catallaxy files

catallaxy in technical exile

Public housing

with 328 comments

This report is infuriating. Of Plibersek

She remained “confident” the government could still achieve Mr Rudd’s bold aim of halving homelessness by 2020.

It is a sorry state that we look to the Government to solve homelessness – something that is caused by Government action to discourage employment through restrictive labour market regulations.

And how is the aim (of reducing homelessness by 50 per cent by 2020) to be achieved? By public housing.

This reminds me of Rand’s The Fountainhead which has some relevant passages [from Roark]:

I don’t believe in government housing. I don’t want to hear anything about its noble purposes. I don’t think they’re noble.

I think it’s a worthy undertaking – to provide a decent apartment for a man who earns fifteen dollars a week. But not at the expense of other men. Not if it raises taxes, raises all the other rents and makes the man who earns forty live in a rat hole.  That’s what’s happening in New York. Nobody can afford a modern apartment – except the very rich and the paupers. Have you seen the converted brownstones in which the average self-supporting couple has to live? Have you seen their closet kitchens and their plumbing? They’re forced to live like that – because they’re not incompetent enough. They make forty dollars a week and wouldn’t be allowed into a housing project. But they’re the ones who provide the money for the damn project. They pay the taxes. And the taxes raise their own rent. And they have to move from a converted brownstone into an unconverted one and from that into a railroad flat. I’d have no desire to penalize a man because he’s worth only fifteen dollars a week. But I’ll be damned if I can see why a man worth forty must be penalized – and penalized in favor of the one who’s less competent.

… Still architects are all for government housing. And have you ever seen an architect who wasn’t screaming for planned cities? I’d like to ask him what right has he to impose it on the others? And if it isn’t, what a council, a conference, co-operation and collaboration. And the result will be ‘The March of the Centuries.’ Peter, every single one of you on that committee has done better work alone than the eight of you produced collectively. Ask yourself why, sometime.

As I’ve long argued, we should be entirely rid of public housing. I don’t mind (so much) providing rent subsidies. But public housing leads to long-term welfare dependency, it strips society of potential workers, it is a hotbed of criminal activity and they cost the taxpayer a fortune. They do not reduce homelessness – merely favour some over others. And those lucky enough to obtain public housing – they enjoy benefits denied most others yet (paradoxical) they have traded off their long-term standards of living for short-term benefits. Because of the welfare trap of public housing, tenants remain disassociated from the labour market (often receiving other benefits such as the disability support pension) and so their life time earnings are lower than if they had eschewed public housing and found a job.

And the Government pumping money into public housing has driven up construction costs and therefore made housing  more expensive for taxpayers.

That is a crime. Public housing is unethical.

Advertisements

Written by Samuel J

January 2, 2010 at 9:39 am

Posted in Uncategorized

328 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. I think it’s a worthy undertaking – to provide a decent apartment for a man who earns fifteen dollars a week. But not at the expense of other men. Not if it raises taxes, raises all the other rents and makes the man who earns forty live in a rat hole.

    By that measure Rand is opposed to all forms of charity because all charity involves giving to others at the expense of some. As such all charity should be banned. This is consistent with many right wingers and libertarians views.

    As to the idea that public housing causes rent increases etc etc, given that public housing constitutes a minuscule percentage of the housing market I find that ridiculous.

    John H.

    January 2, 2010 at 10:35 am

  2. “This is consistent with many right wingers and libertarians views.”

    Not all. And not necessarily many. Most of the Australian population I’ve ever encountered has some support for State welfare in certain forms and circumstances.

    Abu Chowdah

    January 2, 2010 at 10:37 am

  3. Public housing will do little to solve the overall problem, though it will help some people. However, saying “homelessness – something that is caused by Government action to discourage employment through restrictive labour market regulations” is not correct.

    Many kinds of people are homeless for many kinds of reasons. Restrictive labour laws play a part in exacerbating homelessness (and extending the condition for longer than what otherwise would have been), as do restrictions on a market-clearing level of private housing, but there are more important ones.

    Jarrah

    January 2, 2010 at 10:37 am

  4. We are not talking here of private charity – where you voluntarily donate money. But that is considered a virtue – to allow boasting of munificence and to hide other crimes. For the charitable benefactors can hide their other nefarious activities.

    We are talking here of public housing – not rent subsidies. Public housing is a proven failure always and everywhere.

    Samuel J

    January 2, 2010 at 10:56 am

  5. And, I should add, the current spurt on public housing construction is affecting construction costs – I have spoken to several builders about this. And cost control in public housing is non existent. Contractors are charging two or even five times the price to do something for the public housing projects.

    Samuel J

    January 2, 2010 at 10:58 am

  6. Labour laws – which in Australia, are not considered ‘restrictive’ except by the most strident of extremists, and most hysterical of shriekers – have absolutely no influence whatsoever on homelessness. Perhaps Samuel believes the bearded schizophrenics in the city would be working in finance, if only for those awful unfair dismissal laws.

    Rent vouchers won’t actually solve anything when there’s a shortage of accommodation for rent. Your scheme would simply drive up prices. The present arrangement, whereby public housing is kept completely separate from private markets, ensures that the latter is protected from activity in the former. The government has done many things to inflate house prices, but none of them have involved public housing.

    Moreover, the link between public housing and ‘welfare dependency’ is far from clear. The high-rise flats that I know of have refugees, for instance, many of whom are employed (albeit, for little money). The ‘hotbed of criminal activity’ line reeks of snobbery. It’s unsurprising that the pompous and well-fed prefer private charity to systematic intervention – they can continue to affect nobility and play along with noblesse oblige. The point of public housing is to ensure that the poor are not rendered dependent on such twats. Indeed, charity should be banned before welfare.

    And the Government pumping money into public housing has driven up construction costs and therefore made housing more expensive for taxpayers.

    Rubbish. Completely false. Do you seriously thin builders (who are not the source of the bubble in any case) are charging more for outer-suburban homes because of government housing?

    Oh, and finally: Rand = FAIL.

    THR

    January 2, 2010 at 11:05 am

  7. The point of public housing is to ensure that the poor are not rendered dependent on such twats. Indeed, charity should be banned before welfare.

    Lovely. Thanks.

    And of course land banking has nothing to do with our current problems. This in spite of the fact that one property developer here on the Gold Coast told me that corporations have bought vast tracts of land and release it for development in dribs and drabs so as to keep up demand. A friend of mine who lives on the Sunshine Coast stated that all the land up to the Pacific Highway was long ago purchased. Just sitting there, dishing it out in dribs and drabs.

    This is exactly what they should do because we should always act according to self interest as society does not exist just rapacious individuals solely in pursuit of their own wealth. Buy up the good land, don’t release it all at once, maintain demand by providing it in dribs and drabs. (Note to those who know better: there is a lot of research that contradicts the idea we are solely out for ourselves, it is also obvious from a common sense point of view.)

    John H.

    January 2, 2010 at 11:27 am

  8. Roak is referring to the disgusting damage done in New York where only about a decade ago Mia Farrow lived in a rent controlled 11 room co-op facing central park for a few hundred dollars a week.

    At one stage there were only 45,000 apartments in the free market in NYC. In a city the of this.

    JC

    January 2, 2010 at 12:09 pm

  9. oops the size…

    JC

    January 2, 2010 at 12:09 pm

  10. Hey, why don’t we house some of the homeless in the Julia Gillard memorial school halls? Rough accommodation maybe but, remember, Kevin lived in a Morris Minor as a boy and it didn’t do him any lasting harm.

    C.L.

    January 2, 2010 at 12:10 pm

  11. THR, you live in a fairy world where it rains chocolate drops and there’s a money tree on every corner.

    Labour laws – which in Australia, are not considered ‘restrictive’ except by the most strident of extremists, and most hysterical of shriekers – have absolutely no influence whatsoever on homelessness.

    Are you telling me that if I approached 100 random businesses in this country a majority would tell me that labour laws are not really a concern? Especially small business? Crap.

    Furthermore, if you are trying to find a job in this country without a trade or qualification i.e. you’re trying to use your youth and willingness to work as a means of getting a start in life, then labour regulation gets in your way. I’m happy to give you my personal examples if you would like. This goes right through life. My mother-in-law is retired and worked part time in a newsagency in Erina for quite a few years until early last year. She was embedded in her local community, well known in the job, and quite happy with life. After a review – I don’t know why or by who but I can find out if you like – some employees, including her, were found to not being paid the correct amount of superannuation and the owner was fined. The general consensus is the owner, who is also well known, paid generous wages but screwed up with his other ‘obligations’. He restructured and she lost her job. She got backpaid a small amount of super but she is worse off and unhappy. Everyone was perfectly happy with the situation before the intervention. Now that synergy has been lost and the community suffers, perhaps not a lot, but the cost has outweighed the benefit.

    The ‘hotbed of criminal activity’ line reeks of snobbery.

    My mother lives near Penrith. On one side of her suburb is public housing, the other side are normal ‘working class’ homes full of tradesmen and people who commute into the city. This side is a pretty normal suburb, eg. occasional burnout. She’s been there since 1992 and I don’t remember one robbery in our street; the worst I can remember is a drink driving charge. These are not wealthy people.

    The other side is known as ‘the bronx’. Very easy to get drugs, and there are brothels running there out of the public housing all the time. I’ve seen a burning, assuming stolen, car in the street with people socialising around it. Recently some bikies were found to be making machine guns. (I admire their ingenuity!). Once I was doing security patrol work around there and I got called to the local shopping centre early one morning. There were some kids smashing bottles against the ball, but they weren’t really breaking anything else. I thought I’d be smart and just ask them why they were doing it at 2:00am. A young girl looked at me and said ‘this is Cranebrook!’.

    THR, your arguments have no bearing, pretty much ever, because they don’t match reality. They are really the arguments of someone who’s spent a lot time thinking in left-wing circles, but very little time engaged in how these people live.

    Michael Sutcliffe

    January 2, 2010 at 12:21 pm

  12. Kevin lived in a Morris Minor as a boy and it didn’t do him any lasting harm.

    Do you know the truth about this story, CL? There is a reason why it has slipped out of the media. Is it common knowledge here, because I’m more than happy to repeat it?

    Michael Sutcliffe

    January 2, 2010 at 12:23 pm

  13. I live in public housing.

    Rationalist

    January 2, 2010 at 12:37 pm

  14. By that measure Rand is opposed to all forms of charity because all charity involves giving to others at the expense of some. As such all charity should be banned.
    .
    Wrong!
    Charity involves giving to others at the expense of yourself. Not some bloke down the road who isn’t involved in the transaction.
    Robin Hood style wealth distribution is not charity. As legend had it, Robin Hood became popular because he gave away other people’s money.
    .
    This is consistent with many right wingers and libertarians views
    .
    A straw right winger. Find a right wing person who believes in zero welfare. (by zero, I mean zero… the people that would have orphaned babies involved in car accidents turned away from the hospital unless someone could be found who would pay, etc).
    No such creature exists. It’s a figment of lefties’s imaginations.

    daddy dave

    January 2, 2010 at 12:41 pm

  15. A straw right winger. Find a right wing person who believes in zero welfare.

    Of course that’s been thought of in libertarian circles. There is ample opportunity to set up funds especially dedicated to that sort of emergency.

    It’s a pretty incredible set of belief systems that only the state is able to provide while private charity can’t.

    JC

    January 2, 2010 at 12:47 pm

  16. Absolute rubbish, Sutcliffe. I’ve been into plenty of public housing estates. I’m not claiming there are no problems there, but blaming it on welfare is ridiculous. Yes, there is a danger of ghettoism, but this danger exists in the private sphere also. Many of the world’s most dangerous places (in terms of crime) have scant public housing.

    Are you telling me that if I approached 100 random businesses in this country a majority would tell me that labour laws are not really a concern?

    And are you telling me that if I approached 1,000 random workers, that they would believe labour laws are a ‘concern’? Business has gotten to the point of coping with the minor changes introduced by the ALP. Australia’s labor laws almost certainly saved jobs during the recent downturn. Furthermore, Australia has experienced long periods of sustained growth with supposedly ‘restrictive’ laws, so the correlation simply doesn’t add up.

    But please, Michael ‘reality’ Sutcliffe, tell us how you’ll solve homelessness with rent vouchers, abolition of the minimum wage and copies of Atlas Shrugged.

    THR

    January 2, 2010 at 12:52 pm

  17. The ‘hotbed of criminal activity’ line reeks of snobbery.
    .
    unfortunately, it’s true.
    One of those unpleasant facts that shocks the urban left, but is actually a banal truism. Of course, that doesn’t mean that public housing is causing crime. It may simply be gathering all the criminals into the same place.
    .
    Do you seriously thin builders (who are not the source of the bubble in any case) are charging more for outer-suburban homes because of government housing?
    .
    I don’t know if this is true, but it’s certainly plausible. Basic economics says that an increase in demand will cause increases in price.
    If the government goes on a buying spree and commissions many thousands of houses, that will increase demand. Builders can then pick and choose their work. If they’re flat out and have more work than they can handle, they’ll simply start charging more.

    daddy dave

    January 2, 2010 at 12:54 pm

  18. A straw right winger.

    You’re becoming a straw right-winge yourself, dave. Ask Sutcliffe above what he thinks of welfare, even at a minimal level.

    Charity involves giving to others at the expense of yourself.

    Facile nonsense. ‘Charity’ is a gift of the recipient to the giver, who is thereby able to prop up his/her narcissism with philanthropic pretensions. That’s why we should always be suspicious of philanthropy – basically rich fuckers whose engagement with the world consists of ‘charity’ to the stooge organisations of the Yarts, rather than actual, ungentrified encounters with the starving, artists or otherwise.

    THR

    January 2, 2010 at 12:55 pm

  19. No such creature exists. It’s a figment of lefties’s imaginations.

    People like myself consider it in theory, but no one wants to abolish welfare tomorrow, because right-wingers acknowledge there is a correct role for the state. We’ve just gone way beyond it, to the point of being self-destructive.

    The point of theoretical consideration is to analyse the idea that the state can’t produce civil society. It may, if it’s done right, contribute to it, but it isn’t the panacea. And the state can also be destructive to civil society. So if you have a society that is too greedy to provide charity, it will still be shit no matter how much welfare there is. For example, if you take a failed state like Somalia, and introduce a welfare program eg foreign aid, it won’t bring about civil society. But if you go there and set up capitalism, with the obligatory security services required, it will, in time, produce civil society or, even in the local population is not that capable, it will produce large elements of civil society eg you’d probably end up with schools, police (security) services, private property and homegrown charitable organisations.

    Michael Sutcliffe

    January 2, 2010 at 12:57 pm

  20. Help help! I am being repressed!

    Rationalist

    January 2, 2010 at 1:02 pm

  21. Facile nonsense. ‘Charity’ is a gift of the recipient to the giver, who is thereby able to prop up his/her narcissism with philanthropic pretensions. That’s why we should always be suspicious of philanthropy – basically rich fuckers whose engagement with the world consists of ‘charity’ to the stooge organisations of the Yarts, rather than actual, ungentrified encounters with the starving, artists or otherwise.

    It always amuses me when left-wingers accuse ‘rich fuckers’ of having the having the audacity to feel good about giving to the poor. I mean, how dare someone who goes out and produces wealth at his/her own expense of time and effort, and then ascertains who needs more and then hands it over voluntarily in the absence of any coercion. How dare they feel good about themselves!

    We all know the moral ones here are the left-wingers, who despite being perfectly capable of choosing to apply their lives to the betterment of humanity through productive behaviour, nobly choose to demand, through force of government or even mob action if they can manage of it, other productive people to hand over their money in support of their ideals. That’s such moral behaviour you embody,THR. Imagine everyone was like that, we’d so much better off (assuming we could find some wealth to redistribute). But, then again, we could always just find another non-politically correct group and just take there wealth, even if it really is just stealing…..’cause we all know it’s not really stealing if you call it social justice.

    Michael Sutcliffe

    January 2, 2010 at 1:05 pm

  22. THR, you can’t “solve” homelessness, any more than you can solve alcoholism or bankruptcy or sports stars who cheat on their wives. You can’t stop people from making bad decisions.
    .
    Rent vouchers, or rent assistance is a much better system in my opinion. This system is already in place in Australia – anyone on any kind of welfare at all can get rent assistance.
    .
    and by the way, about these new government houses. They’re fucking palaces. I doubt you’re living in a house that nice. Wait till the current affairs shows get some film crews onto them.
    .
    Way to cause an anti-welfare backlash, Tanya.

    daddy dave

    January 2, 2010 at 1:07 pm

  23. basically rich fuckers whose engagement with the world consists of ‘charity’ to the stooge organisations of the Yarts, rather than actual, ungentrified encounters with the starving, artists or otherwise.

    That’s not entirely true. The Gates foundation for instance has been instrumental in vaccinating a large number of kids in Africa.

    As much as Wall street gets hammered for its greed by those that never worked there, most of the firms I know of “persuade’ their employees to donate 5% of their bonuses to charities of their choice. You could of course refuse to do so, but the firms would also most likely refuse to continue hiring you.

    JC

    January 2, 2010 at 1:08 pm

  24. One of those unpleasant facts that shocks the urban left, but is actually a banal truism.

    Not true. I’ve perused the census data for crime in Melbourne, for instance, and the highest crime rates are in the CBD, heavily-gentrified inner city areas, and some impoverished suburbs on the outskirts. The correlation is hardly as clear as you pretend, and it’s also confounded by the increased incidence of mental illness, for instance, in the government flats.

    I don’t know if this is true, but it’s certainly plausible.

    It’s plausible that some builders/contractors are rorting the system re: public housing. Claims that public housing is in any way behind the housing bubble are ridiculous and completely unfounded, firstly because the bubble itself has nothing to do with construction costs. Moreover, governments are hardly commissioning massive amounts of housing.

    THR

    January 2, 2010 at 1:08 pm

  25. Part of my businees involves spending a lot of time in homeswest housing (the WA state housing). Its a very mixed bag from decent and respectable (doing it hard, usualy a disabled younger family member or genuine disability), to pure assholes who may as well be living under canvas.

    I blogged about a few bad houses I visited over at Tizonas but Ill repeat it here.

    Another brief look into the underbelly of Australia’s underclass, the poorly educated and abandoned.

    I have been visiting a number of my clients and a few stand out points Id like to make.

    Most of the ladies are serial single mums, it is rare to find any receiving any sort of maintainance from the sperm donor involved. Equally rare is the lady who has only one child this way. The average for my clients tends to be 3 children, which coincidentally nets a payout of (on average) $1,300 per fortnight in government payments. They also are eligible for lower power/water bills and other subsidies.

    To put that into perspective, a person on Australia’s minimum wage would have to work 100 hours a fortnight (at $13.47 per hour) to come close to the same amount…before tax is taken out….

    If there are men around these ladies (and I use both terms with reservations) they tend to be living in the house, unemployed, and not contributing much, if anything to the costs of the household. They are little better than parasites on the ladies and their kids.

    The treatment of the children varies wildly, from apparently well cared for and clean, to feral and (as observed) scabies ridden..

    Now Ive set a bit of a tone heres the squalor 90% of Australians would have no idea exists in their own country, as observed it is difficult to blame lack of money, the 4 households Im about to describe all had 3 or more children guaranteeing a minimum of $1,300 per fortnight, tax free.

    (I will give the race of the occupants just to prevent anyone saying “its just THEM, that are like that, not my people”

    House 1, White lady, 6 kids, 1 hellhound allowed free reign of the house, no male on the scene. Cant see the lower walls of any part of the living room, they are covered with clothes, toys, rubbish and furniture, the other room visible has 3 mattresses on the floor with soiled bedding in heaps on them. There is also 2 cots, its not clear where the toddler (year old?), sleeps as both cots are overflowing with clothing. In addition the edges of this room are again knee deep in more clothing and rubbish.

    Then theres the ceiling… oh god the ceiling…. The light fitting was a red glass candelabra type, but 3/4 black, in addition the ceiling and down the walls to the level of the light switches was a mottled white/black mix of about 50/50.

    Fly shit..

    the black was fly shit.

    I left the house with a near asthma attack, eyes streaming and itching, and I was only there for 1/2 an hour.

    House 2. Aboriginal inhabitants, 3 kids man in the background. I had gone there to attempt to repair a washing machine which the proper repairman had refused to touch due to an infestation of cockroaches. The machine had only been in the house for a month when the powerboard had shorted, again from roaches.

    I went into the laundry to see the following. 3 well used bongs on the dryer, a constant scuttling of roaches across the floor, and a backyard full of old mattresses and car bodies.

    I opened the top of the washing machine and was revolted to see well over 100 cockroaches stream from the “drum” area before I shut the lid, I then removed the plastic shielding the powerboard area to find the board shorted out, and the area jammed tight with dead/alive cockroaches.

    House 3. Mixed race, 4 kids and an actual defacto husband of long standing. House quite grotty but again cockroaches galore. As the old large TV was resting on the table (and cooling down) dozens of roaches were streaming from the lower cooling holes in the rear of the machine…

    House 4. The…. worst…house….ever…

    Its difficult to describe this one but here goes… Multiple inhabitants all sorts, furniture all broken, rubbish everywhere, multiple dogs/cats roaming at will.

    The roaches…. Close your eyes and imagine this if you can, the corners of the room are a brown living carpet of roaches, thousands of them, oh and they arent on the floor, they are doing this in the corners of the ceiling, with a few constantly dropping, then scuttling back up to join the swarm… That is, god willing, the worst Ive ever seen or hope to see.

    There is no relation to the money entering these households and the conditions inside, basic vermin control is not expensive or complicated, if I had to pick an explanation it would be this. The people involved dont realise the necessity of ongoing cleanliness of pest control measures, their long term thinking is “broken”. For the most part they arent bad people, but they are completely lazy and expect to be able to do things once and have them stay that way.

    One thing in common, all on long term welfare. Welfare is cancer of the soul.
    (if you want to leave an insult or comment do so here please http://tizona.wordpress.com/2009/12/22/poverty-and-squalor-in-australia/)

    thefrollickingmole

    January 2, 2010 at 1:11 pm

  26. THR:

    let me say it out loud…. Everything that has come of of Canberra on the welfare side has always ended up being a fucked up mess. Everything those morons touch has always ended up screwing things up further. They have a 100% fail rate.

    We only have to look at the aboriginal issue to see that.

    JC

    January 2, 2010 at 1:12 pm

  27. THR, you can’t “solve” homelessness, any more than you can solve alcoholism or bankruptcy or sports stars who cheat on their wives. You can’t stop people from making bad decisions.

