, decisions had to be made. New Zealand was an unsustainable fool's paradise. You can't just keep spending when there's nothing there to spend.

Instead of thinking carefully about where and what sort of reform was needed, these people were ideologues.

I can't claim everything went perfectly, of course, but a radical change in the way the government functioned was absolutely necessary.

What they did to the Electricity Department reads like a list of howlers. If you were actually paying a power bill at this time you would have seen it increase radically over the years because the market model simply wasn't working properly. Add to that the shortages and Auckland living in the dark for a month and it turned out really well.

This is not an example of the free market in action. Mercury is owned by a consumer trust. Of the nine directors, four were appointed by the trust, and five by a government-chosen law firm!

Countries like Australia, that enacted less radical policies, came out of it a lot better than we did.

And if it was so great then why did New Zealanders get so annoyed that they changed their electoral system to prevent it happening again? And why oh why will the right never ever form another Government? They're finished in NZ, permanently.

Of course if right wing reforms were so great, this would never happen.

Never again you wish. Plenty of people still remember the bad old days when you had to wait weeks for telephone service and when the Cook Strait Ferries offered hard benches, nauseating food, and lavatories reeking of vomit that a huge staff of ferry workers would refuse to mop up.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Caligastia

No he wouldn't, but he's not exactly known for his firm grip on reality is he?

One of the more skilful politicians ever to come out of New Zealand actually. He didn't take himself too seriously.

How old are you? You strike me as someone who didn't really experience Muldoon.

Whatever term you wish to use, the NZ govt generally pursued appalling economic policies pre 1984.

They did not. For most of the twentieth century New Zealand Governments pursued excellent economic policies. That's why we had the highest standard of living in the world for quite some time. And in NZ that was due largely to the welfare state.

Most other governments in similar countries pursued similar policies. The Trudeau government in Canada and its precursors, a succession of pre-Reagan US administrations are examples. They were good policies, they worked for years and created arguably the greatest economic expansion in human history.

Unfortunately, for several reasons it fell apart. You can blame who you like (the Americans ****ing up Bretton Woods is one popular target), but the notion that these were bad policies is simply crackheaded.

This is true, but things were going downhill way before that happened. During the 50s, NZ foolishly assumed that the boom in the wool market, and it's unique access to the British agricultural market would continue forever. The politicians were flush with the enormous amounts of money that came rolling in, and did what politicians do best - spend up large.

And they did so excellently, that's why we had the highest standard of living in the world. What's your complaint?

The only really wasteful spending was on Muldoon's energy megaprojects, which everyone, both left and right agree were a waste of money.

Of course, by the 60s, when conditions had changed (eg declining prices for agricultural products) all the politicians could think to do was borrow money so they could continue their spending spree.

AFAIK it was later than that and most countries like NZ (Canada is a good example) were in a similar situation. Not all these countries chose to slash and burn, those that tinkered less seem to have ended up better off.

Unpopular, but necessary, decisions had to be made. New Zealand was an unsustainable fool's paradise. You can't just keep spending when there's nothing there to spend.

I see you've swallowed the usual bullshit. New Zealand was not ever in any danger of going bankrupt. During the run up to the 1984 election New Zealand had a temporary currency crisis because the leader of the Labour Party had indicated that he was going to devalue when elected. This created a run on the NZ dollar that threatened to exhaust our reserves.

Now the political right has rewritten history and claimed that New Zealand was going bankrupt. Yes, a short term currency crisis meant that we were all doomed!!

New Zealand's credit rating never once dipped below Aa3 (which is low risk). The notion that massive debts were forcing radical cutbacks is simply an invention of right wing hacks. If New Zealand was really in trouble you would have thought Moody's would have noticed.

I can't claim everything went perfectly, of course, but a radical change in the way the government functioned was absolutely necessary.

Why? Because we were running up a debt we couldn't pay? As I've just showed you that is false. There was nothing wrong with New Zealand's international credit rating.

The facts simply do not support any of your assertions. Mild reform would have been sufficient. In fact the reforms only worsened New Zealand's debt to GDP ratio, so on top of all that, they didn't ****ing work.

This is not an example of the free market in action. Mercury is owned by a consumer trust. Of the nine directors, four were appointed by the trust, and five by a government-chosen law firm!

It's an example of what happens when something is privatised that would have been better let be.

I notice that you didn't dispute the fact that since the reforms power prices have increased dramatically and service has gotten much worse. You haven't because that's the truth. Those clowns had no idea what they were doing and spent a fortune rejigging a system that was already working perfectly well.

Never again you wish. Plenty of people still remember the bad old days when you had to wait weeks for telephone service and when the Cook Strait Ferries offered hard benches, nauseating food, and lavatories reeking of vomit that a huge staff of ferry workers would refuse to mop up.

Plenty of people still remember when New Zealand had the highest standard of living in the world. Frankly, that makes a mockery of all your complaints.

As for Telecom. That's about the only success story of the whole business, but even then it masks a massive failure. The idiots in government simply sold it far too cheaply.

Anyway, let's look at what these reforms did. New Zealand's GDP actually declined over the years from 1985-93. Unemployment more than doubled. Manufacturing exports declined. That's the worst record in the industrialized world. And this from OECD research.

