Friday, October 07, 2016

Who's radical?

Naturally the US media are attacking presidential candidate Gary Johnson for his 'radical' ideas.

From Jacob Hornberger, explaining why libertarians are not the radicals.


Guess who the radicals were in the late 1800s and early 1900s. The socialists and interventionists! That is, those Americans who were proposing programs like income taxation, national health care, minimum-wage laws, maximum-hours legislation, and public (i.e., government) schooling, all which they were importing from socialists in Germany. It was those statists who were considered by our American ancestors to be radicals who were trying to shift America from a free-market economy way of life to socialism and interventionism.

Let’s not forget what those radical statists were saying when they were battling for the enactment of the Sixteenth Amendment in 1913. They were saying, “We promise that if we are permitted to bring income taxation to America, it will only be levied on the rich — and even then, it will only be a very small percentage of taxation on the rich.” It was an unvarnished appeal to the great sins of envy and covetousness.

As Thomas and others of his socialist and interventionist ilk know full well, income tax didn’t end up being limited to the rich and the percentage didn’t stay small for long. Instead, like a metastasizing cancer it spread throughout the middle class and even to the poor, to the point where many people today, especially the young, can’t make ends meet.



Kiwiwit said...

As a libertarian, I describe myself as a radical because I want radical change to the current political, social and economic system. What I hate being called is 'conservative'. The left-wing, who want to conserve 100 years of failed progressivism, like to call themselves radicals but it is they who are really conservatives.

DonW said...

The cradle to the grave welfare system introduced by MJ Savage back in the 30s is well and truly entrenched here and I think most people want some form of nanny state funded by compulsory tax. The type of political parties that get elected suggests that. To get a Libertarian gov't voted in there would need to be a major change in how people think. Maybe in time that will happen.

Anonymous said...

We thought SMPs and farm subsidies and govt ownership telecoms and construction were "entrenched here"

total abolition of SMPs and farm subsidies - went away and they never came back
total sale of Telecom NZ - went away and never came back
total sale of ministers of works - went away and never came back

A government with guts: a PM, a finance minister, and just a couple of other ministers is all it takes to abolish super, welfare, and sell govt health, and govt education. Passing the orders in council can happen in a day or so. Passing laws less than a week.

It can happen. It will happen. it MUST happen as soon as possible to persevere NZ's economy and civil society.

As Don Brash wrote in his autobiography any politician who doesn't understand this, doesn't understand year 5 mathematics.\
Any politician who doesn't understand year 5 mathematics has disqualified themselves from election.

Mark Wahlberg said...

When labours Roger Douglas sold everything not nailed down in the name of radical free market reforms, his government also introduced compulsory unionism to placate the gangsters controlling the union movement.
Politicians of whatever persuasion, give with one hand and take away with the other and as a result, are treacherous and not to be trusted.

Anonymous said...

Mark - no, Douglas didn't introduce compulsory unionism, but he kept it.

Richardson's Employment Contracts Act (which never went far enough: there is no reason for a special act for employment contacts, and in fact no reason for any government involvement in private contracts of any kind) ended compulsory unionism but still permitted unions to operate in NZ --- so we have unions now, like the state doctors who are even striking next week!

If Ruth had gone for total abolition of unions -- employing organised crime laws to stamp them out, banning (ex-)members from participation in the workforces or politics --- them we wouldn't have any unionism now: which is precisely my point. Total abolition - immediate, without any notice- is the only way to make lasting change.

Mark Wahlberg said...

Anon, I take your point. I was painting detail with a 6inch brush again.

I had several run ins with unions over job demarcations when I was labour contracting on Wellington building sites during the 1970's and witnessed firsthand the destructive power of union thuggery.

A glaring example would be the B.N.Z Centre which was a massive undertaking for Australian contractor Civil and Civic.
The BoilerMakers union under the leadership of Con Devitt constantly orchestrated unrealistic stop work demands on site, which over the period of the construction, helped push the cost to four times its original estimate.

Another time during the Auckland Mangere Bridge construction, the Carpenters Union called a strike which went on for some considerable time. Union representatives toured the country collecting donations in support of striking workers. On payday (Thursday) they would turn up on building sites with plastic buckets demanding money with menaces from members. How much cash was collected and who received it was a debatable point.

Thankfully times have changed.