    It is a statistical inevitability that in any culture there will always be the down and outs. It is just too impossible for any culture to fully accommodate all its citizens.

    We can, however, influence the decisions people make. Otherwise advertisers are wasting their time. Understanding the behavior of people who become down and out is a complex business that should not be reduced to simple platitudes. Environments can have a remarkable effect on our behavior and much of this is unconscious. There are thousands of studies pointing to our thinking and decision making is affected by environmental contingencies. In my view, when thinking about human behavior, words like “rationality” and “decision making” are forbidden because these are everyday concepts. They are *descriptions* of what we do not explanations of what we do.

    John H.

    January 2, 2010 at 1:15 pm

  28. Not true. I’ve perused the census data for crime in Melbourne, for instance, and the highest crime rates are in the CBD, heavily-gentrified inner city areas, and some impoverished suburbs on the outskirts.

    I think this explains a lot. While it’s important to review census data it doesn’t tell you that much about the social dynamic on the ground. The social dynamic and the type of crime in the CBD is very different to the suburbs where there are children growing up within this suburban community, forming their direction in life. I don’t think too many people would disagree that some suburbs are better than others for this purpose, and public housing suburbs aren’t the better ones. Far better not to create a ghetto but to let the families participate in the market, so they learn good behaviours in how to seek value, and they are naturally more dispersed through the community.

    Michael Sutcliffe

    January 2, 2010 at 1:18 pm

  29. That’s such moral behaviour you embody,THR.

    It has nothing to do with morality, you imbecile, and everything to do with providing a modicum of material assistance. You would have the poor trapped in a feudal-type system, dependent entirely on noblesse oblige. On the other hand, the last century has demonstrated that a welfare state, for all of its problems, can to a very large degree ameliorate the excesses of poverty without any need for people to rely on the whims and caprices of wealthy narcissists.

    THR, you can’t “solve” homelessness, any more than you can solve alcoholism or bankruptcy or sports stars who cheat on their wives.

    Of course you can solve homelessness. What an idiotic statement. It’s as if homelessness is the same as floods or something. Countries vary in terms of homelessness, and this variance depends enormously on state spending and policy. Soviet Russia, for instance, despite it’s many faults, actually had less homelessness than capitalist Russia. It has something to do with what the state prioritises.

    Rent vouchers, or rent assistance is a much better system in my opinion

    Another idiotic comment. Rent vouchers would force existing renters to compete directly with subsidised renters, thus sending rent prices (which are already high) through the roof. It’d be great for owner-investors, and terrible for everybody else.

    Of course, there are non-state solutions to housing problems, but you’re not going to find them in Rand, or with vouchers that’ll magically create housing for the transient.

    THR

    January 2, 2010 at 1:19 pm

  30. John H: I broadly agree with that.
    .
    THR: you are right… there’s no way that public housing caused the bubble. I thought the claim was that it was currently causing price inflation. I’m agnostic about that claim.
    .
    THR (2). I’m not sure that census data would help you out. Most housing commission areas are too small to be identifiable by postcode, and many are in inner city areas.

    daddy dave

    January 2, 2010 at 1:22 pm

  31. We only have to look at the aboriginal issue to see that.

    The ‘aboriginal issue’ was mostly managed by the states. The Feds staged an ‘intervention’.

    While it’s important to review census data it doesn’t tell you that much about the social dynamic on the ground.

    I agree that there are definitely some shitty suburbs out there. In Melbourne, however, there’s no way you can pin this on public housing, since public housing is dispersed throughout the community. And since when was crime opposed to the market? Crime is a way in our society for individuals to participate in the market.

    THR

    January 2, 2010 at 1:23 pm

  32. For Melbournites, I think you’d be surprised about the data. (I’ll try to find it again if I have a chance). For instance, places like St Kilda and South Melbourne were as bad, if not worse, than Footscray and Flemington. The ghettoes of the future will almost certainly be the outer-suburbs, completely lacing in infrastructure and opportunities, rather than the inner city.

    THR

    January 2, 2010 at 1:27 pm

  33. REDUCING CRIME AND ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOURS IN
    PUBLIC HOUSING ENVIRONMENTS
    Jan Shield
    Crime Prevention Victoria
    Paper presented
    http://www.aic.gov.au/en/events/aic%20upcoming%20events/2002/~/media/conferences/housing/shield.ashx
    ….
    The principal findings are that the incidence of crime is not higher on public housing estates than in
    surrounding residential areas, that most ‘incidents’ occur because of visitors, not tenants, and that
    ‘trouble’ peaks at particular times, eg during school holidays, weekends, summer. This information
    can inform the development of preventive programs.

    John H.

    January 2, 2010 at 1:42 pm

  34. THR says
    For instance, places like St Kilda and South Melbourne were as bad, if not worse, than Footscray and Flemington. The ghettoes of the future will almost certainly be the outer-suburbs, completely lacing in infrastructure and opportunities, rather than the inner city.

    But why would that be any sort of surprise, THR?

    If the inner cities are being populated by people that can hold a job, raise kids a decent way and avoid careers in crime… why is it a shock that the inner cities are quietening down while the problem moves to the outer burbs where people with those sorts of proclivities now begin the reside.

    It becomes more evident that the associated problems are more not necessarily environmental and that if we spend more money most it will go away.

    JC

    January 2, 2010 at 1:49 pm

  35. ooops

    problems are not necessarily environmental

    JC

    January 2, 2010 at 1:50 pm

  36. not a very convincing report, John. from the report itself:

    No primary research was conducted – the project relied on existing secondary sources. Although
    the report was intended to focus on all types of public housing – high-rise estates, medium–rise
    (walk-up) estates, and dispersed housing – most information and previous research concentrates on
    high-rise estates within inner city areas.
    Quantifying issues was not possible; in source documents, data collection was inconsistent, and
    included a lack of documentation of incidents of antisocial behaviour.

    Draw your own conclusions.

    daddy dave

    January 2, 2010 at 2:01 pm

  37. It has nothing to do with morality, you imbecile, and everything to do with providing a modicum of material assistance.

    Who we help, how we help them, and who bears the cost of this is entirely a moral decision. Don’t try to dodge the issue that your moral system is paper thin, unworkable, and rationally conflicting.

    You would have the poor trapped in a feudal-type system, dependent entirely on noblesse oblige.

    No, that’s you. You’re the one who promotes welfare dependency. I support opportunity and productivity to deliver increased standards of living.

    On the other hand, the last century has demonstrated that a welfare state, for all of its problems, can to a very large degree ameliorate the excesses of poverty without any need for people to rely on the whims and caprices of wealthy narcissists.

    Regardless of your twisted view that it’s bad if someone feels good about helping someone else less fortunate (you lefties are such lovely people), what permitted the poor to increase their standards of living was wealth production. This can only be done through employment or enterprise. Welfare can make a contribution to this process, but it’s pretty small at best. But at worst the welfare state can destroy this process. So once the wealth is produced, it can be redistributed in a way that benefits the society as a whole and looks to the future. Or it can be redistributed in a way that doesn’t pay ongoing dividends and the wealth is just consumed and we have to start again. I support the former and you support the latter.

    Michael Sutcliffe

    January 2, 2010 at 2:07 pm

  38. Granted Daddy Dave but it was the only one I could find on quick notice. Sociological reports often are replete with methodological problems.

    I’ll see if I can find something more substantive.

    John H.

    January 2, 2010 at 2:17 pm

  39. This is better
    http://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/bocsar/ll_bocsar.nsf/vwFiles/R41.pdf/$FILE/R41.pdf

    The study results do not disprove the hypothesis that public housing estate design
    influences crime. But they do show that neither the percentage of public renters nor the
    level of dispersal of public housing or the type of housing found in a postcode exerts
    much effect on its crime rate when social and economic factors have been taken into
    account. This may be read by some as suggesting that crime problems on public housing
    estates can be blamed on the criminal activities of public renters. It is important to
    emphasise, therefore, that no such conclusion can be drawn from this study. It simply
    shows that, once variations in the social and economic profile of postcodes across
    metropolitan Sydney have been taken into account, public housing variables are of little
    use in explaining variations in crime.

    John H.

    January 2, 2010 at 2:29 pm

  40. THR, sorry I missed this post – I had a blackout (of the electrical kind, not the drinking kind). I think I’ve answered most of it anyway.

    But please, Michael ‘reality’ Sutcliffe, tell us how you’ll solve homelessness with rent vouchers, abolition of the minimum wage and copies of Atlas Shrugged.

    If I had complete ability to regulate I’m not sure I could abolish homelessness completely, but I do better than you. In fact, I don’t think you would even come close. I don’t have handy data but I suspect there would be, on average over time, more homeless per population in the major cities of the European welfare states eg, Paris, than there would be in major cities of the US, eg New York.

    I would remove restrictions with regards to building and development and lower taxes, thereby generally lowering the cost of housing and reducing the number of people needing support. I would introduce housing vouchers which were means tested and valued on a sliding scale. A range of options would emerge to obtain these vouchers, none of them overly pretty, but all of them no worse than what we currently have, eg housing commission ghettos. These would include:
    – the current private rental market at the lower end
    – charities providing share housing, rooms and dorms which incorporate the vouchers into their programs
    – developers who develop budget properties designed for housing commission type people, i.e. like some of the features put into some aboriginal housing.
    – mobile homes and caravan parks (and before you go off at me I did two stints in a caravan as a boy of nearly five years all up)

    The competition between these options would allow better choices for those requiring housing assistance, than being directed to a solution that may not suit them. It would also be cheaper to the rest of the public. We could even put those savings into education if you like.

    Michael Sutcliffe

    January 2, 2010 at 2:30 pm

  41. mobile homes and caravan parks (and before you go off at me I did two stints in a caravan as a boy of nearly five years all up)
    .
    in many parts of america, if you can’t afford a nice house, you get a trailer (ie mobile home). They’re really cheap, and, frankly, quite liveable. Unfortunately in Oz, this is frowned upon and discouraged, so we have to put such people into a lovely ghetto, built specially for them at great expense.

    daddy dave

    January 2, 2010 at 2:43 pm

  42. once variations in the social and economic profile of postcodes across metropolitan Sydney have been taken into account, public housing variables are of little use in explaining variations in crime
    .
    You’re right John H. That study is much better. If the results are right, we can conclude that housing commission zones don’t increase crime, they merely collect lots of criminals into one place together. Once collected, they commit roughly the same amount of crime as they would have done anyway.

    daddy dave

    January 2, 2010 at 2:51 pm

  43. in many parts of america, if you can’t afford a nice house, you get a trailer (ie mobile home). They’re really cheap, and, frankly, quite liveable. Unfortunately in Oz, this is frowned upon and discouraged, so we have to put such people into a lovely ghetto, built specially for them at great expense.

    Dave, I have friends in the military who live in a mobile home in Huntsville Alabama. They both have full time, well paid jobs and could easily afford a house in that part of US. They choose a mobile home due to the flexibility it gives them, both to move on a whim or if their employment requires it, and to allocate their income to saving for other future goals.

    Michael Sutcliffe

    January 2, 2010 at 2:59 pm

  44. Sweden has one of the lowest rates of homelessness in the world. Clear stats on homelessnness are very hard to find. There is no clear trend except that homelessness is a growing problem across the world. In the USA an incredible number of veterans are homeless. I find this repugnant, to draft people into a conflict half a world away, make all the right sounds about looking after the troops, and leaving them to rot on the streets. Reminds me of that ruckus about all the returning wounded veterans from the Saddam War being denied urgent medical treatment because of the lack of resources. The richest country in the world abandons those it recruited to defend it. Fucking disgraceful.

    John H.

    January 2, 2010 at 3:07 pm

  45. Here’s Boy On A Bike with an exploration of primary versus “secondary” homelessness, number inflation, and defining homelessness so as to get the maximum possible count.
    .

    •Boarding houses – 7626 persons, 28% of total
    •SAAP accommodation – 5110 persons, 19%
    •Friends and relatives – 10,923 persons, 40%
    •Sleeping rough – 3715 persons, 13%

    .
    plus, not having a separate lounge and kitchen is defined as “tertiary” homelessness.
    .
    Many people who are classified as homeless are not, by any plain-english understanding of the word. Those who are “sleeping rough” (ie on park benches and under bridges) are a small percentage of the total number of people who are classified as ‘homeless’.

    daddy dave

    January 2, 2010 at 3:40 pm

  46. The richest country in the world abandons those it recruited to defend it.
    .
    A standard lefty talking point, and quite beautiful in its insidiousness. The logic here is, “hey you rightwing bastards, you might not believe in an overarching welfare state, but what about a bunch of people you really respect? Don’t you wingnuts worship veterans? Think they’re God’s gift and all that? Okay then. You must agree they deserve rolled gold welfare state.”

    daddy dave

    January 2, 2010 at 3:44 pm

  47. A standard lefty talking point

    I agree, Dave. And the people who use it as a tactic are the first to spit vitriol at the military and law enforcement.

    Abu Chowdah

    January 2, 2010 at 3:47 pm

  48. No Daddy Dave, I do not demand they receive gold standard treatment. Typical libertarian trick, creating straw men. Look dude, on this lazy morning I’ve already demonstrated that libertarians assertions that public housing generates crime is not empirically founded but ideologically presumed and that rates of homelessness are not contingent on the welfare state. The only thing I’ve learnt from you lot this morning is that you don’t do your homework.

    John H.

    January 2, 2010 at 3:57 pm

  49. Heres a test for uor bleeding heart.

    How much money does a single mother with 3 kids get on the pension?

    How much do you think it should be for “justice”?

    Should it be more than a single person earning the minimum wage? (assuming full time hours)

    thefrollickingmole

    January 2, 2010 at 3:59 pm

  50. My heart don’t bleed but obviously your brain does. Stupid question.

    John H.

    January 2, 2010 at 4:47 pm

  51. Those who are “sleeping rough” (ie on park benches and under bridges) are a small percentage of the total number of people who are classified as ‘homeless’.

    That’s really freaking interesting. So the classification of homelessness has been changed to inflate the figure in order to justify more spending. So people sleeping on park bench are really few and meanwhile that moronic plibersek is spending huge licks to solve a problem that is nowhere near as bad ans made out.

    As I said early.. everything these fuckers touch (in Canberra) turns to shit. In fact the rule is that they can’t touch someone unless they fuck it up one way or another.

    JC

    January 2, 2010 at 4:52 pm

  52. I doubt very much whether a single mother with three kids is on the pension.

    Butterfield, Bloomfield & Bishop

    January 2, 2010 at 5:03 pm

  53. “Typical libertarian trick, creating straw men.”

    Let’s play meta-commentary bingo. Pick a rusted-on Leftie or Greenshirt and every time they mouth a cliched bit of ideological commentary, you quote it and write bingo! First to get to a set number wins.

    Of course, you’d need handicaps on some of the more prolific blatherers, who are serial posters and projectile vomiters of cliched stereotyping. However, you could also pretend that Cyd, Phil, peg and his other sockpuppet who says “dude” a lot are separate individuals.

    Happy New Year!

    Abu Chowdah

    January 2, 2010 at 5:04 pm

  54. Heres a test for uor bleeding heart.

    How much money does a single mother with 3 kids get on the pension?

    Is Stan Zemanek back from the dead?

    Welfare can make a contribution to this process, but it’s pretty small at best. But at worst the welfare state can destroy this process. So once the wealth is produced, it can be redistributed in a way that benefits the society as a whole and looks to the future. Or it can be redistributed in a way that doesn’t pay ongoing dividends and the wealth is just consumed and we have to start again. I support the former and you support the latter.

    This is disingenuous in the extreme. Many of the long-term welfare dependent are never going to find regular work. In a less developed country, they’d either starve, turn to crime/prostitution, or their relatives would have to seek additional employment to feed them. Many people I’ve known who’ve taken welfare benefits have been breadwinners going through a rough patch, who have abandoned the dole upon getting back into paid employment. The ‘solutions’ you suggest are all either non-solutions, or are already in existence (almost every facility for the homeless is in private, not public hands).

    So the classification of homelessness has been changed to inflate the figure in order to justify more spending

    Jc, the classification is used for the opposite purpose. There are three categories of homelessness as I understand it in Oz – sleeping rough, in emergency refuge accomm, or couch surfing. At present, public funding of the sort that makes Sutcliffe weep is only directed to the first category, and only then, to some candidates and not others. Also remember that Centrelink won’t give you money if you don’t have a fixed address to give them, so getting back on your feet isn’t as simple as being put on some welfare-dependency gravy train.

    THR

    January 2, 2010 at 5:39 pm

  55. Just to clarify, existing welfare state services for homelessness in Melbourne, for instance, are extremely minimal. Anybody who does not have children will face a wait of years for public housing. Even with kids, you’ll still wait years for accommodation that will house them properly. Emergency accommodation consists of a single, 24-hour service that covers all of Melbourne, with some additional services that cover youth, and women seeking refuge from violent situations. On a non-urgent basis, the elderly and disabled can be housed in refuges also. Almost all of the above is tendered out by government into private hands. That’s it, basically. This is the pathetically minimal public spending that some charitable and philanthropic libertarians are bitching and moaning about.

    THR

    January 2, 2010 at 5:42 pm

  56. Since my questions have been met with nit-picking and pedantry I answer them myself.
    BTW, the vast majority of my customers refer to the money they get as either their pension, or their pay, sorry if you haven’t been exposed to enough people in this position to realize that.

    How much money does a single mother with 3 kids get on the pension? Roughly speaking $1300 a fortnight

    How much do you think it should be for “justice”? Still waiting for an answer on this one

    Should it be more than a single person earning the minimum wage? (assuming full time hours) And from my first post above: To put that into perspective, a person on Australia’s minimum wage would have to work 100 hours a fortnight (at $13.47 per hour) to come close to the same amount…before tax is taken out….

    Now tell me thats moral.

    thefrollickingmole

    January 2, 2010 at 6:15 pm

  57. This is the pathetically minimal public spending that some charitable and philanthropic libertarians are bitching and moaning about.

    But you also need to explain why I am held responsible for mother with 3 kids to 15 different fathers?

    Somehow I don’t feel responsible for her or her kids in the same way I don’t feel responsible for the somalis kicking the shit out of each other.

    What moral responsibility do i have and why do you assume that is a given, THR?

    JC

    January 2, 2010 at 6:29 pm

  58. Sure, you don’t feel responsibility. Why should anybody else feel responsibility for paying police to protect your house when the kids come round to smash up your windows and steal your car? Those at the top of the food chain can act as individualist poseurs, but the fact of the matter is a vast amount of state apparatus is there to assist people like yourself in having property accrued and protected. You can hardly get sniffy about welfare and public libraries and the like.

    THR

    January 2, 2010 at 6:36 pm

  59. And since you reference Melboure as being particularly bad lets look at some of the State governments figures

    According to figures collected by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, in 2001 there were 20,305 homeless people in Victoria. Melbourne social scientists Chris Chamberlain, of RMIT University, and David MacKenzie, of Swinburne University, produced a report from the census and their own research. They found that:

    ..
    ..
    Not all homeless live on the streets. Of the total, 40 percent were staying with friends or relatives, 25 percent were staying in a supported accommodation service (new window), 26 percent were staying in boarding houses and 9 percent were sleeping outside

    (a lot more stats from that site here: http://www.youthcentral.vic.gov.au/Housing+%26+Accommodation/Homelessness/

    A list of support groups of various sorts in Victoria here: http://www.community.gov.au/Internet/MFMC/community.nsf/pages/section?opendocument&Section=Outreach

    Funny how a lot of them are non government which actualy offer housing eh? Damn those self serving philanthopists!

    According to their criteria I was officaly homeless for about 10 years while I was shearing, living in tin sheds and temporary accomodation, no permanent abode…

    thefrollickingmole

    January 2, 2010 at 6:39 pm

  60. THR:

    You can’t put together welfare spending and policing and suggest they are comparable things.

    Policing is to protect ourselves and each other.

    Welfare imputes an obligation on me to take care of other people’s problems.

    They aren’t the same thing. I’m actually not begrudging a certain amount of welfare however moving it from an obligation under sufferance to something these days resembling a right is a little tricky as I don’t feel any moral obligation to other people.

    You may not like what I’m saying but that is the basic libertarian position and it’s actually a philosophically reasonable position. In other words we don’t owe strangers even the steam from our pea if we choose not to and it has no moral basis other than the state compelling me to distribute money to others otherwise I will be jailed.

    JC

    January 2, 2010 at 6:44 pm

  61. Those at the top of the food chain can act as individualist poseurs, but the fact of the matter is a vast amount of state apparatus is there to assist people like yourself in having property accrued and protected. You can hardly get sniffy about welfare and public libraries and the like.

    Standard left-wing drivel with the typical left wing approach of taking an inch of fact and stretching it to a mile of crap.

    Property rights can be determined by reason to be required for human existence and any peaceful society. There is an unquestionable argument that property rights need to be enshrined for civil society to exist. There is a reasonable argument for taxation to protect these rights to ensure they are universal. The argument for publicly funded libraries is nowhere near this strong and left-wingers are being dishonest when they put stuff like this in the same category as public defence of property rights.

    Michael Sutcliffe

    January 2, 2010 at 6:50 pm

  62. I see JC beat me to it. Touché.

    Michael Sutcliffe

    January 2, 2010 at 6:51 pm

  63. THR

    The Mole is basically showing that the figures are nowhere near as bad as what the atrociously dumb Plibersek suggests.

    I honestly can’t see the problem with living with friends or rels during a period of hard times. Why should the state go to great expense to house these people when they’re already housed?

    Yet we go spending billions on what really appears to be a non existent problem or a problem made worse by inflated categorization. Or we could be providing rolls Royces to people when a plain Kingswood would do fine.

    JC

    January 2, 2010 at 6:51 pm

  64. And since you reference Melboure as being particularly bad lets look at some of the State governments figures

    I didn’t mean to imply that Melbourne was particularly bad, merely that the mythical gravy train was particularly minimal.

    There are more recent figures on homelessness:

    http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Latestproducts/2050.0Media%20Release12006?opendocument&tabname=Summary&prodno=2050.0&issue=2006&num=&view=

    Nobody is denying that the ABS constructs different classifications of homelessness. My point is that staying on a friend’s couch won’t get you public housing or emergency accommodation. So the actual extent of homelessness is hidden by the couch surfers ineligible for services.

    Funny how a lot of them are non government which actualy offer housing eh? Damn those self serving philanthopists!

    They’re not philanthropists, doofus, they’re NGOs who receive funding directly from government to provide a service.