And crowning it all, according to our own economists, NZ's debt situation actually got worse over that period.

Now, given that other countries like Australia which enacted milder reforms did better and the facts I've just cited, you have absolutely no case. The reforms were fraudulent, and so are those who defend them.

[Caligastia]

I suppose we could go on, Agathon, but I prefer not to debate in an atmosphere of contempt and patronism. Some of my comments were also snide, sure, but what do you expect when you question my worth as a New Zealander simply because my political opinions are different from yours. For you to accuse Roger Douglas and his contemporaries of being ideologues seems like the pot calling the kettle black to me.

To be honest I'm disappointed that we couldn't discuss this in a more civil manner. You seem like a much nicer person in other posts of yours that I've read. I guess you're just one of those people in whom politics brings out the worst.

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by Caligastia
I suppose we could go on, Agathon, but I prefer not to debate in an atmosphere of contempt and patronism. Some of my comments were also snide, sure, but what do you expect when you question my worth as a New Zealander simply because my political opinions are different from yours. For you to accuse Roger Douglas and his contemporaries of being ideologues seems like the pot calling the kettle black to me.

To be honest I'm disappointed that we couldn't discuss this in a more civil manner. You seem like a much nicer person in other posts of yours that I've read. I guess you're just one of those people in whom politics brings out the worst.

His comments were no more contemptuous or patronizing than what most people make here. All he has done is point out some of the more outrageous claims that you've made.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Kidicious


His comments were no more contemptuous or patronizing than what most people make here. All he has done is point out some of the more outrageous claims that you've made.

Oh yes? You're an expert on New Zealand's economic policy now are you?

Go back to sleep.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Caligastia
I suppose we could go on, Agathon, but I prefer not to debate in an atmosphere of contempt and patronism. Some of my comments were also snide, sure, but what do you expect when you question my worth as a New Zealander simply because my political opinions are different from yours.

That's not quite what I said. I said that New Zealand was better off without the far right crowd. It seems that most New Zealanders agree with me since National doesn't have a hope in hell of being the government ever again.

For you to accuse Roger Douglas and his contemporaries of being ideologues seems like the pot calling the kettle black to me.

Actually Douglas isn't so much an ideologue as an idiot. He and his friends fell for the Treasury's 1983(?) report on economic governance, which was the work of ideologues.

You can call me an ideologue if you like, but you'll find that I am much less doctrinaire than many. For example, I consider myself to be quite left wing, but that doesn't mean that I believe that the left doesn't owe a better answer to some economic criticisms that have been made, or that the left should steer away from markets at all costs. In fact, as methods of distribution, markets have a lot to recommend them in certain areas.

To be honest I'm disappointed that we couldn't discuss this in a more civil manner. You seem like a much nicer person in other posts of yours that I've read. I guess you're just one of those people in whom politics brings out the worst.

I think you are taking offense where none was intended. I've just pointed out that the facts do not support your position.

[Caligastia]

I don't know how you expect me to to take it when you tell me I'm not a true NZer simply because of my opinion on economic issues. I'm proud to be a kiwi, and I'm proud to be from a country where diverse opinions can be freely expressed.

Perhaps I'll make a New Zealand thread discussion sometime...maybe on the Treaty of Waitangi...

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Caligastia
I don't know how you expect me to to take it when you tell me I'm not a true NZer simply because of my opinion on economic issues. I'm proud to be a kiwi, and I'm proud to be from a country where diverse opinions can be freely expressed.

I don't know how you would take it either. I had a quick look back at the thread and it appears I said nothing of the sort. I said that New Zealand was better off without right wing ideologues, but hell, I think everywhere would be better off without them.

Go back, have a read. See what you can find.

Perhaps I'll make a New Zealand thread discussion sometime...maybe on the Treaty of Waitangi...

That would be fun. I hope you don't take Stuart Scott (God rest his soul) seriously.

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by Caligastia


Oh yes? You're an expert on New Zealand's economic policy now are you?

Go back to sleep.

I'm just interested in the subject, because I don't know that much about it. I hope you don't stop because you are offended.

[Berzerker]

Agathon -

Berz, it's become painfully evident to me that you don't even understand my argument, which is the sort of thing you can find in an introductory economics textbook. I suggest you read one.

If charity works so well, then why do I still see homeless people, despite the fact that nobody likes seeing them?

You're changing your argument...again... You said people wouldn't pay taxes voluntarily because of a "prisoners dilemma" - people who might give won't because of people who don't give. When I pointed out that if this was true, no one would give to charities, you ignored this problem with your argument and started arguing that not many people donate to charity, which isn't true either. Then you changed your argument again to dispute the efficiency of charity to deal with homelessness. So if I don't understand your argument, it's because you can't stick to one argument. But I do understand your PD argument and I've refuted it...

And I already pointed out the illogic of pointing to charitable giving in a high tax welfare state, people just have less disposable income and they have the POV that they already pay taxes for that. Why are there homeless people, probably an inordinate number, in very liberal welfare state jurisdictions? The answers to that question exposes the problems with the welfare state ideology, but that's another matter...