Essentially we blame systems instead of the individuals tainting them. Capitalism gets a bad name because of greedy, immoral people. The law gets a bad name because of exploitive, dissolute lawyers. Democracy gets a bad name because of unprincipled, power-hungry politicians.
It doesn't follow that we throw out the systems.
Ah, but you might say, the welfare state gets a bad name because of abusive, free-loading types and yet you want to fundamentally change it. True. But that is because it hasn't proved itself to be the best option. Unlike capitalism which, as Du Fresne writes,
"...is the only economic system that has consistently demonstrated, over time, that it can improve the human condition. That’s why all the most humane, liberal, advanced societies in the world have capitalist economies."
Frankly, I would settle for a large reduction in the size of the welfare state but its inbuilt mechanisms mean it will always tend towards growth. There-in lies the conundrum.
10 comments:
It could be said John Key is a self made man in the best tradition of the capitalist ethic. But then others say he is nothing but a looter having made his fortune by manipulating currency fluctuations to his best advantage and exploiting the notion that playing with figures is not only rewarding for the self but also beneficial to the world at large.
Dirk
So true Lindsay. How often have we "thrown the baby out with the bath water" and have lived to regret it?
Socialism takes but doesnt give ( ie make money).
Capitalism gives (ie makes money) and is despised by those that take, for doing so.
History shows that politics are a process of merry go rounds.
The Capatlists are in power and they strengthen the economy. They get turfed out by those who want something for nothing and the socialists get in and spend all of the money (and I mean spend they do not invest) until such time as the economy goes down the gurgler and the capatists are voted back in to clear up the mess.
Problem now is that there is very little difference between socialism of the left and the (new) socialism of the right (I wont call it capalism 'cause it is not)
So where to from here? That is the question.
How do we get back on the right path where everyone is equal (and by equal I mean has the same opportunties what they do with them is up to them if they choose to squander them then hard luck)
How do we get back on the right path where everyone is equal
We don't. We simply give up on that idea. The idea that everyone is equal, that everyone has inalienable rights, that everyone is in any way the same or somehow deserves anything
is the lie at the heart of socialism.
As George Orwell wrote all those years ago "We are all equal, only some are more equal than others"
Dirk
Come benefit day its interesting to watch how many young women with kids at feet are gourging themselves at the fast food establishments such as McD's or Kentucky F. Then its on to the supermarket for the booze. A couple of days later its down to the local food bank for their supplies.
Buggered if I give to the food banks!
Dirk
"We don't. We simply give up on that idea. The idea that everyone is equal, that everyone has inalienable rights, that everyone is in any way the same or somehow deserves anything
is the lie at the heart of socialism."
Anon...you confuse inalienable,individual natural human rights...which socialsits DON"T support,with "positive right" ...which are a contradictory falsehood.Real rights are negative...they just require other people to do nothing...to leave you alone.The false rights you are really referring to require others to do something for you...to enslave themselves to others.
Best explanation here..
http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=arc_ayn_rand_man_rights
"Democracy gets a bad name because of unprincipled, power-hungry politicians"
In time, popular democracy always leads to increasing centralised power. The levers of power become so valuable that the unprincipled and power-hungry will do anything they have to do to get hold of them.
Even if you believe in the existence if the wise and disinterested, they never have a chance of getting anywhere near the levers of power in the real world.
It's not a matter of blaming democracy. We just have to recognise that centralised power has to be limited so that those who get hold of the levers can do the minimum of damage. A well designed constitution would be one one approach. Pretending that the problem is just a few bad sorts getting into politics is naive - nothing will ever change so long as we think that way.
Dave Christian
Anon...you confuse inalienable,individual natural human rights...which socialsits DON"T support,with "positive right" ...which are a contradictory falsehood
Nope. I reject all forms of "rights", and all discussion thereof, as certain leftism and incipient socialism.
And the Libertarians - taking their cry from the slogan of the French revolution as much as the unionist mates - are just as bad as just as left.
It's not a matter of blaming democracy
Of course it is a matter of "blaming democracy" or at least democracy as it is practised in most of the West - to whit, universal franchise, one person/one vote, and every vote the same value.
Restrict the franchise to the productive, and give only those who deserve it voting power in proportion to their value to the country (e.g. export income), and then you might get somewhere
Universal franchise is a new and untried idea. The UK still doesn't really have it; the US was never ever designed to have it; and even in NZ it is a relatively recent innovation.
Get rid of that, get back to responsible government of the aristocracy for the bourgeois, and you might be betting somewhere.
Note that after the next UK election, all the most important politicians will be old Etonians. This is clearly a great improvement!
Has dreams of being a politican with little or no princibles.Its a bit like winning lotto .....
Dirk
Post a Comment