    According to their criteria I was officaly homeless for about 10 years while I was shearing, living in tin sheds and temporary accomodation, no permanent abode…

    No, actually, you don’t meet their criteria. Nonetheless, what you’re confirming for us is what I’ve long suspected, and that rightist opposition to welfare stems mostly from base and ignoble passions such as envy, or ressentiment, in Nietzschean terms.

    THR

    January 2, 2010 at 6:53 pm

  65. Nope, that’s the leftist motivation, THR. How come I can leave the rich alone but you can’t?

    Michael Sutcliffe

    January 2, 2010 at 6:56 pm

  66. THR

    Now your just being silly. How did people preserve life and property before the current (bloated and overreaching) apparatus was put in place?

    thefrollickingmole

    January 2, 2010 at 6:57 pm

  67. You can’t put together welfare spending and policing and suggest they are comparable things

    Why not? I can guarantee you that police coverage is more extensive in Camberwell than in Frankston or Werribee, and why should I be footing the bill for Tory scum to sleep soundly at night?

    You may not like what I’m saying but that is the basic libertarian position and it’s actually a philosophically reasonable position.

    It’s coherent, not reasonable, and it’s part of the reason why libertarians will continue to attract a small vote, at least, until they learn to bullshit more about their agenda. Let’s not forget the billions that employers skim from unpaid workers’ wages in Australia. Those at the top of the food chain get plenty of ‘welfare’, and they have no right to deny it to others. If they don’t like, they can move to ‘anarcho-capitalist’ Somalia.

    THR

    January 2, 2010 at 6:58 pm

  68. THR: Hmm lets see, sleeping in different places every couple of weeks, on a swag, in a tin shed. No air con, no windows (unless you count shutters), communal meals, restricted water (many places), limited electricity (some still 32 volt), often sleeping in the ute between sheds.

    Yup your right, it wasnt anything like the criteria…

    But I might add living like that for 10 years set me up well for the next 20.

    thefrollickingmole

    January 2, 2010 at 7:03 pm

  69. I can guarantee you that police coverage is more extensive in Camberwell than in Frankston or Werribee, and why should I be footing the bill for Tory scum to sleep soundly at night?

    I agree this exists. You shouldn’t, and it’s wrong. This needs to change, just as the rich paying a disproportionate amount of taxes needs to change. It’s wrong.

    It’s coherent, not reasonable

    Well you need to prove why it’s not reasonable through reason, not emotions. I’m still waiting and it’s been a long time. This is simply not a rational, defendable statement, even if I can sort of see what you are getting at: ‘Those at the top of the food chain get plenty of ‘welfare’, and they have no right to deny it to others’. You cannot present a realistic argument with this.

    If they don’t like, they can move to ‘anarcho-capitalist’ Somalia.

    Why should they? It’s their values that made this country great. It’s the lack of those values that made Somalia what it is. They have a right to the fruits of their labours, just as anyone does.

    Michael Sutcliffe

    January 2, 2010 at 7:03 pm

  70. Property rights can be determined by reason to be required for human existence and any peaceful society.

    What reason? Ayn Rand’s

    /snigger

    Why should the state go to great expense to house these people when they’re already housed?

    The state doesn’t. That’s been my point all along. Only a tiny fraction of those defined as homeless by the ABS get any service, and to the extent that they get a service, it’s generally minimal.

    How come I can leave the rich alone but you can’t?

    I can leave the rich alone. If you’re serious about libertarianism, abandon welfare and protection for the rich, and remove the wage theft and rent-seeking of much of the parasite classes, and lefties like me will happily leave them alone.

    THR

    January 2, 2010 at 7:03 pm

  71. as I don’t feel any moral obligation to other people.

    That is actually a symptom of sociopathy. Get real JC, do you honestly expect me to believe that you have no compassion, that you don’t give a damn about other people and only help as a matter of “rational decision making”? And forget the reasonable philosophical position bullshit. Libertarian ideas about society and human nature are still stuck in the 19th century. Can’t be a reasonable philosophical position when your anthropology is totally fucked.

    ——

    Sure is easy to study when living in someone’s shed. Sure is easy to have a semblence of a normal life when you can’t invite your friends over to your home. Sure it is easy to hold down a regular job when you don’t have a car and have to move every few weeks because your friends want you to move on. These stupid statements about such arrangements not have potentially serious impacts on a person’s future prospects is just more libertarian rationalising bullshit.

    John H.

    January 2, 2010 at 7:04 pm

  72. Why not? I can guarantee you that police coverage is more extensive in Camberwell than in Frankston or Werribee, and why should I be footing the bill for Tory scum to sleep soundly at night?

    Is it really the case under a labor government?

    It’s coherent, not reasonable, and it’s part of the reason why libertarians will continue to attract a small vote, at least, until they learn to bullshit more about their agenda.

    There’s no need to bullshit as eventually it will have to come to that anyway as the welfare state will go bankrupt just like other socialist rackets. Europe will go broke in the 20’s and perhaps the US and Australia will go broke a decade or two after.

    The welfare state was always anchored as a Ponzi scheme with more people coming in at the bottom of the pyramid. Once the population turns the other way the pyramid flips upside down.

    Greece is a pointer to where things will end for most of Europe.

    Let’s not forget the billions that employers skim from unpaid workers’ wages in Australia.

    What skimming. I don’t understand.

    Those at the top of the food chain get plenty of ‘welfare’, and they have no right to deny it to others. If they don’t like, they can move to ‘anarcho-capitalist’ Somalia.

    What welfare is that?

    JC

    January 2, 2010 at 7:06 pm

  73. What reason? Ayn Rand’s

    /snigger

    Yep. That’s the same reason you and I are arguing here. Start with Aristotle and work up. Do you deny it exists or are you just being an idiot?

    If you’re serious about libertarianism, abandon welfare and protection for the rich, and remove the wage theft and rent-seeking of much of the parasite classes, and lefties like me will happily leave them alone.

    I don’t support protection for the rich above what they for through their taxes, but should also have the right to pay for extra private services or to own a gun, or do whatever is required to secure rightful ownership of their property and their own security.

    As for‘wage theft and rent-seeking’, this isn’t very specific and I suspect your definition of these terms might be a little more emotional and little less rational.

    Michael Sutcliffe

    January 2, 2010 at 7:08 pm

  74. “How did people preserve life and property before the current (bloated and overreaching) apparatus was put in place?”

    For the most part, they didn’t. The rich looked after themselves, and left it to charity, most via the Church to tend the flock of poor. They did a pretty good job lots of the time, but being (especially urban) poor meant poor nutrition, high infant mortality, zero medical attention, disease etc. To break out you didn’t just have to work hard and be very smart, you had to be lucky too. These days, a real chance of giving a better life to your kids is there for nearly anyone. The exception being the mentally ill, intellectually/physically disabled and chronically addicted – for whom the options prior to a welfare state were basically to beg and then die.

    FDB

    January 2, 2010 at 7:11 pm

  75. “wage theft”, let me guess, my employee who is earning $700.00 pw, is being ruthlessly exploited by myself who has made a grand total of $7000.00 out of my business in the last year….

    Ive only made $7000.00 to cover costs, the rest is going back into the business, at what level of income am I causing “wage theft” rather than paying my employee above award rates?

    Socialism is dead, its the theory of how to fail, repeatedly, without exception.

    thefrollickingmole

    January 2, 2010 at 7:12 pm

  76. thefrollickingmole you are confusing some sort of benefit a single woman is getting, you cannot say what it is , with family tax benefits.
    The age of the children would be pertinent.

    A single woman might even have to show why she cannot work depending on the benefit which you haven’t yet defined.

    There is alsos the case of the father having to pay maintenance as well.

    Butterfield, Bloomfield & Bishop

    January 2, 2010 at 7:13 pm

  77. Libertarian ideas about society and human nature are still stuck in the 19th century.

    These ideas might be a few hundred years old, but they are still the best ideas humanity has to this point. If we’re going to move beyond them we need to first start putting them into place more thoroughly and properly than we are doing now. Post Enlightenment ideas are still butting heads with socialists, collectivists, religious people, conservative traditionalists, anarchists, etc etc etc. So developing these ideas and taking them to the next level in the real world, for example, to demonstrate that THR’s fears that there’ll be all these poor people who will most certainly starve in the gutter isn’t true, is an uphill battle and it will take a while. The one good thing that we have going for us is that all the other approaches like socialism are shitful and will fail every time.

    Michael Sutcliffe

    January 2, 2010 at 7:18 pm

  78. Is it really the case under a labor government?

    Do you seriously believe that ALP governments look out for the poor? They simply exploit them less intensely than the Coalition.

    There’s no need to bullshit as eventually it will have to come to that anyway as the welfare state will go bankrupt just like other socialist rackets.

    Please. The glory period for capitalism was from post-WWII to the 1970s. If nations go broke, it’s because ‘welfare’ is being doled out to the failures in the finance industry before anybody else.

    What skimming. I don’t understand.

    This site had a discussion recently, wherein most commenters wholeheartedly approved of the fact that Australian employers skim billions of dollars of unpaid overtime from workers.

    THR

    January 2, 2010 at 7:19 pm

  79. These ideas might be a few hundred years old, but they are still the best ideas humanity has to this point.

    Crap, go read Festinger, Pinker, Le Doux, Andreasen, Kandel…. . How do you know libertarian ideas are the best there is on human nature. How bloody arrogant is that proclamation. Why don’t you just create the Church of Libertarianism and put a big dollar sign at the top of it.

    Strike 3 for me. In One day I have thrice demonstrated that libertarians are doctrinaire ideologues who don’t do their homework.

    John H.

    January 2, 2010 at 7:26 pm

  80. “These ideas might be a few hundred years old, but they are still the best ideas humanity has to this point.”

    Heh. Now your opinions aren’t even masquerading as argument any more.

    “If we’re going to move beyond them we need to first start putting them into place more thoroughly and properly than we are doing now.”

    Moving beyond them is precisely what we’ve been doing for a century or more.

    FDB

    January 2, 2010 at 7:31 pm

  81. Strike 3 for me. In One day I have thrice demonstrated that libertarians are doctrinaire ideologues who don’t do their homework.

    John, being right is like being powerful. If you have to tell people you are, you aren’t.

    Crap, go read Festinger, Pinker, Le Doux, Andreasen, Kandel…. . How do you know libertarian ideas are the best there is on human nature.

    They’re rational, they are supported by empirical evidence, and when they’re put up no one can defeat them. You can dislike them, think they’re ugly, say how they remove the humanity from everyone, but you don’t have a rational argument to prove them wrong. Regardless of what nuances of human behaviour a social theorist may point out, humanity survives, and fails or prospers, by the application of reason. Hence, regardless of what you personally choose to believe regarding human nature, these post-Enlightenment ideas need to form the basis of any political and social system if we are going to have a civil society, let alone one achieving it’s full potential.

    Michael Sutcliffe

    January 2, 2010 at 7:33 pm

  82. FDB: Moving beyond them is precisely what we’ve been doing for a century or more.

    THR: Please. The glory period for capitalism was from post-WWII to the 1970s. If nations go broke, it’s because ‘welfare’ is being doled out to the failures in the finance industry before anybody else.

    Seems to be some sort of conflict with the lefties here. And THR doesn’t seem all that sure what we’ve on to, in that he’s talking of welfare systems making nations go broke. Maybe FDB could point it out?

    Michael Sutcliffe

    January 2, 2010 at 7:35 pm

  83. FDB, THR, John H, in the broadest sense what post-Enlightenment ideas don’t you like. By that I mean, democratic government, the idea of the individual as the essential basic building block of society, the idea of separation of church and state, the application of reason as the only justifiable means of making decisions etc. Just give me a couple of pointers in the broader sense where post-Enlightenment ideas are wrong?

    Michael Sutcliffe

    January 2, 2010 at 7:40 pm

  84. Butterfield, Bloomfield & Bishop

    For the benefit of the deliberately obtuse.

    The ladies were generaly on this http://www.centrelink.gov.au/internet/internet.nsf/payments/parenting_rates.htm

    and this http://www.centrelink.gov.au/internet/internet.nsf/payments/ftb_b_rates.htm

    Thaken together most of my clients refer to it as a PENSION, or their PAY. Neither is technicaly correct, but for ease of use I call it what they call it.

    Very few of the ladies are recieving any maitenance from an ex. Either because they dont know whos the father, or because the bloke has convinced her to leave his name off the birth certificate. (quite common).
    The few who are recieving money from a partner are generaly recieving sums of around $30.00 per fortnight from their dole money.

    The effect of sit down money is the same on the unemployed as it is on the sons and daughters of the feckless super-rich. It is corrosive, often leads to substance abuse and misery. The only change is the rich ones do it with coke and champagne, while the poor do it with speed and VB.

    thefrollickingmole

    January 2, 2010 at 7:42 pm

  85. Capitalism as practiced in the real world in the 20th century was not identical even with classical liberalism, let alone libertarianism.

    And what’s the biggest difference? Welfare – corporate and individual, paid for with taxation revenue.

    It was long ago recognised by any sensible rightwinger that putting libertarian ideas into the mix of actual policy formation by actual governments requires compromise between good ideas, any of which taken to an extreme are unworkable. Some of those ideas might even come from Teh Left (horrors!), and some might even smell a little bit like socialism. Hold your nose and get over it, crybaby.

    FDB

    January 2, 2010 at 7:44 pm

  86. FDB, I don’t disagree with any of that. But my problem is you guys will meddle to the extent that you actually corrupt the good aspects of these ideas, and then try to argue that they don’t form the basis of the whole system, based on your own personal left-wing biases. You’re wrong, baby, they do form the basis of everything even if they shouldn’t be taken to extremes.

    Michael Sutcliffe

    January 2, 2010 at 7:48 pm

  87. “You’re wrong, baby, they do form the basis of everything even if they shouldn’t be taken to extremes.”

    I thought we’d established that libertarian ideology does not form the basis of any welfare system. And welfare systems are desirable to the vast majority of people. And for those opposed, opposition lasts only as long as they require no assistance themselves.

    So you see, libertarian ideas are not the be all end all you’re making them out to be.

    FDB

    January 2, 2010 at 7:58 pm

  88. You see, wealth needs to be produced before it can be redistributed, so these ideas need to be put in place first. You want to put the cart before the horse. And how should we decide how much welfare should be provided and what form it should take? We’ve put this question to socialists but their ideas don’t seem to have worked. I think we should look to developing post-Enlightenment ideas to the next level to answer these questions. You can make an argument for human and social capital, that doesn’t conflict with anything I’m saying. And of course, there’s the other little fact that capitalism has done more to increase the living standards of the poor than anything else, even before we start to develop these ideas to the next level.

    Milton Friedman might be branded as a brutal damn-the-poor free markets guy, but the negative income tax system is his idea. That’s a form of welfare and way of developing social capital. But before we can put stuff like that in place we need to ensure the supporting markets are working, and people like you aren’t going to obstruct it.

    Michael Sutcliffe

    January 2, 2010 at 8:08 pm

  89. FDB

    What I think you will find people object to is never ending welfare.
    There are those whom that should be the norm (disabled,long term illness etc.). But why in any system would it be considered acceptable for a person to go through the vast majority of their life without contributing to their own upkeep.

    The left lump “welfare” together to make questions like that more difficult to ask. Is there a good reason not to start to wind back unemployment benefits after (say) 12 weeks?

    thefrollickingmole

    January 2, 2010 at 8:10 pm

  90. By that I mean, democratic government, the idea of the individual as the essential basic building block of society, the idea of separation of church and state, the application of reason as the only justifiable means of making decisions etc. Just give me a couple of pointers in the broader sense where post-Enlightenment ideas are wrong?

    Let’s start with ‘classic liberalism’ before we get onto the entire Enlightenment, shall we?

    First, your ontology and epistemology are all wrong. Your ‘individual’ does not exist, ontologically speaking. I think that’s at the heart of the problem. You think capitalists make money because their daring innovators, and got there all by themselves. In reality, they don’t get there alone any more than children reach adulthood safely in the absence of parenting. There is no ‘worldless subject’ except in the minds of liberal ideologues…consequently, if you have a world, you also, of necessity, have to deal with the people in it. And that’s where libertarian begins to go wrong.

    If we undertake an analysis of wealth, I think you’ll find that, far from some Randian heroism among shopkeepers, you might find that almost all of it came from theft, either by colonial swindling or industrial exploitation. The ‘individual’ of liberalism – autonomous, rational, self-contained, and driven to do their best by competition – does not exist, and all the presuppositions underpinning this construction are nothing other than ideological hot air. For this reason, liberalism has ever but been on the side of industrial exploiters and warmongers. Historically, liberals were as racist as the most degenerate Tory.

    In short, none of the assumptions that underpin libertarianism and free enterprise actually obtain in real life, and the evidence for this (and it’s massive in its degree) is both logical and empirical.

    Finally, you cannot be both a Randian and a Nietzschean, philosophically speaking. And to be a Randian is an involuntary confession of personal idiocy. Do us a favour and read a real philosopher.

    THR

    January 2, 2010 at 8:13 pm

  91. Is there a good reason not to start to wind back unemployment benefits after (say) 12 weeks?

    Yes. Suitable jobs can’t always be found within 12 weeks.

    You see, wealth needs to be produced before it can be redistributed, so these ideas need to be put in place first.

    This is part of the myth. Where does this wealth come from? In the world of libertarians, James Packer and Lachlan Murdoch are rugged individualist geniuses who shouldn’t be penalised for (ahem) their cleverness and hard work. This ignores, of course, the many instances in which wealth is distributed to the wealthy.

    We’ve put this question to socialists but their ideas don’t seem to have worked.

    Not true. I’ve said it 57 times already, but almost all of the key demands of the Communist Manifesto have been in place in the developed world for decades. The things the developed world has fucked up (like the recent financial crisis) did not emanate from ‘socialism’. If you were serious about being post-enlightenment, then surely you’d advance beyond the decrepit individualism of the early 19th century bourgeois. That philosophy was suited to another time and place.

    THR

    January 2, 2010 at 8:19 pm

  92. That only leaves you with the question of is it acceptable for people to stay on welfare for decades rather than take low paid work?

    thefrollickingmole

    January 2, 2010 at 8:25 pm

  93. Where does this wealth come from?
    .
    It is possible for wealth to be created, out of thin air, and also for it to be destroyed, back into thin air. There’s not a fixed amount of wealth.

    daddy dave

    January 2, 2010 at 8:38 pm

  94. Your ‘individual’ does not exist, ontologically speaking…….. if you have a world, you also, of necessity, have to deal with the people in it. And that’s where libertarian begins to go wrong.

    Firstly, if my needs are not being met as an individual there’s going to be issue. You can’t have peace in society if you’re not doing that regardless of how you may preach to about the ‘common good’ and the need to subvert the individual to it. Secondly, I pursue greater happiness as an individual and despite our common humanity, your happiness is not the same as mine. Thirdly, the fact there are other people in the world and I have to deal with them doesn’t detract from anything. a) When I deal with other people I deal with them as one individual to another and b) when I deal with other people I don’t have to deal with them as another rational individual with rights. I can choose to steal from them, exploit them or kill them for my own entertainment. I can treat them with compassion or as an object in the way of my goals. If you devalue their individuality, then not treating them as a rational, decent human beings becomes more acceptable, and you devalue their lives. If you devalue people’s lives as individuals you can’t expect peace or civil society.

    If we undertake an analysis of wealth, I think you’ll find that, far from some Randian heroism among shopkeepers, you might find that almost all of it came from theft, either by colonial swindling or industrial exploitation.

    Regardless of how you want to ‘negatively romanticise’ wealth creation, all of it came from production. By that I mean the application of human intellect and labour. Regardless of your fears of colonialism or the fact that workers get paid less than bosses, if you don’t hold productive behaviour as a virtue then you don’t value human life. That’s how humanity got out of the mud and reached the stars. That’s how humanity, or lots of it, stopped dying at 25 after they’d produced offspring as nature intended.

    The ‘individual’ of liberalism – autonomous, rational, self-contained, and driven to do their best by competition – does not exist, and all the presuppositions underpinning this construction are nothing other than ideological hot air.

    If humanity did not have an overbearing nature of autonomous rationality and a desire to win the competition for survival they would not exist. This rationality and a desire to improve their lot in life is how humans survive and prosper. We don’t live by instinct. Despite our social nature, we don’t survive as a pack animal. We live through reason. If you weren’t rational you would see a bus coming and just step in front of it, but you don’t do that, do you?

    Finally, you cannot be both a Randian and a Nietzschean, philosophically speaking. And to be a Randian is an involuntary confession of personal idiocy. Do us a favour and read a real philosopher.

    I’m not a Nietzschean. You seem to forget that you don’t have any answers and history is not in your favour. You’ve read a lot of different thinkers, and some of them appeal to you, but you don’t have a complete philosophy. Until you do, or at least you can prove what you do have works, you really don’t have an argument.

    Michael Sutcliffe

    January 2, 2010 at 8:39 pm

  95. That only leaves you with the question of is it acceptable for people to stay on welfare for decades rather than take low paid work?

    Who is seriously advocating this? I’d have thought that many employers would view a resume with suspicion if its owner has been out of work for more than 12 months. Of the persistently unemployed, my suspicion is that few are genuine bludgers, and most have chronic problems with mental health or whatever.

    THR

    January 2, 2010 at 8:40 pm

  96. This is part of the myth. Where does this wealth come from? In the world of libertarians, James Packer and Lachlan Murdoch are rugged individualist geniuses who shouldn’t be penalised for (ahem) their cleverness and hard work. This ignores, of course, the many instances in which wealth is distributed to the wealthy.

    No that’s not true. Neither of those guys have created much wealth, and perhaps have destroyed lots of it. Kerry Packer is probably more of the rugged individualist; even though he inherited a lot of wealth he took it to the next level.

    Why don’t you tell me, THR, where does wealth come from? What is it, how much wealth does something have, and how is it created?

    The things the developed world has fucked up (like the recent financial crisis) did not emanate from ’socialism’.

    Garbage. Why did organisations like Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac continue to exist despite a number of people highlighting the risk to Congress? Why does financial risk not get priced appropriately? Why do too many American consumers feel OK to spend 110% of their incomes on consumer goods? Why is more spend on American healthcare than needs to be to maintain the standards other developed countries consider OK? These are all the actions of socialists. You know where I said to FDB that my fear is you guys meddle so much that you corrupt the good in post-Enlightenment ideas. This is it.

    Michael Sutcliffe

    January 2, 2010 at 8:48 pm

  97. Of the persistently unemployed, my suspicion is that few are genuine bludgers, and most have chronic problems with mental health or whatever.
    .
    both. except that “bludger” implies an intentional act, as if they decided one day to rort the system. That’s not right, in most cases. Instead, it’s a situation that people float into or fall into. With nothing to propel them out, they stay there. Inertia sets in. They muddle along from day to day like the rest of us, and don’t really think about it too deeply.

    daddy dave

    January 2, 2010 at 8:52 pm

  98. Why don’t you tell me, THR, where does wealth come from? What is it, how much wealth does something have, and how is it created?
    .
    That’s a very good series of questions to ask anyone of a socialist persuasion.

    daddy dave

    January 2, 2010 at 8:57 pm

  99. THR

    Stated goal or not, thats been the outcome of open ended welfare.
    I can point to dozens of people fitting that criteria, many who have been quietly shuffled onto disability payments on the flimsiest pretenses.

    Heres another for you. Welfare pays for a man to drink himself into delirium, at that point welfare places the man onto disability payments to continue this. At what stage is the payment of the welfare going from serving society, to actively harming it, and this man?

    Mental health, oh so you want to mix the types of welfare recipients again rather than deal with one group.. How…evasive of you.

    thefrollickingmole

    January 2, 2010 at 8:57 pm

  100. If we undertake an analysis of wealth, I think you’ll find that, far from some Randian heroism among shopkeepers, you might find that almost all of it came from theft, either by colonial swindling or industrial exploitation.

    Really? I’d love to see the precise figures. Have you done the breakdown on this? (Rhetorical question – of course you haven’t – there isn’t the slightest piece of evidence for the contention that “almost all” wealth is stolen, and should presumably be stolen back)

    Michael Fisk

    January 2, 2010 at 9:09 pm

  101. Hey, THR, don’t take it all the wrong way. Have a great Saturday night and look after that bub of yours!

    Michael Sutcliffe

    January 2, 2010 at 9:15 pm

  102. I second that.

    daddy dave

    January 2, 2010 at 9:27 pm

  103. If humanity did not have an overbearing nature of autonomous rationality and a desire to win the competition for survival they would not exist. This rationality and a desire to improve their lot in life is how humans survive and prosper. We don’t live by instinct. Despite our social nature, we don’t survive as a pack animal. We live through reason. If you weren’t rational you would see a bus coming and just step in front of it, but you don’t do that, do you?

    I agree, we’re not pack animals (mostly). On the other hand, take reason and rationality – you have rationality of process (the use of logic, etc) and rationality of purpose (for instance, the person dodging a bus isn’t using syllogisms to avoid it, but nonetheless is seeking a rational outcome, in a manner of speaking). Humans almost never use the first kind of logic, and the second , more common kind is used only sparingly, and with the input of a good deal that is strictly irrational. The neuroscientists like Damasion, or LeDoux, cited by John above, have amassed considerable evidence to this effect, as have the psychologists and psychoanalysts.

    Why did organisations like Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac continue to exist despite a number of people highlighting the risk to Congress? Why does financial risk not get priced appropriately?</i

    In this instance, risk was wilfully misdiagnosed. It’s a limitation of the system, but not a specifically socialist one.

    Why do too many American consumers feel OK to spend 110% of their incomes on consumer goods?

    This requires a longer answer than I can give, but I think monetary policy has a lot to do with it.

    Why is more spend on American healthcare than needs to be to maintain the standards other developed countries consider OK?

    One-third of US health costs are on admin. These are private bureaucracies we’re talking about. Again, I don’t see how socialism can be blamed for this.

    As for the Enlightenment – most socialists would see themselves as part of the Enlightenment tradition. This is partly why socialists have often quarreled with the postmodernist left. Conservatism was the philosophy for the feudal lords, liberalism the philosophy of early industrialism, and something else needs to be sought as the philosophy of the future.

    Why don’t you tell me, THR, where does wealth come from?

    It’s a big question, and I’ll need to take a break tonight before I get around to answering it, but keep it in mind, and hopefully we can come back to it. I don’t agree with dave that it can emerge from ‘thin air’ (though money creation can emerge from thin air).

    THR

    January 2, 2010 at 9:52 pm

  104. Mental health, oh so you want to mix the types of welfare recipients again rather than deal with one group.. How…evasive of you.

    First up, the dole isn’t all that much. Assuming you’re not rorting the system, you’re hardly living the high life if you’re on the dole. Secondly, I think it a reasonable goal of all members of society to seek greater wealth for less work. Obviously, this won’t happen if everybody is on welfare. But from what I’ve seen, the long-term unemployed are not potential workers deferring work – they’re outsiders for whom welfare is deferring a life of crime or destitution. Stories about dole bludgers make for great stories on the current affairs shows, but where is the evidence that any of this is a serious problem?

    THR

    January 2, 2010 at 9:57 pm

  105. (Rhetorical question – of course you haven’t – there isn’t the slightest piece of evidence for the contention that “almost all” wealth is stolen, and should presumably be stolen back)

    Actually, there’s ample historical evidence, on every continent. Not to mention the wealth accrued by a social class that fights very hard to retain its privileges. Fisk would rather believe that James Packer and Lachlan Murdoch are rich because they personally are geniuses and warriors of liberty.

    Anyway, it’s break time. It’s been a good, ‘robust’ debate, as the pollies say…

    THR

    January 2, 2010 at 9:59 pm

  106. having lots of kids on welfare is pretty exploitive. i can understand if you were able to support your kids but lost your job or ran into some other bad luck. but if you are popping out kids while you are on welfare then you are exploiting the system.

    drscroogemcduck

    January 2, 2010 at 10:10 pm

  107. It’s good to see the free market warriors reverting to type, that is demonising some of the most underprivileged members of society.

    That homeless people should be happy that families should be happy to crash in a friends lounge-room for an indefinite period because they are somehow too lazy to obtain private rental accommodation is simply too stupid for words.

    One of the best of the government initiatives in my opinion was the money set aside for public housing. It’s a pity Rudd ripped money out of the program to channel it into his largely wasteful school facilities building program.

    The demonising of single mothers is also telling. Suggesting that a large portion of these women are somehow bludging off the system speaks of what can only be the result of a very limited life experience. That the majority of single mothers are somehow ripping off the system sounds like the fantasies of the small dick men’s groups. Those same groups who advocate their small dick members avoid their responsibilities to their children.

    sdfc

    January 2, 2010 at 10:27 pm

  108. “That homeless people should be happy that families should be happy to crash.”

    Let’s just make that homeless families.

    sdfc

    January 2, 2010 at 10:32 pm

  109. That homeless people should be happy that families should be happy to crash in a friends lounge-room for an indefinite period because they are somehow too lazy to obtain private rental accommodation is simply too stupid for words.
    .
    who argued that? You’re putting words into the mouths of others then accusing them of saying something stupid!
    .
    The demonising of single mothers is also telling.
    .
    One commenter, thefrollickingmole, suggested that single mums get paid too much. There wasn’t much discussion of the point beyond that. In short, I disagree that single mothers have been “demonised” here or even that they have been the focus of discussion.
    .
    Those same groups who advocate their small dick members avoid their responsibilities to their children.
    .
    Can you point to one instance of someone here advocating the abdication of responsibilities toward children?
    Clearly you have nothing intelligent to say or you would have said it. Your contribution is insult and abuse. ie you have no contribution to make at all.

    daddy dave

    January 2, 2010 at 11:04 pm

  110. It’s good to see the free market warriors reverting to type, that is demonising some of the most underprivileged members of society.

    an example of that would be appreciated.

    One of the best of the government initiatives in my opinion was the money set aside for public housing. It’s a pity Rudd ripped money out of the program to channel it into his largely wasteful school facilities building program.

    That’s funny, it was only the other day that you were agreeing with people here that stimulus spending should only go to assets that add to the productive capacity of the country. Now you’re saying you wanted to turn it into another welfare initiative but this time without an end date.

    SDFC, do you make things up as you go along.

    The demonising of single mothers is also telling.

    No, you’re wrong what shitty is you demonizing people who haven’t demonized anyone else.

    Suggesting that a large portion of these women are somehow bludging off the system speaks of what can only be the result of a very limited life experience.

    Except no one has suggested that.

    That the majority of single mothers are somehow ripping off the system sounds like the fantasies of the small dick men’s groups. Those same groups who advocate their small dick members avoid their responsibilities to their children.

    You’re now entering homer territory in not making sense at all.

    JC

    January 2, 2010 at 11:19 pm

  111. John H
    Earlier I said:
    as I don’t feel any moral obligation to other people.

    Then JohnH said:
    That is actually a symptom of sociopathy. Get real JC, do you honestly expect me to believe that you have no compassion, that you don’t give a damn about other people and only help as a matter of “rational decision making”?

    Except you’re not reading it right JohnH. I didn’t say I didn’t have any compassion as I have lots of compassion for the not so well off. In fact I have enough compassion to lop off 5% of my gross (not net, gross) income each year and donate it to charities I choose. I’ve done this for almost 20 years now. I have decided over the past 18 months to send most of that money to overseas charities because the government here has told us it wants to spend more on welfare, so I’m figuring there are more needy people elsewhere in the world than there is here and I can get a better bang for my buck elsewhere. Frankly these clowns in government and the people that voted for them don’t really inspire me much at the moment. Swan has “uninspired” me even less with his recent fascist demand that we need to pay more taxes, as it’s our patriotic duty. So from this year on I will not be giving anything here in Australia.

    I stand by my previous comment that I am under no moral obligation to other people in the same way that I feel no moral obligation to Somalis. Again that doesn’t mean I don’t have compassion.

    And forget the reasonable philosophical position bullshit. Libertarian ideas about society and human nature are still stuck in the 19th century. Can’t be a reasonable philosophical position when your anthropology is totally fucked.

    That’s really not true. Charity in terms of relative wealth was really doing great things in the 19th century and a little later until the state decided to take over that role. And please, don’t come up with some excuse about how hard things were at the time: they were for most people.

    JC

    January 2, 2010 at 11:53 pm

  112. Fisk would rather believe that James Packer and Lachlan Murdoch are rich because they personally are geniuses and warriors of liberty.

    No, that’s not really the point though is it. They aren’t geniuses, certainly Packer doesn’t appear to be and is possibly the opposite, however you’re alluding to the idea that the state ought be the final arbiter on who is rich and that’s somehting no libertarian will agree to. The damage done in the past by death taxes shows us that raising it is simply not worth it. It’s also a tax on capital which is the most damaging sort of tax.

    Furthermore I would add that wealth is a relative thing. If you think Packer and Murdoch shouldn’t have inherited wealth because it’s an accident of birth then how would you compare the average Australian to the average person living in Malawi.

    Isn’t that an accident of birth to? Aren’t average Australians unimaginably wealthy compared to those people. So how exactly do you square the circle of say advocating the expropriation of the Packer and Murdoch money and redistributing to the needy then stopping there while Malawians live on a few cents a day?

    That’s the problem with leftwing thinking. It’s hardly ever logical.

    JC

    January 3, 2010 at 12:10 am

  113. Actually, there’s ample historical evidence, on every continent. Not to mention the wealth accrued by a social class that fights very hard to retain its privileges. Fisk would rather believe that James Packer and Lachlan Murdoch are rich because they personally are geniuses and warriors of liberty.

    Just to recap, your original claim was that “almost all” wealth had been stolen in some way. You have provided zero evidence for this claim, except to reassert it in its essential form. This isn’t acceptable, I’m afraid.

    Here’s a test for the Marxists here. In 2007, total household wealth in Australia was $5.046 trillion* (of which James Packer accounted for about 0.15%). What percentage of that figure was “stolen”?

    *http://www.treasury.gov.au/documents/1352/PDF/04_Household_net_worth.pdf

    Michael Fisk

    January 3, 2010 at 3:52 am

  114. So how exactly do you square the circle of say advocating the expropriation of the Packer and Murdoch money and redistributing to the needy then stopping there while Malawians live on a few cents a day?

    The point, JC, is that Leftists don’t stop there. They are totally on board with expropriating almost all of the wealth of middle class Australians (on specious grounds that it was “stolen”) and giving it to Robert Mugabe, Hugo Chavez, and friends. But for some reason they don’t advocate that all Arabs should be expelled from North Africa and have their wealth forcibly transferred to Greeks, Berbers, Nubians, etc. So obviously this isn’t about “historical justice”. It’s a campaign targeted specifically against the West, for which the hypocritical, unprovable claims of “stolen wealth” are a rationale.

    Michael Fisk

    January 3, 2010 at 3:56 am

  115. THR
    Heres another real life puzzle for you.

    One person leaves school and begins a life of serial fatherhood, impregnating and leaving ladies in his wake.

    Another works for 10-15 years before building up enough money/assets to start a family.

    By your “theory”, the bloke who has worked has somehow “stolen” those assets from the first bloke??

    And far from saying “single mums get to much money”, I was merely trying to see how you could call it fair to have someone working full time on minimum/near minimum wage clear less money a fortnight than people on this form of payment.

    thefrollickingmole

    January 3, 2010 at 9:13 am

  116. Yes Frollickingmole, but your example compared one single person with a family of four. Do you see the problem?

    FDB

    January 3, 2010 at 10:22 am

  117. FDB

    No I dont. I really dont see why the ability to have kids is an automatic passport to government subsidy.

    I can rationalise increased support because the kids have to be looked after. But that doesnt change the basic injustice of a single person being taxed to pay for their lifestyle choice.

    So go on, sell taxation to a single male, saving money to start his own family? Or is he a fool for doing so?

    thefrollickingmole

    January 3, 2010 at 10:50 am

  118. “I can rationalise increased support because the kids have to be looked after.”

    Congratulations, welcome to the welfare state!

    “But that doesnt change the basic injustice of a single person being taxed to pay for their lifestyle choice.”

    Congratulations, welcome to society!

    Ain’t compromise a bitch?

    FDB

    January 3, 2010 at 11:52 am

  119. FDB.

    So personal injustice is ok with you as long as it supports another persons kids?
    And provides them with housing?
    Where do you think the line is between taxation of an individual and their right to a better standard of living than those who are non productive?

    Or is it only not an injustice as long as it falls upon the undeserving workers?

    Society isnt “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need”, or wed be living in bark huts. Society is each person doing the best they can for themselves and those they care about, the rest is just eyewash.

    thefrollickingmole

    January 3, 2010 at 12:02 pm

  120. FDB:

    “The welfare state” is on its last legs. Europe will be broke inside of 2030 and we along with the US will follow a decade or two later.

    JC

    January 3, 2010 at 12:09 pm

  121. “Where do you think the line is between taxation of an individual and their right to a better standard of living than those who are non productive?”

    Clearly that’s a question for you. You’ve only just now come to the realisation that the line exists though, so I’ll give you a while to think about it. Strange that you haven’t already though, but have still seen fit to weigh into the argument.

    Personally, I think we’ve got it about right, apart from at the top end of earning (where I’d like to see either more effective taxation at current rates, or an increase) and at the bottom (taxing people earning below minimum wage and/or drawing the dole is manifestly absurd).

    “Or is it only not an injustice as long as it falls upon the undeserving workers?”

    Sorry, I’m not getting you. The concept of desert is your overriding concern above all others, not mine.

    “Society isnt “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need”, or wed be living in bark huts.”

    Just like the inflexible extremes of libertarianism, the teachings of Jesus must be taken as guidelines of only the vaguest sort, or they are irreconcilable with human nature. Those of socialism too (which are broadly speaking the same)

    “Society is each person doing the best they can for themselves and those they care about, the rest is just eyewash.”

    You might be surprised to find that a lot of people care about those less well off than themselves, even if they haven’t met them! I own a house in Carlton, yet I actually do care whether there is housing and education and health care for people in Frankston! Amazing!

    FDB

    January 3, 2010 at 12:12 pm

  122. Ain’t compromise a bitch?

    FDB, this essence of everything you believe. You don’t know what to do, so you just try to keep a little bit of a foot in both camps. You don’t really have any idea of right from wrong, so you just take a little bit of right and a little bit of wrong, mix them together and hope everything works out OK. And, not really all that surprisingly, the result is mediocrity.

    Then to reinforce your position you establish a coterie of people who accept they are predisposed to mediocrity due to their own personal failings, and therefore the greatest they can achieve is to prevent other people from being successful.

    We call this group a Greens party branch.

    Michael Sutcliffe

    January 3, 2010 at 12:13 pm

  123. You might be surprised to find that a lot of people care about those less well off than themselves, even if they haven’t met them! I own a house in Carlton, yet I actually do care whether there is housing and education and health care for people in Frankston! Amazing!

    Oh but libertarians don’t of course. Care of course is state related, not based on individual concern.

    Tell me FDB caring is one point, but how are you and I responsible for strangers?

    JC

    January 3, 2010 at 12:18 pm

  124. We call this group a Greens party branch.

    lol… The party of the disaffected, angry at the world for leaving them behind, irrational doctors wives, the potentially institutionalized and or the really stupid Christine Milne types.

    JC

    January 3, 2010 at 12:20 pm

  125. “The welfare state” is on its last legs. Europe will be broke inside of 2030 and we along with the US will follow a decade or two later.
    .
    not necessarily. Once the first few welfare states fall, or even as cracks start appearing in the edifice, there will likely be a political backlash against excessive welfare states.
    In fact, it may happen in America well before that, as welfare “states” such as California sink into the mire. The California-Texas spectrum (ie heavily regulated to lightly regulated) will become clearer and people will think hard about where they sit on that spectrum.

    daddy dave

    January 3, 2010 at 12:31 pm

  126. Yeah, I think that’s pretty much it. Let’s have some fun and cut them up:

    The party of the disaffected, angry at the world for leaving them behind: Yep, capitalism doesn’t serve me ’cause I’m lazy and I hate the thought of other people moving on without me.

    irrational doctors wives: I’m in a position of comfort and affluence by sheer chance, so who cares about opportunities for others. I want to satisfy my needs for power and social inclusion while assuming a faux higher morality to which I can never be called to account.

    potentially institutionalized: just the straight nutters who think the Jews and Rockefellers are secretly running the world, and bizarre government programs are what we need to save us.

    really stupid Christine Milne types: The plain dumbasses who want to do good in the world, but really haven’t worked out how the world works.

    There’s plenty more, I see what I can come up with……….

    Michael Sutcliffe

    January 3, 2010 at 12:32 pm

  127. “The welfare state” is on its last legs. Europe will be broke inside of 2030 and we along with the US will follow a decade or two later.

    I think the US can pull itself out it, but it’s going to be painful, even painful for the whole world once the US$ devalues and the US consumer can’t afford to be going nuts. That’s fine with me, the US needs a wake-up call. It was given the greatest political system yet established on earth, and if it fucks that opportunity it deserves to look like Somalia.

    Europe is finished. Despite the backlash that Daddy Dave talks about, which will occur, Europe is on it’s downward slide to minimal global influence and lower living standards. The UK fell out of the UN Human Development Index top 20 last year. The centre of the civilised world 150 years ago now can’t even stay in the top 20 with regards to living standards. It’s going to be the first of most of western Europe. Norway, with it’s small homogenous population and lots of state owned oil can hold on to the top for a while, but when it cracks the fall will be dramatic.

    Michael Sutcliffe

    January 3, 2010 at 12:40 pm

  128. Hilarious.

    Every time I start thinking the caricatured libertarian doesn’t really exist, I’m proven wrong again.

    Thesis (capitalism), Antithesis (socialism), Synthesis (whatever we’re heading for). Rinse, repeat with new thesis.

    The is the way of progress IN ALL THINGS. [A simplified trichotomy of course, things are much messier and more complex, and littered with dead ends of only theoretical value, like communism and libertarianism).

    Yet I’m an idiot for attempting to find the best of each side and get them to work together. Sorry guys, that’s completely arse about.

    FDB

    January 3, 2010 at 12:42 pm

  129. Yet I’m an idiot for attempting to find the best of each side and get them to work together. Sorry guys, that’s completely arse about.

    Hey, you’re not an idiot for doing this, but just show me where you’ve done it.

    Michael Sutcliffe

    January 3, 2010 at 1:02 pm

  130. It’s the doctors wives set that are the worst types, Michael.

    They are the most despicable of the lot. They’re the smug, usually middle to upper middle class pricks that really don’t give a shit about others finding it hard to pay the mortgage, raise a family and make ends meet. They really don’t give a shit about them.

    They also usually have racist undertones (real racism) such as actually looking down on the fact that 500 million people have joined the middle class over the past 20 odd years. Instead of seeing an element of joy in this they’re negative on millions of Indians and Chinese having better lives.

    These are the worst.

    JC

    January 3, 2010 at 1:12 pm

  131. So how exactly do you square the circle of say advocating the expropriation of the Packer and Murdoch money and redistributing to the needy then stopping there while Malawians live on a few cents a day?

    Fine by me. We know the wealthy of each country have sufficient funds to eliminate world poverty. The wealthy minority would buy one less car over their lifetime. The world’s poor would have greatly enriched lives.

    Here’s a test for the Marxists here. In 2007, total household wealth in Australia was $5.046 trillion* (of which James Packer accounted for about 0.15%). What percentage of that figure was “stolen”?

    You’re being dishonest, Fisk. I said the origins of wealth involved theft, not that each transaction was a form of theft.

    I can rationalise increased support because the kids have to be looked after. But that doesnt change the basic injustice of a single person being taxed to pay for their lifestyle choice.

    Assuming your premises to be true – what are you proposing? Forced sterilisation?

    Europe is finished. Despite the backlash that Daddy Dave talks about, which will occur, Europe is on it’s downward slide to minimal global influence and lower living standards.

    It may be true of some European countries, but not, I’d argue, true for France, Germany, and a number of others. The UK is not Europe.

    THR

    January 3, 2010 at 2:20 pm

  132. “[me]: Yet I’m an idiot for attempting to find the best of each side and get them to work together. Sorry guys, that’s completely arse about.

    [Michael S]: Hey, you’re not an idiot for doing this, but just show me where you’ve done it.”

    Michael, I attempt to do it all the time. And I got ridiculed for doing so just an hour or two ago, by you.

    Don’t you remember?

    FDB

    January 3, 2010 at 2:35 pm

  133. THR

    Nope, more along the lines of “we pay for your first kid, no more”.

    Bar on payments for the under 21s having kids. Children removed and placed with those wanting them. First choice to the parents of either breeder.

    Harsh, yup, but atm we are bringing up a lot of kids in disfunctional homes many of whom will continue the same cycle.

    Welfare is poison, weather its dole or daddys trust account. People arent supposed to sit around all day and vegitate, they need a reason for getting up in the morning, welfare denies them that.

    thefrollickingmole

    January 3, 2010 at 2:39 pm

  134. My god Mole, that’s nothing but the old deserving/undeserving poor canard, with an overlay of monstrous social engineering.

    You really haven’t given this much thought have you? Otherwise you’d realise your ideas are MUCH older than the Enlightenment. The Old Testament even. In fact, it comes across pretty even-handed and rational by comparison.

    FDB

    January 3, 2010 at 2:43 pm

  135. What is wrong with the deserving/undeserving poor canard as you call it?

    The monstrous social engineering we have seen from unfettered welfare far exceeds what you are on about.

    Why is it moraly right for a bloke/lady to have 3 or 4 kids on the public purse why another may set themselves up through study/hard work and not start a family till a few years later?

    thefrollickingmole

    January 3, 2010 at 2:52 pm

  136. I was in the country once. Four high school girls sitting at a cafe next to me, one doing the talking. She was telling her friends she intended to get knocked up and leave school: You get $400 a week!
    .
    I don’t resent the welfare bill personally. I tend to resent things like Kerry Packer’s state funeral. And Kevvie’s cheeses. But still if you pay people to have kids and those people are totally fucked, and, sorry, there are people who’re good for nothing but draining bottles and finding veins to shoot crap into, if you pay those people – what happens?

    Adrien

    January 3, 2010 at 2:54 pm

  137. There you go with your morals again.

    I don’t think either is morally wrong. The one who sets themselves up with a career has made a much better decision about what to do with their liberty, on financial and social grounds.

    So what?

    FDB

    January 3, 2010 at 2:55 pm

  138. THR, your first comment was this one:

    If we undertake an analysis of wealth, I think you’ll find that, far from some Randian heroism among shopkeepers, you might find that almost all of it came from theft, either by colonial swindling or industrial exploitation.

    You said nothing about the “origins” of wealth – your argument was that “almost all (wealth) came from theft”. But even if you had meant that the “origins” of wealth were “stolen”, your comment wouldn’t actually prove anything – any distinct group of people who currently live in a country that used to be occupied by another distinct group probably invaded that land hundreds or even thousands of years ago. The only way to undo this injustice would be to track down the defeated tribe for every square inch of land on Earth (e.g. Hottentots in Southern Africa, Berbers in Northern Africa, Greeks in Asia minor, Nestorian Christians in Central Asia, British Celts, European Neanderthals…ad nauseum) and allow them to expel the current occupiers. But that wouldn’t solve the problem either, because land is not wealth and nor is it even the origin of wealth. Wealth originates in the ability of humans to utilise resources.

    Michael Fisk

    January 3, 2010 at 2:57 pm

  139. Having said that, THR has inadvertently stumbled onto a useful point. The best way to compensate for the amount of wealth stolen from the Aborigines in Australia would be to calculate Australia’s GDP in 1787 and to repay any person with at least 50% indigenous ancestry their per capita share of that exact amount each year, adjusting for inflation, and not a cent more.*

    *Assuming a zero real growth rate, which is reasonable for a hunter gatherer economy.

    Michael Fisk

    January 3, 2010 at 3:02 pm

  140. I give up, you win, all people should give all their money to the government so they can fix “society”.

    Im sure it would be paradise..

    thefrollickingmole

    January 3, 2010 at 3:03 pm

  141. Fisk – yeah that’ll really compensate them for being systematically excluded from the human development of the rest of the country, murdered in their thousands and stolen from their parents right up to a few decades ago.

    Good God these fibbertarian fables are just so fucking lame.

    I reckon some of you folks are literally unable to imagine yourself outside your own skin.

    FDB

    January 3, 2010 at 3:07 pm

  142. Mole – wow, you’re really a non-thinker aren’t you?

    Black and white, right and wrong, left and right – you’re a ditzy dichotomist pretending to intellectuality.

    FDB

    January 3, 2010 at 3:08 pm

  143. I dont pretend any intellectuality as you put it. I went to year 10 20 odd years ago and have worked lower tier jobs most of my life, however theres nothing stupider than an overeducated fool. Its not big or clever to defend a bad idea, and open ended welfare is a bad one.

    But I know bullcrap when i see it. I deal in my buiness with mainly people drawing a government payment of some sort. Many living in government houses. Most of my customers lives revolve around short term gratification, poor health, drugs, alcohol, and squallid living conditions.

    This doesnt help society or them as individuals, so how does society gain from subsidising it?

    As I showed above most are on, or near the sort of money to be earnt by a person in a low paid job. In many cases they sre better off due to various subsidies to be had as well.

    It is irrational and counterproductive for both the people living that way, and society to allow that to continue.

    thefrollickingmole

    January 3, 2010 at 3:20 pm

  144. “I reckon some of you folks are literally unable to imagine yourself outside your own skin.”

    FDB jumps the shark. I’m going to ask you politely never to go near writing policy. Never mind that you’re completely ignorant of the “veil of ignorance”.

    You might feel good bashing libertarians about this, but 90% of the population agrees with us here – welfare is poorly designed and wealth is created, not stolen from a magic pudding base.

    Generational welfare is simply insidious. When some comfortable elite like Hamilton thinks we have a growth “fetish”, it is commendable when we have an ex ALP PM like Hawke smack him down for such irreverent stupidity.

    We need to maximise growth for our own good but for our most unfortunate. We can’t give these people jobs even if we wanted to.

    As for FDB’s bigoted insinuation that a belief in free enterprise and civil rights is intrinsically dishonest, here’s the naked truth about Rudd and Swann’s “economic management”:

    http://blog.libertarian.org.au/2009/12/16/australia-still-in-recession/

    Semi Regular Libertarian

    January 3, 2010 at 3:23 pm

  145. “As I showed above most are on, or near the sort of money to be earnt by a person in a low paid job. In many cases they sre better off due to various subsidies to be had as well.”

    You can whinge about the seeming unfairness of this, or see the upside:

    1. The person who works has a much better chance of promotion, a better job, gaining business management skills or saving to buy a home or a start a business.

    2. Their children are much more likely to have these skills passed down on top of aiming to gain trade or tertiary education as well.

    The downside is that those who are induced to become welfare recipients for detrimental reasons are more likely to raise families into generational welfare, and have more children, starting from an earlier age with a different role model and financial skills & expectations.

    This might be a contentious issue but can’t we start by scrapping the Baby Bonus?

    Semi Regular Libertarian

    January 3, 2010 at 3:28 pm

  146. If we undertake an analysis of wealth, I think you’ll find that, far from some Randian heroism among shopkeepers, you might find that almost all of it came from theft, either by colonial swindling or industrial exploitation

    I think the above is pretty clearly about the origins of wealth. The reference to colonialism is a giveaway.

    But still if you pay people to have kids and those people are totally fucked, and, sorry, there are people who’re good for nothing but draining bottles and finding veins to shoot crap into, if you pay those people – what happens?

    Two points, for Adrien and the mole.

    1. I read somewhere the other day that there are as many single mums in Kew (a leafy upper-crust part of Melbourne) as in Broadmeadows (one of the city’s lowest-income areas). Many of the mums in Kew were also receiving welfare payments. People who receive benefits might be more diverse than some suspect.

    2. There are already agencies in each state and territory of Australia to deal with parents who abuse or neglect their children. If parents spend money on dope instead of food, state authorities already have the power to intervene, and potentially remove the children. Why then add the extra punishment of welfare cuts? If these parents are tending to their kids’ needs, what difference does it make where they spend any (most likely meagre) surplus?

    THR

    January 3, 2010 at 3:33 pm

  147. “It is irrational and counterproductive for both the people living that way, and society to allow that to continue.”

    For the individuals it’s not irrational (they get money for nothing). I’m inclined to agree it’s counterproductive in some cases, but that’s contingent on what we imagine is being or could otherwise be “produced”.

    If all the individual wants is to lie around on smack, it’s not counterproductive either. Better they do it on welfare than by the proceeds of crime, which given they don’t want to work is the next option for many.

    For society, if you want to argue it’s irrational and counterproductive, you need to make the argument.

    You haven’t, and you won’t by blithely asserting that what’s best for society is always and only what’s best for the individual. That’s sqibertarianism by numbers.

    Remember though, a disincentive to work for the “deserving poor” is also a disincentive to commit crime for the “undeserving poor”.

    FDB

    January 3, 2010 at 3:34 pm

  148. I read somewhere the other day that there are as many single mums in Kew (a leafy upper-crust part of Melbourne) as in Broadmeadows (one of the city’s lowest-income areas).

    I can’t see how that disses the argument though. Geographic spread doesn’t change the issue which is also about deadbeat dads.

    Re food issue.

    We should go the American route and not offer money but food stamps that have restrictive use and can’t be cashed in at the liquor store.

    JC

    January 3, 2010 at 3:38 pm

  149. We should go the American route and not offer money but food stamps that have restrictive use and can’t be cashed in at the liquor store.

    There is already a paper on this proposal, not made public but I read a draft submission last year. Dole recipients and others will have a card that will be used for purchases, the govt will then have a record of every single purchase made with this card. Big Brother.

    John H.

    January 3, 2010 at 3:44 pm

  150. FDB:

    WFT are you babbling about. All I see from you is the usual swill from a lefty insulted/outraged at libertarian views about self help and welfare. H

    However you ignore that there is perhaps more then enough evidence how fucked up things are, as we have seen in the aboriginal community for the past 30 years where they’ve been treated like they were test tube experiments in leftwing lunacy/policy… by both political parties…. and billions squandered.

    JC

    January 3, 2010 at 3:45 pm

  151. john H. It’s true it is a form of big brother, however that should be the catch to welfare.

    I would also go a step further though. I would tax very heavily those that work in union protected jobs and take advantage of the new rules which regulate the labor market and redistribute all that to the unemployed.

    This was Hayek’s suggestion and it is a good one. In fact those that live behind this protective shelter causing misery to the unemployed should be forced to fully compensate their losses. Others that don’t shouldn’t be penalized.

    JC

    January 3, 2010 at 3:49 pm

  152. We should go the American route and not offer money but food stamps that have restrictive use and can’t be cashed in at the liquor store.

    It’s not terrible libertarian. Frankly, if the parents are looking after the kids, I don’t see why they can’t spend any surplus on pokies or booze.

    THR

    January 3, 2010 at 3:52 pm

  153. I find the arguments I’ve been addressing paper-thin, poorly reasoned and utterly unconvincing. I’m not sure how you got the impression I’m insulted or outraged, and if you want to argue my contributions are swill, perhaps you could explain that too?

    As for your own comments about Aborigines, all I see if the usual righty swill about how it’s all the fault of ‘leftwing policy’, despite the obvious complexity, the deeply bipartisan nature of Australian racism and its role in Aboriginal disadvantage (which makes it a special case among more general cases of entrenched disadvantage), and the utter lack of any alternative offered.

    But y’know, at least I did you the courtesy of explaining why it was swill.

    FDB

    January 3, 2010 at 3:53 pm

  154. I would tax very heavily those that work in union protected jobs and take advantage of the new rules which regulate the labor market and redistribute all that to the unemployed.

    So you’re against freedom of association? Can we also apply additional taxes to business groups and lobbyists? And who in Australia is unemployed because of a union? I can find you people who were royally shafted as a result of ‘deregulation’ (i.e. Workchoices).

    THR

    January 3, 2010 at 3:53 pm

  155. Fine, let’s apply the principle consistently. Any company that receives a tax break or govt assistance of any kind must report every single purchase to the govt. And anyone who receives any form of govt assistance, including family tax payments, must account for every cent of those payments.

    John H.

    January 3, 2010 at 3:55 pm

  156. Fisk – yeah that’ll really compensate them for being systematically excluded from the human development of the rest of the country, murdered in their thousands and stolen from their parents right up to a few decades ago.

    To be fair, FDB, I do think the Australian government should pass a law phasing in full compensation to the value of present GDP in the year 11,787. 10,000 years is I think the average period to make the transition from a hunter-gatherer economy to industrial civilisation. Assuming (this is a very big assumption IMO) that the Aborigines would have begun that transition 200 years ago were it not for white settlement, we can roughly project the forgone income from that model. However, my compensation scheme would begin at 1787 GDP levels and remain at about that level for a few thousand years.

    Michael Fisk

    January 3, 2010 at 4:19 pm

  157. Assuming (this is a very big assumption IMO)

    Probably impossible Michael because they didn’t have the wheel or any abstractions about the nature of force or any minute time measuring devices or any metallurgy. Would never have happened.

    John H.

    January 3, 2010 at 4:29 pm

  158. BTW – Fisk – yeah that’ll really compensate them for being systematically excluded from the human development of the rest of the country, murdered in their thousands and stolen from their parents right up to a few decades ago.

    It’s impossible to compensate dead people, and taking people from their parents did not necessarily lead to a fall in income. That leaves “being systematically excluded from the human development of the rest of the country”. If compensation is to be considered it must surely be measured by the loss of income brought about by white settlement (I’m assuming for argument’s sake that Aborigines earned 1787 levels of GDP and lost that annually in its entirety starting from January of the next year), compared with projected income under continued nomadic self-determination.

    Michael Fisk

    January 3, 2010 at 4:37 pm

  159. Why not compensate for having systematically excluded them from any but the lowest rungs of society, and attempted to breed them out of existence, despite the desire of many to work and prosper in the country they were born into – i.e. a post-Euro settlement world.

    It is you who is looking at them by the standards of 1787, and your attitude is no different to the prevailing one at the time that put them where they are now and continues to keep them there.

    In short, you’re being utterly stupid.

    FDB

    January 3, 2010 at 4:43 pm

  160. So you’re against freedom of association?

    Nope, not at all. If you abuse the legislative process by voting in a corrupt party that promises to artificially raise your wage at the expense of others and the unemployed then you should pay for losses sustained by those affected. It’s clear that you don’t understand what freedom of association means.

    Can we also apply additional taxes to business groups and lobbyists?

    Why? You won’t have me supporting any form of subsidy, tariff or industry policy.

    And who in Australia is unemployed because of a union?

    the building trades where it is a closed shop on most large sites. They should be taxes at 80% of wages. Try getting a job without a union ticket.

    I can find you people who were royally shafted as a result of ‘deregulation’ (i.e. Workchoices).

    Shafted as in they were receiving wages above the market clearing rate before the deregulation and then found earth?

    JC

    January 3, 2010 at 4:53 pm

  161. Why not compensate for having systematically excluded them from any but the lowest rungs of society

    I’ve already done that by assuming their post White Settlement income to be zero. Since when did people have a right to be compensated in excess of actual damages?

    and attempted to breed them out of existence

    No, Whites attempted to breed half-castes out of existence, and failed miserably: today’s “indigenous” population is rising rapidly. There was no attempt to forcibly marry all full blood Aborigines off to White settlers.

    It is you who is looking at them by the standards of 1787, and your attitude is no different to the prevailing one at the time that put them where they are now and continues to keep them there.

    Except there is a huge difference between attitudes towards Aborigines circa 1788 and now so logically MY attitude cannot be “no different” to both of them. Actually, I just have a casual interest in the principle of “historical justice” that Leftists like to talk about (only I apply it at the expense of black, yellow and brown imperialists, not just white ones), and I’d like to see what the implications of it are.

    Michael Fisk

    January 3, 2010 at 4:54 pm

  162. ny company that receives a tax break or govt assistance of any kind must report every single purchase to the govt.

    They do for a large party actually. You can’t just claim a subsidy without documentation etc. Trades people that claim apprenticeship for instance subsidies have to provide lots of evidence.

    JC

    January 3, 2010 at 4:56 pm

  163. They do for a large party actually. You can’t just claim a subsidy without documentation etc. Trades people that claim apprenticeship for instance subsidies have to provide lots of evidence.

    Two years ago I prepared grant submissions for a v. small company of 5 employees and they ended up with .25 mill in grants. I saw how they were “accounting” for that expenditure JC. Yeah, I’m gonna believe that companies account for these grant funds. Sure … .

    John H.

    January 3, 2010 at 5:02 pm

  164. Fisk:

    How do you compensate dead people? You can’t, so even the 1787 calculation (nomadic existence being a good one) is really pandering to left wing nonsense.

    A western standard of living has been immeasurably far more beneficial to aboriginals than their previous living standards.

    JC

    January 3, 2010 at 5:04 pm

  165. Yeah, I’m gonna believe that companies account for these grant funds. Sure … .

    Are you saying that you can basically phone in for a grant and next day your bank account will be credited with the money? This is as bad a government and Whitlam’s but I don’t think they would be that incompetent.

    JC

    January 3, 2010 at 5:06 pm

  166. Sorry THR… I wasn’t trying to sound so terse to you as I thought I was responding to FDB.

    It’s not terrible libertarian. Frankly, if the parents are looking after the kids, I don’t see why they can’t spend any surplus on pokies or booze.

    From what I recall food stamps were only a portion of the payment that was supposed to ensure the money went to food purchases while the rest could be used freely.

    JC

    January 3, 2010 at 5:11 pm

  167. Isn’t that anti-competition, jc? And what if parents want to grow their own vegetables, for instance?

    THR

    January 3, 2010 at 5:14 pm

  168. JC, indigenous people today would have inherited a nomadic standard of living had it not been for white settlement – I think we should take indigenous activists and their left-wing allies at their word when they say they wish white settlement hadn’t happened (implying their preferences are as follows : 0 < post-1787 living standard < pre-1787 living standard), and compensate them accordingly.

    Michael Fisk

    January 3, 2010 at 5:14 pm

  169. I think we should take indigenous activists and their left-wing allies at their word

    And I think we should take you for a fool. As if economic development occurs in an even, linear fashion anywhere, at any time.

    THR

    January 3, 2010 at 5:19 pm

  170. Of course it doesn’t. But if we are to discuss compensation for “damages” then a rough estimate must still be made, however imperfect. I’m deliberately being generous by a) assuming that indigenous Australians were about to begin the historic process of climbing out of a nomadic existence at the same rate as previous civilisations, bringing them up to an industrial standard of living around the year 11,787 and b) assuming continuous increases in living standards in the absence of white settlement.

    Michael Fisk

    January 3, 2010 at 5:24 pm

  171. In short, I agree with Indigenous Australians that January 26th should be considered as “al-Nakba day” and wish to compensate them appropriately. I believe my compensation model is the most socially and historically just one.

    Michael Fisk

    January 3, 2010 at 5:32 pm

  172. I think it would be anti-freedom rather than anti-competitive, THR.
    Two things..

    1. if people are really concerned that money is being misspent and kids (or themselves) are malnourished.

    2. Welfare is restrictive by nature.

    JC

    January 3, 2010 at 5:34 pm

  173. I’m proposing not that we compensate for what might have happened in some parallel universe where European colonialism never occurred, but in the one where it was done for the benefit of all, not just the invaders.

    Y’know, if the principles of classical liberalism had actually applied, rather than being paid lip-service while entire cultures were wiped out.

    FDB

    January 3, 2010 at 5:39 pm

  174. I can’t see how that disses the argument though. Geographic spread doesn’t change the issue which is also about deadbeat dads.

    i read that article. pretty amazing that well-to-do fathers can some how negotiate a situation (they let the wife live in the house) where they don’t pay child support and the state gives the mothers centerlink payments. surely this is somehow illegal. i don’t understand why the mother wouldn’t get a proper divorce and get child support+their share of the assets. though, maybe they did get a divorce and the wife got to keep the house and the house isn’t worth enough to fail the asset test and the child support isn’t high enough to disqualify centerlink payments.

    drscroogemcduck

    January 3, 2010 at 5:41 pm

  175. I’m proposing not that we compensate for what might have happened in some parallel universe where European colonialism never occurred, but in the one where it was done for the benefit of all, not just the invaders.

    That’s silly. It’s like saying that if you break my leg, I shouldn’t sue you for the loss of income caused by my broken leg, but for my not becoming Bill Gates’ adopted son.

    Michael Fisk

    January 3, 2010 at 5:45 pm

  176. i read that article. pretty amazing that well-to-do fathers can some how negotiate a situation (they let the wife live in the house) where the …

    It is a classic example of where principles get fucked over by reality. Stage 2 of the Child Support Scheme basically left the non-custodial parent with no means of ever getting ahead and starting another family. One child to make payments for was manageable but once you get to 3 kids it just becomes too difficult because the govt is taking most of your wages and giving it to the custodial parent.

    That is why the arrangements you mention have come into being, it was a last desperate attempt to prevent all hell breaking loose; as occurred in Britain, which adopted the Child Support Scheme but abandoned it a couple of years ago.

    It’s all very well for moral crusaders to scream that non-custodial parents should pay for the upkeep of their children and no-one is disputing that but it might pay if they bothered to read the fine print and so realise that if you put an individual in a situation where they have no prospects to get ahead then of course people are going to revolt.

    This is a good example of where people demand adherence to certain moral principals but lose sight of reality.

    John H.

    January 3, 2010 at 5:55 pm

  177. Anyone got a link to that article? Id be interested in a read of that one, thanks.

    thefrollickingmole

    January 3, 2010 at 6:44 pm

  178. Here’s another closely related article about the effects of the feminization of western society and its effects.

    http://www.singularity2050.com/2010/01/the-misandry-bubble.html

    JC

    January 3, 2010 at 7:06 pm

  179. THR

    “If parents spend money on dope instead of food, state authorities already have the power to intervene”

    Id point you to my second post and ask “just how effective that is”

    ..The roaches…. Close your eyes and imagine this if you can, the corners of the room are a brown living carpet of roaches, thousands of them, oh and they arent on the floor, they are doing this in the corners of the ceiling, with a few constantly dropping, then scuttling back up to join the swarm…

    Kids in that place too. They will never be touched by the authorities.
    In another case a friend of mine attended a “cot death”, the chils was malnourished, dehydrated and scabies ridden…
    Put down as cot death by the authorities, not neglect.

    thefrollickingmole

    January 3, 2010 at 7:07 pm

  180. was a letter not an article

    Family splits take no heed of net worth

    THE good burghers of Bentleigh should find out more about their own so-called ”well-to-do” suburb before they start decrying the feared influx of sole parents in public housing. A few years ago I undertook a research project on the needs of vulnerable groups in affluent Kew. One of the major disadvantaged groups was women-headed single-parent families: as many in Kew as in Broadmeadows.

    But, with no public housing in Kew, these single parents, formerly stay-at-home wives of high-flying businessmen and professionals, were still living in large houses with children at expensive private schools.

    When he took off with the younger woman, he let the former wife stay in the large house with the children. With no current job skills, these women had to go to Centrelink.

    They colluded in his charade by pretending to the outside world that they were still safely married. Hidden behind a wall of shame and fear, their degradation at their fall in status and income was painful to witness.

    The independence and dignity of public housing would be a far preferable option.

    drscroogemcduck

    January 3, 2010 at 7:13 pm

  181. Kids in that place too. They will never be touched by the authorities.

    Not true. If somebody reported it to the authorities in Victoria, at least, the kids would almost certainly be removed. It’s also not clear how such horrible instances of neglect are somehow the result of mere misallocation of funds by parents.

    THR

    January 3, 2010 at 7:26 pm

  182. So what we have here is not a case of welfare exuberance but rich ex wives rorting the system. Great, after all the blibber blabber about welfare recipients we find the rich end of town happily ripping off the system.

    John H.

    January 3, 2010 at 7:28 pm

  183. John H
    Considering the fact that 90% of divorces are demanded by females in the US where I seen stats it wouldn’t surprise that it is the law of unintended consequences of statism causing this.

    Females can get rid of the husbands and then receive state supported welfare.

    JC

    January 3, 2010 at 7:51 pm

  184. JC,

    Perhaps as a society we need to face the unpleasant reality that making divorce so much easier than it used to be has created the unintended consequences. The argument has been put forward that couples are left with the impression that marriage should always be easy and never a hint of trouble, but the reality is most couples do encounter times when they feel like strangling each other.

    I put it down to the Oprah Effect, I hate the woman, she has filled so many heads with so much nonsense and the above is one example of it.

    I don’t see any easy solution to this problem but blaming the State for this situation is trying to hard. The Child Support Act came into effect mid 1980’s, it was a response to the rapid rise in one parent families and huge cost this was placing on the govt. the structure of Stage 2 was clearly designed to reduce the welfare bill not provide justice for all parties concerned. The State had to do something about this and the Child Support Act, for all its problems, is the best response we had achieved and it has attracted attention overseas.

    If people want the freedom to walk away from the children because of purported irreconcilable differences then maybe those people should consider the possibility that they are whining self-indulgent little fuckers who if they truly did love their children would push shit uphill to preserve their marriage. That attitude, the power of resilience, seems to have been lost in a large segment of the population. That Benjamin Spock crap, the Leftist bleeding heart mentality, the psychology driven “be in touch with your feelings” bullshit. Stuff and nonsense, get some guts, show some strength, fight for a better life. All disappearing. Shits me.

    John H.

    January 3, 2010 at 8:04 pm

  185. Good.

    Now you’ve just got to stop spouting stupid stuff about libertarians you can’t back up.

    Semi Regular Libertarian

    January 3, 2010 at 8:10 pm

  186. PS:

    Sincerely hope things will take a turn for the better for your child this year.

    John H.

    January 3, 2010 at 8:10 pm

  187. Now you’ve just got to stop spouting stupid stuff about libertarians you can’t back up.

    Go away idiot.

    John H.

    January 3, 2010 at 8:13 pm

  188. I’ll accept that I’m an idiot and crawl back under my rock if you can disprove this nearly non falsifiable jibe:

    “Can a libertarian actually come up with a new idea?”

    John H.

    January 3, 2010 at 3:06 pm

    Semi Regular Libertarian

    January 3, 2010 at 8:19 pm

  189. Dude,

    This is a forum of abuse, there is not a day goes by when libertarians are ridiculing everything from unions to greenies to lefties to govt to public servants to the UN to climate scientists. When libertarians learn to some continually whining about a pack of spoilt brats because the world isn’t the way they would like it to be then I’ll change my attitude. What most libertarians don’t seem to realise is the most people perceive a world they want to change but instead of whining on and on about it they get off their arse and get involved.

    John H.

    January 3, 2010 at 8:21 pm

  190. “This is a forum of abuse, there is not a day goes by when libertarians are ridiculing everything from unions to greenies to lefties to govt to public servants to the UN to climate scientists.”

    I wish it wasn’t a forum of abuse. I’ve tried before but it didn’t work. Graeme made sure of that. But the above deserve a clip behind the ears every so often.

    “When libertarians learn to some continually whining about a pack of spoilt brats because the world isn’t the way they would like it to be then I’ll change my attitude.”

    I have a different idea. Those who don’t complain are “pillow biters”.

    “What most libertarians don’t seem to realise is the most people perceive a world they want to change but instead of whining on and on about it they get off their arse and get involved.”

    No they don’t. But I do wish more people who were libertarians would. Hanging onto the conservative movement or needing it’s blessing is a trait that annoys me in particular.

    Semi Regular Libertarian

    January 3, 2010 at 8:31 pm

  191. Hanging onto the conservative movement or needing it’s blessing is a trait that annoys me in particular.

    You got that right, told them years ago they must show more contempt for the conservatives because whether they like it or not libertarianism is perceived by most as an extreme right wing looney group. Obviously you’re not an idiot so sorry about the jibe.

    John H.

    January 3, 2010 at 8:39 pm

  192. Hanging onto the conservative movement or needing it’s blessing is a trait that annoys me in particular.
    .
    why? It’s the path to success. Influencing conservative parties is the best strategy in practice for libertarians, and has been working pretty well thus far. Libertarianism provides a consistent, deep policy platform in many areas that conservatives would otherwise be uninterested in or have no coherent position..
    .
    It makes a lot more sense than striking out on your own. You want to be a fringe loony group? Okay, then, be my guest. Go ahead, ignore mainstream conservatism and forge your own path.

    daddy dave

    January 3, 2010 at 9:08 pm

  193. “It makes a lot more sense than striking out on your own. You want to be a fringe loony group? Okay, then, be my guest. Go ahead, ignore mainstream conservatism and forge your own path.”

    50+ years of the liberal/conservative party and we have had three years (the last two being the ALP) of the highest taxing Governments in history.

    Nothing to be proud of.

    Semi Regular Libertarian

    January 3, 2010 at 9:15 pm

  194. No it isn’t. But too many of the smartest libertarians are being syphoned off into the LDP (where they can be safely ignored).

    Sinclair Davidson

    January 3, 2010 at 9:20 pm

  195. Daddy Dave,

    Libertarians are already perceived as the political equivalent of Scientology. Libertarians should not be aligning with conservatives because they are often traitors to conservatism. Howard increased spending, bribed the public with more handouts, drove us into a stupid war, and sent the army into aboriginal camps. Do you really want to be identified with that type of conservatism?

    David Cameron, the Tory leader in Britain, has recently stated that politics is all about society, a clear repudiation of Thatcher’s infamous statement about it not existing. They have sold out.

    Bush never vetoed spending, left the USA in a mess, promoted torture of innocents, do libertarians really want to be associated with that?

    Have some courage, strike out on your own. Look at the Greenies, loonies for sure, but they are enjoying ever increasing electoral success by standing on their own two feet.

    So I think SRL makes an important point. Libertarians have been aligning with conservatism for decades only to see conservatism move further and further away from the ideas that libertarians embrace. That is not a recipe for success, it is a recipe for insignificance.

    John H.

    January 3, 2010 at 9:23 pm

  196. THR

    If you ever come to geraldton here in WA Ill take you on a few jobs as an offsider,
    I dont think your fantasy of the noble welfare struggler will last long though.

    thefrollickingmole

    January 3, 2010 at 9:24 pm

  197. promoted torture of innocents

    got a link for that?

    Sinclair Davidson

    January 3, 2010 at 9:27 pm

  198. Sinclair,

    There are many cases where innocents were kept in prison and tortured, later released because they were found not to be guilty of anything. No courts, no charges, just tortured because they were suspected. That is not justice.

    They chose to lay the blame on a few lowly military officials but the practice of rendition of people who had not been charged or found guilty of anything is the sanctioning of torture of people before they had been found guilty. YOu may be comfortable with that but I consider it repugnant.

    John H.

    January 3, 2010 at 9:32 pm

  199. John H. – Let’s see the evidence of ‘innocents’ being tortured before we make claims about who is comfortable with what.

    Sinclair Davidson

    January 3, 2010 at 9:45 pm

  200. I’m not going to waste my time digging up any more Sinclair, it is widely accepted that innocents were tortured under the rendition process. In a sense the point is mute, sending people off to some country without charge is in itself a breach of natural justice.

    He was then sent to Syria under the CIA’s program of “extraordinary rendition” and, by his account, whipped repeatedly on the hands with two-inch-thick electrical cables.

    “Although he initially tried to assert his innocence, he eventually confessed to anything his tormentors wanted him to say,” wrote Mayer. She quoted Arar as explaining his false confession this way: “You just give up. You become like an animal.” The Syrians eventually concluded that Arar was innocent. He was released without charges.

    On Monday the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit rejected Maher Arar’s attempt to hold federal officials responsible for his “extraordinary rendition.” Arar, a Canadian telecommunications engineer, was detained during a 2002 layover in New York based on mistaken suspicions that he had ties to Al Qaeda. After holding him for two weeks, American officials shipped him off to Syria, where he was imprisoned for a year and tortured. The Canadian government, which supplied the erroneous information that led to Arar’s detention and rendition, later cleared him of any involvement in terrorism and paid him $11 million in compensation and legal fees. In 2007 Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, without exactly apologizing, acknowledged that the case was not “handled as it should have been.” But according to the 2nd Circuit’s ruling, Arar has no remedy under U.S. law for the violation of his rights.

    NEW YORK – The American Civil Liberties Union today filed a petition with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) on behalf of Khaled El-Masri, an innocent victim of the CIA’s “extraordinary rendition” program. The U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear El-Masri’s case in October 2007.

    “The United States justice system denied an innocent victim of the CIA’s extraordinary rendition program his day in court,” said Steven Watt, senior staff attorney with the ACLU Human Rights Program. “El-Masri and the countless other victims of extraordinary rendition are left without judicial recourse in the United States, and they have no choice but to turn to the international community for justice.”

    In 2003, El-Masri, a German citizen, was kidnapped and flown to a CIA-run “black site” in Afghanistan, where he was tortured and forbidden from contacting his family or a lawyer. Even after realizing he was innocent, the CIA continued to hold El-Masri for two more months before abandoning him on a hillside in Albania with no explanation, never having charged him with a crime.

    John H.

    January 3, 2010 at 9:59 pm

  201. If you ever come to geraldton here in WA Ill take you on a few jobs as an offsider,
    I dont think your fantasy of the noble welfare struggler will last long though.

    I don’t pretend they’re all noble. I remember in Melbourne during the recessions of the 90s. The dole reduced the stress of a lot of families. All of them got back on their feet eventually. Sure, there are bludgers are rorters, but the alternative is worse.

    THR

    January 3, 2010 at 10:03 pm

  202. I’ve spent the last 10 minutes reading the wikipedia on torture and even that lefty site contains no firm evidence of either ‘innocents’ or Bush condoning their torture. So your statement must go into the lefty fantasy world of Bush misbehaviour. Now nobody is suggesting that torture forms part of any system of justice, but evidence as opposed to allegation surely does and as best I can see you have none.

    Sinclair Davidson

    January 3, 2010 at 10:05 pm

  203. Libertarians are already perceived as the political equivalent of Scientology. Libertarians should not be aligning with conservatives because they are often traitors to conservatism.

    The conservatives seem basically distrustful of liberals. I could see the two groups having a marriage of convenience for electoral purposes, but there’s no way libertarians could ever make headway through a Tory alliance. From the other side, plenty of socialists have attempted to steer the ALP leftward, and failed miserably.

    On the other hand, a lot of self-identified libertarians on the web are basically Tories, but with some jargon on free enterprise. In any partisan situation, they fall consistently on the right side. You also have some Tories who look to libertarianism for ideological ballast (an ideology of ‘freedom’, a coherent economic system, etc), since conservatism is, after all, a flimsy and contradictory position.

    THR

    January 3, 2010 at 10:08 pm

  204. So how did they even get a hearing in court? You don’t get to an appeals court with lefty fantasy world stuff.

    Don’t rely on wiki, you should know better. The Canadian case was widely publicised. Or are you suggesting like CL that water boarding doesn’t constitute torture?

    John H.

    January 3, 2010 at 10:11 pm

  205. John H. waterboarding is not torture. US frat boys get waterboarded at uni. FFS. Neither is sleep depravation or listening to achy breaky heart. The problem with this sort of thing is that real human atrocity gets defined down. People who are tortured who have finger nails pulled out, razor blades inserted into them and so on are being tortured and it is an insult to their experiences to dumb down and define down what it is to be tortured.

    Sinclair Davidson

    January 3, 2010 at 10:18 pm

  206. Extraordinary rendition was condoned by more than one President.

    Of course suspects are never brought to trial

    Evidence obtained illegally or under duress is inadmissible in US courts, and hampers court cases against suspected terrorists in the US

    rog

    January 3, 2010 at 10:28 pm

  207. John H. waterboarding is not torture.

    Sure it isn’t, that is why the the USA convicted a Japanese officer of torture:

    Walter Pincus, Waterboarding historically controversial. Washing Post, 5 october, 2006

    Sure it isn’t, yet mammals have a direct alarm signal from the amygdala whenever CO2 rises above a certain level, hence the panic that occurs in suffocation.

    Sure it isn’t torture, yet scientific studies have found the psychological and physiological effects to be broadly equivalent to other forms of torture.

    Sure it isn’t torture, just like sleep deprivation isn’t torture.

    Don’t think that torture is about physical punishment, psychological punishment can be just as devastating.

    And

    Neurochemical studies have revealed that the hippocampus and prefrontal cortex, brain regions integral to the process of memory, are rich in receptors for hormones that are activated by stress and sleep deprivation and which have been shown to have deleterious effects on memory. “To briefly summarize a vast, complex literature, prolonged and extreme stress inhibits the biological processes believed to support memory in the brain,” says O’Mara. “For example, studies of extreme stress with Special Forces Soldiers have found that recall of previously-learned information was impaired after stress occurred.” Waterboarding in particular is an extreme stressor and has the potential to elicit widespread stress-induced changes in the brain.

    “Given our current cognitive neurobiological knowledge, it is unlikely that coercive interrogations involving extreme stress will facilitate release of truthful information from long term memory,” concludes Professor O’Mara. “On the contrary, these techniques cause severe, repeated and prolonged stress, which compromises brain tissue supporting both memory and decision making.”

    Do you understand anything about the stress response, how repeated activation of this induces brain damage in areas that play a principle role in regulating the stress response?
    Do you know what the HPA axis is and how its chronic activation can induce significant cerebral damage, increase the risk of cancer, heart disease, and dementia?

    Do not treat me like I am an idiot.

    Calling waterboarding torture does not downplay other forms for torture, only people who believe that physical pain is more real than emotional pain believe that atavistic nonsense.

    John H.

    January 3, 2010 at 10:38 pm

  208. The most important thing to remember about the waterboarding of two Al Qaeda terrorists is that it worked and saved thousands of lives.

    Under Clinton, terror suspects were sent to Egypt and Jordan (which did real, chainsaw and jumper leads on your balls torture) and they were never seen again. Naturally, lefties couldn’t care less at the time.

    Strange thing about lefties: they worship psychopathic torturer Che Guevara but shed crocodile tears for mass murderers Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Abu Zubaydah.

    C.L.

    January 3, 2010 at 10:40 pm

  209. You’re a liar CL, I hate anyone who engages in torture.

    John H.

    January 3, 2010 at 10:41 pm

  210. This is a forum of abuse, there is not a day goes by when libertarians are ridiculing everything from unions to greenies to lefties to govt to public servants to the UN to climate scientists.

    John appears to be saying the world would be a better place if powerful Al Gore, Barry Obama, Ken Henry and the frauds of East Anglia university were spared the indignity of criticism. When Bushitler and Howard were in office, dissent was “the highest form of patriotism.” Now it’s a Very Bad Thing.

    C.L.

    January 3, 2010 at 10:50 pm

  211. JC says that it is a fact “that 90% of divorces are demanded by females in the US” and offers as evidence “I seen stats”

    That is both untrue and sloppy.

    The evidence is quite different and points to the rules of custody as being the major determinant in why there are more women who instigate divorce.

    rog

    January 3, 2010 at 10:51 pm

  212. I hate anyone who engages in torture.

    Well, let’s have some links to you berating Bill Clinton and Al Gore for sending terror suspects to receive real torture in Egypt and Jordan. But of course you’re not inclined to do that. They’re lefty icons so they get a pass.

    C.L.

    January 3, 2010 at 10:54 pm

  213. CL conveniently forgets that torture was used for political reasons

    rog

    January 3, 2010 at 10:59 pm

  214. CL,

    I am not saying any such thing. I am one of the most critical and cynical people on the planet. Dissent is the hallmark of a healthy society. A group of people that does not critique itself is dangerous. Libertarians take note.

    The climategate thing is not so surprising to me. Every week I am reading research news claiming about some breakthrough when the same finding is sitting in my archives. So much of science is driven by groupthink, as is so much of all our cognition. It is a very difficult problem to address and in my view it is so integral to our cognition that we must be constantly on guard against it. That’s why I used to call myself Evil leftie, for while I am to the Left, I hate the way Lefties fall into familiar patterns of thought, re-inforcing each others’ ideas while rarely questioning them. But I can’t think of any group of people who does not fall prey to this tendency. I’m not excusing climategate just saying that in science such selective quoting and cherry picking is much more commmon than all of us would like to admit.

    BTW, trust me, I hate Al Gore more than you!

    John H.

    January 3, 2010 at 11:00 pm

  215. “That’s silly. It’s like saying that if you break my leg, I shouldn’t sue you for the loss of income caused by my broken leg, but for my not becoming Bill Gates’ adopted son.”

    No, it’s like saying that if I was Bill Gates, and you were one of my sons, and I broke your leg, then on that basis denied you your inheritance because I don’t like one-legged folks, you would deserve compensation.

    And you would.

    FDB

    January 3, 2010 at 11:01 pm

  216. Whoops, missed you last post CL. Suffer, I just berated Al Gore so suck eggs. There’s link, same page

    John H.

    January 3, 2010 at 11:01 pm

  217. Bingo! Two hat tricks in two days. Tomorrow I’ll try for the triple. You libertarians have a lot of catching up to do, I even dispensed Sinclair over the fence and out of the stadium.

    John H.

    January 3, 2010 at 11:05 pm

  218. “Hanging onto the conservative movement or needing it’s blessing is a trait that annoys me in particular.”

    Can someone call Jason and get him to add that to the banner? Or is his influence here gone altogether?

    FDB

    January 3, 2010 at 11:22 pm

  219. Rog;

    FFS do you even read your own freaking links.

    But there’s a problem with the conventional wisdom. Across America, at least two-thirds of divorce suits are filed by women. Researchers who have interviewed divorcing couples have repeatedly found that, in cases where the divorce is not mutally desired, women are more than twice as likely to be the ones who want out. After the split, women are typically happier than their exes.

    The rest is made up of women talking the males into divorce in negotiations to do with child custody.

    You’re a clown, Rog. A total and complete clown. If you don’t agree with 90% even your own link suggests it’s the vast majority.

    Here’s another study that suggests it’s actually 90% like I said.

    Women formally initiate divorce about two thirds of the time. Most observers agree, however, that this understates matters: In many cases where the husband formally initiates, it is because his wife wants out of the marriage. Exact data are elusive, but close observers tend to estimate that women are responsible for about nine-tenths of the divorcing and breakingup:

    Now get back to the rear of the class and stay there, Rog.

    JC

    January 3, 2010 at 11:44 pm

  220. Although for Rog and/or Cl’s sake (I can’t work out which way the pointless argument runs) you might want to remove the misplaced apostrophe before doing so.

    FDB

    January 3, 2010 at 11:44 pm

  221. (I can’t work out which way the pointless argument runs)

    it was Rog telling CL the contraction of “it is” is “its” and not “It’s”. He was correcting Cl’s gram. It’s a beauty isn’t it.

    Homer and Rog are doing the Australian remake of dumb and dumber set in Eastwood.

    JC

    January 3, 2010 at 11:50 pm

  222. Rog, thanks for that ananymous “former senior intelligence official” at a McClatchy link (LOL). The connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda was made by the Clinton administration (twice). I’ll be happy to provide you with the details. Just ask politely.

    Dissent is the hallmark of a healthy society.

    Right. But does that square with your earlier jeremiad about people “ridiculing everything from unions to greenies to lefties to govt to public servants to the UN to climate scientists”? Part of what’s going on here relates, I think, to the fact that we now have ‘social-democrat’ parties in office in Australia and the US – which countries’ affairs are the most frequently discussed at this site. When Bushitler and Howard were in office, libertarians like Jason (for example) felt somewhat more comfortable in their anti-government criticisms because their cachet with the left remained unscathed – or was even bolstered. Now that we have a Labor government and a Democrat administration, some libertarians are terrified their criticisms of government will see them associated with the dreaded Palinites so they look the other way on massive deficits, huge new taxes, unprecedented intrusions of government under the auspices of “combatting climate change” etc. They suddenly become “sick of politics.” Or, in the case of lefty critics of libertarians (like your own good self), they suddenly resent the fact that libertarian arguments are now being deployed against Kevni and Barry – whose governments they uncritically support.

    And John, we all preferred the Evil Lefty nic. Bring it back! 😉

    C.L.

    January 4, 2010 at 12:31 am

  223. Lies again CL, I have never given unqualified support to Rudd, in fact if you have a memory you would know I have attacked him on numerous occasions. I have attacked the stimulus spending, I have attacked his symbolic gesture stupidity and I have made clear reference to his hypocrisy(I’m a fiscal conservative, I’m a social democrat.)

    Dissent must also occur within the group, you appear to have misunderstood the thrust of my argument. I was referring to the ability to a group of people to critique their own beliefs.

    You must desist from this habit of making false accusations against me. I already proved you wrong on that twice tonight.

    Libertarians are terrified? Oh please, what are we going to do them, subject them to torture? If they are that easily scared off then it is little wonder the best they can do is sit on the sidelines and whinge. A lesson both libertarians and Rudd must learn: you can’t change the world with talk.

    John H.

    January 4, 2010 at 12:38 am

  224. John, whenever someone starts expectorating the word “lies” as frequently as you’re doing, it usually means they’re struggling. You lamented the fact that libertarians were “ridiculing everything from unions to greenies to lefties to govt to public servants to the UN to climate scientists.” Your “everything” just happens to be a roll call of the contemporary left. Have you been over to Larvatus Prodeo to criticise them for “ridiculing everything from capitalists to property developers to Sarah Palin to Rupert Murdoch to Liberal backbenchers to the United States to Ian Plimer”? I’m guessing no. You haven’t “proven” anything other than that you’re exceedingly angry about lefties being criticised. Your nonsense about waterboarding started with a critique of who? Bushitler, of course. Which president and vice-president actually authorised the torturing to death of unknown dozens of terror suspects in Eygpt and Jordan – without briefing Congressional leaders of both parties (as Bush did)? Answer: Bill Clinton and Al Gore.

    C.L.

    January 4, 2010 at 12:50 am

  225. Speaking of misplaced apostrophes, this one at ABC Online is decidedly Freudian, methinks, given the involvement of a Playschool professional.

    Rudd author’s ‘very cute’ children’s book.

    I actually think the ABC might be taking the piss.

    Is that acceptable, John?

    C.L.

    January 4, 2010 at 12:54 am

  226. But I have proven you lied. Twice in one night. End of argument there dude.

    I don’t care what other lefties do. I told you before, that’s why I regard myself as an Evil Leftie. I don’t even visit those places. I didn’t vote for Labor in the last election, I actually voted for Humphreys in the Senate. I did vote for Howard on two elections. I am swing voter so strictly speaking I am not even a leftie.

    My nonsense about waterboarding is backed up by peer reviewed research. Who should I trust CL, someone who woudn’t know an amine from a cytokine or professionals who spend their lives studying the impact of trauma on brain function? I also said I don’t I hate Al Gore more than you do.

    John H.

    January 4, 2010 at 12:55 am

  227. Well again, when someone starts over-pressing the “lies” button as frequently as you’re doing, it usually means they’re struggling. You haven’t “proven” anything. As I’ve demonstrated, you’re very angry about the left (exclusively, it seems) being criticised. You were also woefully uninformed about and somewhat tendentious in your comments about waterboarding. And I don’t particularly care about who you claim to vote for or support. I’m addressing myself to what you’ve verifiably written.

    My nonsense about waterboarding is backed up by peer reviewed research.

    LOL. You mean like the hockey stick?

    Here’s all you need to know about the waterboarding of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Abu Zubaydah: it saved many lives and this is now an accepted fact.

    And I don’t “hate” Al Gore. I dislike him and I distrust him. I don’t “hate” him. You really need to chill because you sound more off-the-handle than a CIA operative with a bucket of H2O.

    C.L.

    January 4, 2010 at 1:13 am

  228. Unless I’ve misunderstood the comments below DD and Jc, you guys are what I’m talking about. I grant you that the mole seems to be the only one picking on single mums but neither of you seem to think there is any problem with families dossing with friends and family for extended periods. In fact you both don’t even seem to consider them truly homeless.

    You’re also right that you weren’t exactly demonising single mums either. However I reckon that for a group who are pretty quick to jump on anything you disagree with, your collective silence implies agreement. If I’m wrong then I apologise.

    Getting back to single mothers does the mole think it is good policy to penalise the majority who aren’t rorting the system for the sake of a minority? The kids involved in these situations alone are more than enough reason to support low or no income households.

    The mole needs to stop getting current affairs from A Current Affair.

    Daddy Dave

    “Here’s Boy On A Bike with an exploration of primary versus “secondary” homelessness, number inflation, and defining homelessness so as to get the maximum possible count.
    .

    •Boarding houses – 7626 persons, 28% of total
    •SAAP accommodation – 5110 persons, 19%
    •Friends and relatives – 10,923 persons, 40%
    •Sleeping rough – 3715 persons, 13%
    .
    plus, not having a separate lounge and kitchen is defined as “tertiary” homelessness.
    .
    Many people who are classified as homeless are not, by any plain-english understanding of the word. Those who are “sleeping rough” (ie on park benches and under bridges) are a small percentage of the total number of people who are classified as ‘homeless’.”

    daddy dave

    January 2, 2010 at 3:40 pm

    Jc

    “THR

    The Mole is basically showing that the figures are nowhere near as bad as what the atrociously dumb Plibersek suggests.

    I honestly can’t see the problem with living with friends or rels during a period of hard times. Why should the state go to great expense to house these people when they’re already housed?

    Yet we go spending billions on what really appears to be a non existent problem or a problem made worse by inflated categorization. Or we could be providing rolls Royces to people when a plain Kingswood would do fine.”

    JC

    January 2, 2010 at 6:51 pm

    sdfc

    January 4, 2010 at 2:17 am

  229. SDFC:

    I really don’t understand the point you’re making? It seems that you’re dying to be angry at both DD and me but you’re just not sure why. Ideological Knee jerk perhaps?

    You’re also right that you weren’t exactly demonising single mums either. However I reckon that for a group who are pretty quick to jump on anything you disagree with, your collective silence implies agreement. If I’m wrong then I apologise.

    Perhaps it’s usually polite to ask rather than presume.

    No, I don’t want to penalize kids so I would advocate that changes to welfare laws are made without penalty to the current crop. Newer versions need to look after themselves.

    ————-Along those lines.

    My advice from a happily married male to those males that aren’t married is DON’T. Don’t get married. I took the chance and was basically lucky, however the odds are stacked against the marriage surviving. Adding to that is the disadvantage of legal system against males that allows females to rip most of the husbands limbs away, as well as milking the welfare system.

    Males don’t have that enormous urge to procreate as they mostly just want sex and if you’re a male without that desire (kids) then don’t even think about marriage.

    These days the sexual revolution allows for plenty of free sex and numerous partners without the danger of pregnancy, which is really what most males want anyway.

    The advantages are enormous… no huge mortgages, no greedy kids and no demands for more status goods that females love, as men mostly are quite content to live modestly.

    That’s one way of fucking up the welfare state. You don’t need to aspire to a large salary to finance all those “un-met needs” and the tax base gets screwed over until lefties have to go after their own constituency for more cash to firm up the tax base which would be their undoing.

    In any event the sex is always there when you want it as there are plenty of willing gals as a result of the sexual revolution.

    Don’t get married, felllas.

    In fact it’s incumbent on all male libertarians NOT to get married if they want to destroy the welfare state.

    JC

    January 4, 2010 at 3:12 am

  230. JC says “Here’s another study that suggests it’s actually 90% like I said.”

    And thats it.

    Nothing.

    rog

    January 4, 2010 at 6:46 am

  231. CH has (successfully) presented his case for torture.

    He doesnt deny it, he endorses it.

    Strange but true.

    rog

    January 4, 2010 at 6:48 am

  232. Do not treat me like I am an idiot.

    Calling waterboarding torture does not downplay other forms for torture, only people who believe that physical pain is more real than emotional pain believe that atavistic nonsense.

    I don’t know if you are or are not an idiot, but you are a moral relativist.

    Sinclair Davidson

    January 4, 2010 at 7:46 am

  233. My nonsense about waterboarding is backed up by peer reviewed research.

    Lefties should stay away from this claim. After Lancet published that eleven gazillionty Iraqis died in the war and Jones hid the decline and it looks more and more like they manufactured the increase, this argument is wearing very thin.

    Sinclair Davidson

    January 4, 2010 at 8:07 am

  234. Rog Says:

    JC says “Here’s another study that suggests it’s actually 90% like I said.”

    And thats it.

    Nothing.

    That wasn’t it, Rog. I also said you’re a clown and gave reasons why.

    JC

    January 4, 2010 at 8:36 am

  235. sdfc

    “hand over the money or the kid gets it”….

    If you look you will notice I include both sexes in my condemnation. The blokes who are serial dads are turds.

    And a good point was raised above, it doesnt have to affect existing single parents and could be proceeded by a year of info/advertising that funding your own kids is your responsability.

    “The mole needs to stop getting current affairs from A Current Affair.”

    Its current affairs because my business comes into a great deal of contact with low income/pensioners. So its now some nob on a screen telling me whats going on its my customers whom I talk to.

    I understand its extremely difficult for any modern woman to think of a winding back in what is effectively womans welfare. But its not desirable to fund open ended welfare.

    thefrollickingmole

    January 4, 2010 at 9:33 am

  236. Lefties should stay away from this claim.

    And so now a professor has declared that all peer reviewed research is without foundation. There is no proof or acceptable evidence of anything, it is all just talk and fluff. Time to quit your job Sinclair because your job relies very heavily on peer reviewed research.

    As for me being a moral relevatist, that’s nonsense but we can never anything with certainty now. After all the professor gone PoMO, declaring it is all just one story after another.

    John H.

    January 4, 2010 at 10:07 am

  237. John H. I am claiming that peer reviewed research is not an unbiased authority. I know that very, very well. Funnily enough because of my profession, not despite it, I am very aware of the limitations of peer review and also appealing to authority.

    As I understand it you’re a medical type and consequently are not used to having your opinions challenged, but rather are used to people being dependent on you. So far you are able to claim that innocents are being tortured but resort to appeals to dubious authority and name calling when asked to clarify those views. Then we get righteous indignation. Do you have an argument that can be sustained with evidence or don’t you?

    Sinclair Davidson

    January 4, 2010 at 10:48 am

  238. John H. I am claiming that peer reviewed research is not an unbiased authority. I know that very, very well. Funnily enough because of my profession, not despite it, I am very aware of the limitations of peer review and also appealing to authority.

    We all know that, there is barely a week that goes that I am not laughing at some latest research finding. Not the point, you can’t just generalise the errors so to conveniently buttress your argument. You have to demonstrate that in this particular instance the peer review process has failed. Otherwise, anyone can invoke any old excuse to refute a finding you don’t find acceptable. In this instance that is exactly what you have done. That is why I referred to PoMo because those doofi make that logical error all the time.

    I am challenged all the time. I am not a medical type, I used to be involved in neuroimmunological research but my vision is nearly shot so those days are over. You are playing pop psychologist. Apart from the obvious absurdity of trying to interpret a person’s state of mind from such a distance, you are again generalising. I should refer you to an acquaintance of mine who is a professor of psychology, he might set you straight on how to avoid such errors.

    I have presented plenty of evidence and there is much more out there. What you need to explain is:

    What do they do waterboarding in the first place, to give the prisoners baths?
    Why was waterboarding kept a secret for so long?
    Why did the Japanese, Kyhmer Rouge, and Inquisition use waterboarding?

    John H.

    January 4, 2010 at 11:01 am

  239. Sorry, I was under the impression that you were a medical type. Not pop psych but long observation of medical types (having lived in halls where many of the medical students lived etc.).

    My point isn’t that waterboarding is okay or acceptable, but that I do not consider it to be torture in the same way that that, say an iron maiden would be torture or a flogging would be torture pr hot tongs etc. It constitutes an abuse of people in custody and is a criminal event (assult)so I’m not surprised it is kept secret.

    Sinclair Davidson

    January 4, 2010 at 11:21 am

  240. I honestly can’t see the problem with living with friends or rels during a period of hard times. Why should the state go to great expense to house these people when they’re already housed?

    As I’ve indicated already, the state currently does nothing for such people. If you have a friend or relative with whom you can stay, even for one night only, even if they are dodgy, then the service system won’t touch you. Those sleeping rough are those not being given anything in terms of services (a very small minority do, it should be said, voluntarily opt for sleeping rough). Everybody on a friend’s couch or in a boarding house is another person who can require emergency accomm at very short notice. Simply put, the government doesn’t give out free houses to people on couches, and nothing in Plibersek’s proposal suggests a plan to do otherwise.

    THR

    January 4, 2010 at 11:35 am

  241. sfdc,
    I was highlighting the very broad definition of homelessness. That’s very interesting when the government decides to solve homelessness by building big, expensive houses.
    And, incidentally, some years ago I was “couch surfing” (or something very close to it) for several months, following a combination of misfortune and poor personal decisions. So if I’m demonising anyone, I’m demonising myself!
    But although I sympathise with people who are dislocated and have no permanent address, the solution is not for Canberra to build big McMansions and new apartments to house these grey-zone homeless. That’s overkill.
    .
    This is a perfectly legitimate point to make. The fact that you respond to any questioning of showering money on the problem by screeching accusations of demonization and bigotry is testament to your personal insecurity, and/or inability to engage in rational discussion.

    daddy dave

    January 4, 2010 at 11:44 am

  242. Sorry, I was under the impression that you were a medical type. Not pop psych but long observation of medical types (having lived in halls where many of the medical students lived etc.).

    My point isn’t that waterboarding is okay or acceptable, but that I do not consider it to be torture in the same way that that, say an iron maiden would be torture or a flogging would be torture pr hot tongs etc. It constitutes an abuse of people in custody and is a criminal event (assult)so I’m not surprised it is kept secret.

    How naive of me, I thought the medical profession was abandoning such hubris. My general advice to people is that if they are capable and have the time they should do their own research to determine if the doctor has given them the right treatment and advice. Medical errors are now all too common and I sometimes think that doctors have a very simplistic way of interpreting research findings.

    I agree, waterboarding is not as bad as other forms, though peoples’ responses to various forms of stress are highly variable. As someone who has a detailed understanding of how brain tissue is so easily damaged and how even minute damage can pave the way for psychopathology and neurological conditions decades into the future, I recognise much more easily than most people that extreme stress is not just an emotional issue, it can pave the way for a host of chronic conditions throughout the body. After all the greater majority of PTSD cases result not from physical damage but simply viewing and being involved in highly stressful conditions.

    For reasons I can’t understand the Gulf War and the recent war appeared to have generated psychological\psychiatric pathologies much more so than in previous years. That may be because PTSD was not recognised as a psychiatric condition until the DSM revision immediately after Vietnam. In a text that did not address recent conflicts, War on Nerves, a psychiatrist argues that for every physical casualty there are two psychiatric casualties. That ratio seems to have ballooned in recent decades.

    John H.

    January 4, 2010 at 11:47 am

  243. I’m not sure you’re correct there THR. Those people can also make a claim for living in those homes or apartments that Plibersek is talking about.

    In any event my strongest advice to young men is don’t under any circumstances ever even think about getting married, as the odds are set up against you in terms of the relationships going bust and the financial hardship potential.

    The welfare system is soaked in estrogen.

    If you don’t have a huge desire to have kids then live a bachelor life as the sex will be there anyway.

    JC

    January 4, 2010 at 11:58 am

  244. the government doesn’t give out free houses to people on couches, and nothing in Plibersek’s proposal suggests a plan to do otherwise.
    .
    So who does qualify for free houses, in this plan?

    daddy dave

    January 4, 2010 at 11:59 am

  245. So who does qualify for free houses, in this plan?

    The report doesn’t make this clear, but my presumption is that it would be those prioritised on the (years-long) waiting list.

    Nobody whatsoever walks straight into a free house. The process would be that only those who have absolutely no friends or relatives (with homes) go into a refuge or boarding house. (Presently, a number of these are sleeping rough, as the figures indicate above). Then, these people would have to go through the State govt housing service to get onto the waiting list. If you’re in transient accommodation, you don’t even get to step one. The figures given in the Oz report suggest that much of the money will go to ‘financial counselling’, and that the amount of new housing will be relatively small, compared to the size of the problem.

    If you don’t believe me, give your local crisis accommodation centre a call – tell them you’re staying with a mate, and see how many McMansions they’re throwing at you.

    THR

    January 4, 2010 at 12:14 pm

  246. Sinclair, “peer review” also gave us the Lancet MMR-autism debacle. Interestingly, the Lancet editor in charge at the time, Richard Horton, was the same man who published the fraudulent Iraq mortality “surveys” (timed to coincide with US elections). He also appeared at anti-Bushitler rally with George Galloway. Peer review – what could possibly go wrong?

    C.L.

    January 4, 2010 at 12:19 pm

  247. THR:

    I don’t think you claim is entirely correct. I agree that you can’t just call up demand tell them you’re bunking with a friend and want a large house with a pool and sauna.

    However it’s a process and once you are able to get onto the conveyor belt play the game right you will end up with heavily subsidized accommodation. In other words like most things in life you have to be able to play the game and be a gamer.

    JC

    January 4, 2010 at 12:20 pm

  248. CL and other please note that Tim lambert of Deltoid was pushing Lancet well after the time when even John Hopkins slapped the ‘academic” in charge of the fraud. He knew exactly what had happened but was still defending it against charges of its illegitimacy.

    This example shows just how potentially rotten academics can be. It was jawdropping to watch an academic behave that way.

    JC

    January 4, 2010 at 12:25 pm

  249. But what’s the nature of the game, jc? If you don’t have kids, that game involves staying on a waiting list for 5-10 years. It’s be easier to simply get a job and go the private rental option in that time. If you do have kids, you’re almost certainly going to be given a place that’s too small anyway, by a bedroom or two. There are some big families in the high-rise flats, for instance.

    THR

    January 4, 2010 at 12:26 pm

  250. THR:

    If the plan is to increase the volume of accommodation you then have expect they are trying to shorten the lines perhaps- materially so.

    If you look at the objective which is to 1/2 the level of “homeless” and combine that with the fact that homelessness carries interesting levels of the definition you can assume they are up to no good in terms of ramping up housing availability for all their “clients”

    JC

    January 4, 2010 at 12:35 pm

  251. This thread has been very illuminating. The abuse quotient has been low and the arguments robust.

    THR, SDFC, FDB and John H have fought hard in the welfare cause. But, I abjure them to read some Theodore Dalrymple (Life at the Bottom) and James Bartholemew (The Welfare State We’re In), who have both amply demonstrated the vast social problems caused by the welfare state.

    Admittedly, both authors are talking about the British experience, but I can’t think, thanks to the Frolicking Mole’s descriptions of his customers, that there would be much of a difference between Britain and Australia in realtion to the effects of welfarism.

    What to do? No Government really is going to tackle the problem, as it reduces their clientele. All those public servants, grateful welfare recipients and the lefties who get their self-righteous jollies out of letting the Government spend others’ money together form a large enough portion of the community to stop any meaningful reform.

    So the first thing we need to do, if we want to reform the welfare system, is break up this coalition of the welfarists. All it would take is some crafting of the Electoral Act. It has always seemd to me that there is a clear conflict of interest in letting those whose have any power to elect MPs and Senators. Public Servants, and Welfare recipients (perhaps with the exception of OAPs and a few others) should therefore be disenfranchised pro-tem.

    Rococo Liberal

    January 4, 2010 at 12:40 pm

  252. Rocco:

    You really can’t use the electoral system to reverse welfare because as i said before the entire structure of welfare is soaked in estrogen and females strongly support the welfare state.

    No party can win elections based on reducing welfare. As John Humphreys has noted in the past the two gods of the free enterprise movement, Maggie and Ron could only hold it. They weren’t able to reverse it at all.

    If men really want to reverse welfare and I believe most men do (not all obviously but a decent % do) then the way to do it is to starve the beast and the best way of doing so is DON’T GET MARRIED. Under no circumstances should any young male EVER get married and have kids in this set up.

    JC

    January 4, 2010 at 12:48 pm

  253. About as useless as all your other ideas RL.

    FDB

    January 4, 2010 at 12:53 pm

  254. DON’T GET MARRIED. Under no circumstances should any young male EVER get married and have kids in this set up.

    Here’s a horror story for you straight from the Child Support Agency …

    A women receiving maintenance payments rang up the CSA requesting a letter that guaranteed she would be receiving her maintenance payments for x number of years. Why? She was applying for a housing loan.

    Here’s another one and I heard this directly from someone who worked in the relevant area:

    There has been an “unofficial” policy of shifting people off to disability pension on any excuse. The public servants simply find a “reason” to put this person on disability and the govt don’t mind because it improves their unemployment stats. Go look at some figures showing an ever growing rise in disability numbers.

    In regard to psychiatric conditions it is not that hard to convince a professional you have a condition. If you want some insight into this, have a look at the famous experiments of David Rosenhan(very funny. Thud!) and Thomas Szazs. Now it would be interesting to look at the increase in disability numbers to see how much of that increase is through psychiatric diagnoses.

    I will always support welfare because as I previously stated it is just a statistical inevitability that X percentage of people will require assistance. Govts will never eliminate welfare, the only way I can see welfare costs coming down is through a huge increase in “tough philanthropy”. By “tough” I mean something akin to what social workers do with their clients. They enter into a contract of sorts: we will help you but you must do this.

    The only way this can work is if the philanthropic institutions enter into an agreement with govt that goes something like this: we have taken under our wing John Doe and will provide all his immediate needs. Thus the govt no longer needs to support this individual. Now if John Doe does not meet the requirements of the contract and so has to return to the government, John Doe has a very real problem.

    Strictly speaking you don’t need a philanthropic institution, any group of people could come together to help person X and enter into the same arrangement.

    John H.

    January 4, 2010 at 1:10 pm

  255. There has been an “unofficial” policy of shifting people off to disability pension on any excuse. The public servants simply find a “reason” to put this person on disability and the govt don’t mind because it improves their unemployment stats. Go look at some figures showing an ever growing rise in disability numbers.

    They learnt that from the Scandinavians. For years we had lefties in Australia proclaiming the virtues of “the Scandinavian model” (they called it) which has very low unemployment levels. However a decent Scandi think tank and a former union official in Sweden blew the whistle of that racket and we find that disability pensions in Scandi is through the roof as the socialists were peddling their jobless rates.

    It would be interesting to see what’s happened to our disability levels since these bozos came into power. You have any stats?

    JC

    January 4, 2010 at 1:17 pm

  256. I don’t think John H has been pushing a vastly expanded welfare state (e.g read the above). I think he has in the past been overly critical of libertarians.

    When we talk about generational poverty, I know that it is largely caused by welfare and and it very deplorable. That’s why we should re-examine the system. Not because I envy the poor. All of the hyperbole isn’t useful. Yes some people are good for nothing bludgers who milk the system without breaking any rules beyond belief. The vast majority just want a job or to be facing a situation where employment actually increases their take home income.

    As for the DSP, the proportion of the population on DSP has increased five fold since its inception. In an increasingly litigious society, this smacks of fudging figures or unfortunately, genuinely bludging.

    Rudd’s public housing: FAIL

    http://bovination.com/readArticle.jsp?articleID=1661838

    *Two years ago Kevin (‘economic stimulus’) Rudd allocated 672 million dollars to build houses for Aborigines. Now, dear reader, let’s do a quick calculation on how many houses that might build. A friend of mine spent $350,000 building a house recently. Add 50,000 for servicing a block, and that’s probably around $400,000 to build a lovely spacious modern house. So 672 million hard-earned tax dollars should build around 1920 houses, right? In fact if we were willing to do without the double garage with internal access we could easily do over 2000.

    So how does that get allocated? Well, Tenant Creek was allocated $36 Million for 20 houses. That’s 1.8 million dollars per house! But it gets worse. It was then revised down to nine houses. That’s four million dollars per house! Apparently “training costs and fees for consultants” were significant (who’d have thought). But still it gets worse. Now it’s been revised to zero houses. Yes, that’s right – zero houses will be built with the $36 million. The money is going to be spent on fixing up some existing houses.

    In fact no houses at all have been built on the scheme so far. Anywhere. With the whole 672 million dollars. Some houses might be built in 2011. Maybe. And they are talking about a total of 300 houses. That’s 2.2 million dollars per house! If they even build that many.*

    Semi Regular Libertarian

    January 4, 2010 at 1:27 pm

  257. I have three friends who were encouraged to claim disability for depression (one is genuinely unable to work much of the time with depressive anxiety and regular panic attacks), but this all occurred under Howard, so I’m not sure a partisan analysis is any more useful here than it ever is.

    FDB

    January 4, 2010 at 1:28 pm

  258. FDB is right, the problem continued under Howard and for the same reason. It is not a leftist thing it is a widespread thing. If memory serves me correctly a news heading I saw about a month ago stated 1 in 4 people in the USA have a disability. Damn, I must becoming disabled if I can’t remember that headline! I’m off to the doctor to prove my disability.

    John H.

    January 4, 2010 at 1:31 pm

  259. FDB:

    We know they all pad the numbers given a chance, however i would bet my left testicle that these bozos would be more dishonest by multiples given the chance, as it’s just in their nature to be more so especially in this area.

    So let me concede they are all dishonest pricks, however the degree of dishonesty is also important.

    It’s also the reason why libertarians hate the welfare state.

    JC

    January 4, 2010 at 1:36 pm

  260. JohnH

    What you’re explaining is the skewering of incentives and why that factor alone is so important.

    JC

    January 4, 2010 at 1:37 pm

  261. John H, I broadly agree that X% of the population will require welfare and thus I’m happy for the government to provide temporary assistance to people but would prefer that beyond this friendly societies, etc. covered the balance.

    dover_beach

    January 4, 2010 at 1:38 pm

  262. That’s about my take too, Dover. Some people need assistance and they always have. Difference is, in the Olden Days, they were drunks, bums and park dwellers getting beaten up and chased out of town by coppers etc. Most died young or committed suicide etc. We have a duty of care to these people and we can afford it. It’s the tax ‘n churn middle-class welfare directed at massaging the bourgeois vote that needs to stop. People should be allowed to hang on to as much of their money – to spend as they wish – as is fiscally possible.

    C.L.

    January 4, 2010 at 1:48 pm

  263. Well said CL.

    FDB

    January 4, 2010 at 1:50 pm

  264. You’ll never get that sort of welfare state under present electoral conditions, CL as females won’t allow it as a result of their vote.

    The only way to break the yoke of welfare slavery is to avoid marriage and not have kids. If females want a cradle to grave welfare state let them figure out how to pay for it without children.

    Starve the best… DON”T GET MARRIED.

    JC

    January 4, 2010 at 1:54 pm

  265. but this all occurred under Howard, so I’m not sure a partisan analysis is any more useful here than it ever is.
    .
    It’s not. Neither side messes much with the welfare system. They tinker around the edges but the core system is similar to how it looked 3 decades ago.
    There’s hope of sensible policy as long as both sides can agree that
    (a) rorting can, and does, occur, especially when welfare becomes too generous and expansive;
    (b) some people are genuinely in need of welfare, in circumstances that very few would object to the provision of state assistance.
    Somewhere in between those two lie practical, acceptable solutions.

    daddy dave

    January 4, 2010 at 1:56 pm

  266. “Difference is, in the Olden Days, they were drunks, bums and park dwellers getting beaten up and chased out of town by coppers etc.”

    Really? In Australia? Not even the Churches did anything?

    Even so, then the scope for welfare is limited. Conditionality creates more problems. Just make it simple.

    Semi Regular Libertarian

    January 4, 2010 at 2:02 pm

  267. DD:

    That’s all very good and I accept all that you say in principle. However in practice it simply doesn’t work like that, or rather hasn’t worked like that.

    Don’t forget that the beginnings of the Welfare state in Germany and the later in the US under FDR were essentially based on those principles and then it mushroomed to the monster we have now, which every 1 1/2 decades get ratcheted up another notch.

    The welfare state isn’t containable and will continue to metastasize until we go broke. There is nothing that will stop if projections are linear as they have been for the past 50 odd years.

    That’s why even a little welfare is impossible to introduce with the disease spreading. You can’t have a bit of welfare and not expect it to grow.

    That’s why there is no middle ground and never will be. The proper position should be no welfare at all.

    Private donations for the little you and CL are advocating would more than cover it.

    JC

    January 4, 2010 at 2:09 pm

  268. Nobody whatsoever walks straight into a free house.
    .
    point taken, but there are two issues here revolving around the secondary homeless (boarding house tenants, couch surfers, etc). The first is whether they’ll be eligible for welfare jackpot, and you seem confident that they are not.
    The second – and the reason I brought it up in the first place – was that they are being recruited to swell the numbers of “homeless” in government reports, to turn a small (but serious) problem into a vast problem; presumably to suit a particular policy agenda. When people hear the word “homeless”, in fact when I hear the word “homeless”, it conjures up all sorts of images and presses hot emotional buttons. That’s not playing fair.
    We should be given the facts. In particular I don’t regard “tertiary homelessness” (having a combined kitchen/living area) as an honest use of words.

    daddy dave

    January 4, 2010 at 2:10 pm

  269. “We should be given the facts. In particular I don’t regard “tertiary homelessness” (having a combined kitchen/living area) as an honest use of words.”

    Many low rent, highly undesirable dives have this, but as do many rather desirable places for young professional couples.

    What a terribly compromised set of data.

    Semi Regular Libertarian

    January 4, 2010 at 2:14 pm

  270. “We should be given the facts. In particular I don’t regard “tertiary homelessness” (having a combined kitchen/living area) as an honest use of words.”

    Are people living in studio apartments counted as “homeless”? That would be incredible.

    dover_beach

    January 4, 2010 at 2:18 pm

  271. FDB

    Your right on that, the shift from normal dole to disability has been giong on for quite some time now, its not a Lab thing alone.

    Life at the Bottom is a brilliant read, if youve ever had just the vauge feeling “something is wrong” then that book ends to be an eye opener. IMHO we are about 15 years behind the UK in terms of generational poverty. But if China had a downturn then all bets are off.

    thefrollickingmole

    January 4, 2010 at 2:19 pm

  272. The Government does not like competition:

    http://www.openforum.com.au/content/war-charity

    Semi Regular Libertarian

    January 4, 2010 at 2:21 pm

  273. The only way to break the yoke of welfare slavery is to avoid marriage and not have kids. If females want a cradle to grave welfare state let them figure out how to pay for it without children.

    but not having children is a pretty huge sacrifice 🙂 the state is willing to pay for their education and health costs and will also give you some cash to help you in the form of the baby bonus and the ftb. if people were willing to have children before all these incentives then having children now must be very worthwhile.

    drscroogemcduck

    January 4, 2010 at 2:35 pm

  274. mporary assistance to people but would prefer that beyond this friendly societies, etc. covered the balance.

    Isn’t that what I was arguing for, isn’t that how I attempted to address the problem? What we prefer don’t matter diddly swat, it is what we can do that matters. Solutions, not sentimentality. People can moan about the welfare state all they like but that isn’t going to make it go away. Nor is government, the only way we are going to deal with this is through private individuals choosing to enter into philanthropy. But in a world where we are always encouraged to chase our self interest above all else, philanthropy is always going to be occurring at the margins; as history has shown … .

    John H.

    January 4, 2010 at 2:50 pm

  275. John H – you should really read that article I posted by the other John H.

    Rudd has created new edicts which makes philanthropy somewhat unviable now.

    Semi Regular Libertarian

    January 4, 2010 at 2:51 pm

  276. Duck:

    Financially speaking the state is us. so there is no such thing as free health and education , as it has to be paid for. It’s a pooling racket, far more inefficiently operated than the most miserably run insurance firm.

    The baby bonus etc. is a poisoned chalice and no semi-numerate male should ever fall for those gimmicks…. of course women do, as they want kids anyway so the extra cash is just money for jam.

    As far as education goes… if you aren’t able to afford private schooling or don’t expect to be able to afford to than no male should even come close to contemplating having kids as they will be put behind the 8 ball from the very beginning. No amount of money will ever cure a command and control, dysfunctional education system. Some kids of course can overcome it as they are naturally bright, but by definition not all kids can be bright.

    So don’t have kids if your going to condemn to the public school mediocrity.

    You very much can’t avoid the medical system of course as we’re alive, however we’re lucky enough to have a hybrid system so you can hide yourself in the private system as much as you can.

    The baby bonus and the other crap they offer are like teaser rates offered by banks on their credit cards. It disguises what’s coming.

    Now of course men love their kids to death just as much as women do. However men aren’t hugely hardwired to have kids like women are. Like most men I was pretty ambivalent about having kids but when they showed up I love them to death. However if i’/we didn’t have them we wouldn’t know them.

    As I said earlier the current system is an estrogen soaked socialist welfare state skewed more and more against the male. With divorce rates, the real effective tax rate on males could end up being as high as 80% if you include payments etc. being paid overwhelmingly in cases where the female sprints for divorce.

    it’s pretty deplorable of conservatives actually advocating essentially what has become an estrogen layered socialist institution (marriage) suggesting this caper fulfills your needs and keeps society happy. This is obvious bullshit. If conservatives were in any way 1/2 way smart about this they would be telling males to back peddle from marriage at 100 miles a hour. They’re concerned with keeping gays from being married as though it could tarnish this decrepit arrangement is amazingly stupid too. If gays were 1/2 way smart they would also run a mile… at least the more libertarian ones.

    The obvious point is DON’T GET MARRIED.

    JC

    January 4, 2010 at 3:06 pm

  277. “Isn’t that what I was arguing for, isn’t that how I attempted to address the problem?”

    I was agreeing with you, John H. I think you sometimes imagine that you’re being assailed when you’re not.

    “What we prefer don’t matter diddly swat, it is what we can do that matters. Solutions, not sentimentality.”

    Actually, what we prefer is paramount, practically speaking, since the world of practice is the world of desire and aversion. That we often fall short of what we desire or fail to prevent what we are averse to doesn’t change the character of ths world in which we live.

    “People can moan about the welfare state all they like but that isn’t going to make it go away. Nor is government,…”

    And who has argued that only moaning about them will make either go away? Note that I have never argued that we would be better off with no government; quite the opposite and this is true of most people on this website. I would add here that although I support welfare, I do not support a welfare state.

    “But in a world where we are always encouraged to chase our self interest above all else, philanthropy is always going to be occurring at the margins; as history has shown …”

    Actually, I’d imagine that the late 19th C saw more philanthropy than the present and they were chasing their self-interest more thoroughly then we are now although the ‘chasing’ has always been greatly exaggerated, then and now.

    dover_beach

    January 4, 2010 at 3:07 pm

  278. Actually, I’d imagine that the late 19th C saw more philanthropy than the present

    Exactly DB, when christian mores held greater sway throughout the community. There has been a loss of a sense of community over the last 50 years. I even read one study by economists which found that burglary rates correlated with the number of people an individual knew in their local area. Today such neighbourly involvement seem much less substantial than bygone days. While I advocate philanthropy, this is one reason why I think it is never going to be sufficient.

    BTW: there is a number of studies coming out suggesting that altruism is much more an “intrinsic” aspect of our nature than many presume.

    John H.

    January 4, 2010 at 3:23 pm

  279. SRL

    Had a quick look and then I remembered the below. Rather disgraceful behavior by a charity.

    http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/national/cancer-charity-onlybrgives-away-4900/story-e6frf7l6-1225814275430

    That’s the problem with my bloody memory, it highlights contradictions with a vengance. We have to ask ourselves if the people running this charity were more motivated by their own welfare than the intended recipients of the gifts. If you read the article though you will see that this group is giving much more now.

    This doesn’t excuse Rudd’s latest move, and nothing can excuse Rudd for his delusions of grandeur, he may well turn out to be the most dangerous PM in my lifetime.

    John H.

    January 4, 2010 at 3:26 pm

  280. jc:

    Financially speaking the state is us. so there is no such thing as free health and education , as it has to be paid for. It’s a pooling racket, far more inefficiently operated than the most miserably run insurance firm.

    the state is like the commons and if you can’t cooperate to control access to it then the best strategy for individuals is to exploit it as much as possible. convincing guys who can support kids not to have kids doesn’t sound like a very good strategy for starving the state. assuming women want to have kids they will still have them and just use the state support them making the situation even worse. honestly the best strategy to kill off the welfare state is to have kids and instead of teaching them to be productive members of society teach them how to exploit and game society as much as possible. the current generation of exploiters are amateurs. bring in some professionally trained ones and society will collapse in a couple of generations.

    drscroogemcduck

    January 4, 2010 at 3:55 pm

  281. John H, do you imagine that your statement:

    “Exactly DB, when christian mores held greater sway throughout the community. There has been a loss of a sense of community over the last 50 years. I even read one study by economists which found that burglary rates correlated with the number of people an individual knew in their local area. Today such neighbourly involvement seem much less substantial than bygone days. While I advocate philanthropy, this is one reason why I think it is never going to be sufficient.”

    exactly agrees with my statement:

    “Actually, I’d imagine that the late 19th C saw more philanthropy than the present and they were chasing their self-interest more thoroughly then we are now although the ‘chasing’ has always been greatly exaggerated, then and now.”

    It’s situations like this that scientists display a lack of historical sense. Nineteeth C England isn’t a particular good period to use as an example of Christian mores or community spirit and yet philanthropy fared as well if not better then it likely does now.

    dover_beach

    January 4, 2010 at 3:56 pm

  282. Nineteeth C England isn’t a particular good period to use as an example of Christian mores or community spirit and yet philanthropy fared as well if not better then it likely does now.

    Yes but were christian values more prevalent throughout society then compared to now?

    John H.

    January 4, 2010 at 3:58 pm

  283. In order to exploit it, you have to be a gamer and few people are, Duck.

    Why have kids if the only possible alternative is the public school system, which basically gives the state and leftist cohorts in the education system the fodder to use in order to exploit more .

    nope, I don’t think so. If you can’t afford the private system don’t have kids.

    If 50% of marriages end up in divorce and with that comes an 80% tax rate and severe restrictions on seeing your kids the odds suggest not to get married until the system changes.

    You would be starving the beast by not getting married and having kids than otherwise.

    JC

    January 4, 2010 at 4:04 pm

  284. Why so angry today JC? Did you get your Christmas credit card bill? 🙂

    tal

    January 4, 2010 at 4:11 pm

  285. Do I sound angifried, Tal? I hope I don’t as I’m not. I’ll try and lighten up a little.

    Thankfully the bill hasn’t arrived yet and I refuse to open the bank website to check the balance working on the principle that what you don’t know can’t hurt. 🙂

    JC

    January 4, 2010 at 4:15 pm

  286. sorry JC, not taking your advice and I doubt anyone else will.

    1) no one is going to start off with the premise that their marriage is going to end up in divorce, whether this is realistic or not.

    2) at the end of the day, fuck politics and fuck political change. my happiness is the only thing that matters. if i think I’m going to be happy being married I will be. why do you think this marginal effort at undermining the welfare state will have anything but an infinitesimal effect? it won’t.

    jtfsoon

    January 4, 2010 at 4:15 pm

  287. Actually, jc, there are public schools that outperform private ones in many instances. There are many factors that influence the quality of schooling, like postcode, for instance. You might as well enjoin men not to procreate unless they can guarantee their kids will grow up in Toorak.

    Secondly, welfare benefits are pitiful for the most part. Would anybody here seriously contemplate swap[ping their life for that of a single parent welfare recipient?

    Thirdly, the notion of chronic welfare dependence needs further analysis. Those who are subject to extensive periods on the dole/in public housing tend to have a myriad of problems – intergenerational abuse and trauma, mental health, drug and alcohol, criminal, etc. – so that welfare dependency is the least of their problems.

    It’s true that the state agencies incentivise diagnoses of ‘disability’, for statistical purposes. The same incentives, however, also induce them to force people into crappy work-for-the-dole schemes, or push them into crap employment to which they are unsuited, merely to get them off the books (and to collect a massive bonus for each ’employed’ punter).

    If you want serious ‘gaming’, have a look at all the tax-rorting self-employed/small business folk out there, claiming everything they own as a business expense.

    THR

    January 4, 2010 at 4:19 pm

  288. DB:

    Quick search, could only find this. Admittedly the matter is complex. Dig the journal title, strikes me as an oxymoron!

    Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion

    Generations of Decline: Religious Change in 20th-Century Britain
    ALASDAIR CROCKETT 1 DAVID VOAS 2
    Alasdair Crockett was Chief Research Officer at the Institute for Social and Economic Research, University of Essex, United Kingdom. He died in September 2006 following a long illness.
    2 David Voas is Simon Research Fellow at the Cathie Marsh Centre for Census and Survey Research, University of Manchester, United Kingdom. E-mail: voas@man.ac.uk
    Copyright 2006 The Society for the Scientific Study of Religion
    ABSTRACT

    This article analyzes the best available evidence from the major British social surveys to describe and explain the continuous decline of religion throughout the 20th century. This decline is overwhelmingly generational in nature rather than a product of particular periods such as World War II or the 1960s. Measures of religious affiliation, regular attendance at worship, and religious belief show nearly identical rates of intergenerational decline. Decline has not been offset by any positive age effects in an aging society: Britons do not get more religious as they get older. The intergenerational decline follows clear patterns of transmission of parental religious characteristics to children. Two potential modulators of decline are identified and investigated: immigration of people who are more religious than the existing population and higher fertility rates among the religiously active population. Of these only the former appears of importance. The nonwhite ethnic minority immigrant population is far more religious than the white population; however, the rates of intergenerational decline (between immigrant parents and native-born children) are almost as high as for the white population, leading to an intergenerational convergence of levels of religiosity. Although ethnic minority populations tend to be more religious and have higher fertility rates, there is no differential fertility by religiosity among the population as a whole.

    John H.

    January 4, 2010 at 4:19 pm

  289. fallacy of collective action JC

    The rational voter knows his vote at the margin isn’t going to make a difference.

    The only people who might adopt your advice are some libertarian activist ideologues who will have bugger all influence on the system while making their genetic line extinct.

    jtfsoon

    January 4, 2010 at 4:19 pm

  290. “If you want serious ‘gaming’, have a look at all the tax-rorting self-employed/small business folk out there, claiming everything they own as a business expense.”

    Familiarise yourself with the law. It is pretty clear. You cannot legally do this. This is no different from anyone else lying about their taxes. There is no need to vilify a group in particular.

    Much better off abolishing the least efficient taxes, simplifying and lowering remaining tax rates.

    Semi Regular Libertarian

    January 4, 2010 at 4:22 pm

  291. here are many factors that influence the quality of schooling, like postcode,

    Title [Sleepers, Awake!: Technology & the Future of Work
    Author [Barry Jones
    Publisher [Oxford University Press
    Place Pub [Melbourne
    Date [1982

    10
    “Postcodes shape life chances and life outcomes far more than technology.”

    John H.

    January 4, 2010 at 4:23 pm

  292. Hi jase, it’s true that most men walk into marriage without figuring out the odds however it doesn’t mean they shouldn’t.

    The odds are stacked against no matter how anyone wants to cut it.

    1. 50% of marriage end up in divorce

    2. Divorce can cause you to run a tax rate of 85%.

    Those are pretty hard facts, if you wish to play against them I wouldn’t want to stop you.

    If marriage fulfills your happiness desires then by all means do so, however one shouldn’t lose sight of those facts.

    As most men really desire sex, a clean house and food on the table, you can achieve those objectives through outsourcing and still be up a load of money to spare that can be used to go on holiday with the latest girlfriend.

    Most welfare these days is female based. Of course not all of it is , but most and even health care demands are predominantly female based.

    I wouldn’t advise any young dude to get married these days as the risk is too great.

    Furthermore it would be a great way to starve the beast of needed funds as single women have a harder time claiming welfare.

    JC

    January 4, 2010 at 4:26 pm

  293. “Yes but were christian values more prevalent throughout society then compared to now?”

    John H, if you believe that prevalence equates with attendance then, yes, they were more prevalent then, but I don’t imagine they do equate; and then we have the problem of moving from mere church attendance to the practice of Christian values which seems to me another imponderable. You also have the problem of assuming that Christian values alone giving rise to altruism; and, moreover, the problem of certain modes of Christianity not being very altruistic (I thinking here of varieties of Protestantism).

    All this suggests to me that we are no more or less community-minded than we have ever been; and that claims of our being now more self-interested and money-grubbing than previously are greatly exaggerated (this complaint is always made at every stage of our history).

    dover_beach

    January 4, 2010 at 4:27 pm

  294. Jason,

    I think you are correct.

    However marriage looks increasingly risky for men. Particularly if you are less well off.

    I still see working class, aspirational, upper middle class and even the very wealthy only having a few children, but those in generational poverty seem to have more. All anecdotal…but can society keep up?

    This actually makes JC’s idea less valuable.

    We’re better off just to cut the cruel and perverse incentives like the baby bonus that puts a fire out with petrol.

    Semi Regular Libertarian

    January 4, 2010 at 4:27 pm

  295. I’m just telling you how most people would see your arguments, jc.

    As i say, all you might achieve is cause some of the more hard core libertarians to become genetically extinct which depending on who you ask may or may not be a good thing

    jtfsoon

    January 4, 2010 at 4:29 pm

  296. Actually, jc, there are public schools that outperform private ones in many instances. There are many factors that influence the quality of schooling, like postcode, for instance.

    True, but which are highly limited and of course restricted to address. However we’re not talking about the outliers here, THR. We’re talking about the bulge and as I said smart kids can surmount relative impediments in their schooling.

    Melbourne High or Sydney high isn’t exactly the reference point for state based schooling.

    I went to Melb. High …… from the experience at the time compared to the schooling my kids received at a private school I can say my schooling was crap awful compared to theirs as the teachers didn’t give a shit. You still had to make it on your own with limited help from the teachers. I think you would be finding there’s more of that at those state schools you’re talking about.

    JC

    January 4, 2010 at 4:37 pm

  297. I’m a libertarian, not a libertine.

    I don’t think a society based on pure hedonism with straight males behaving like the most promiscious gay bathhouse goers is sustainable or worth having or worth defending. I personally wouldn’t like such a lifestyle myself as a long run proposition either.

    And I don’t say that to be homophobic. Gays do what they do because they’re male eros pursuing male eros. I like the idea of gay marriage in part because it would make more stable bourgeois out of gays. The bourgeois paterfamilias is the foundation of a viable society. Male eros needs to be and should be curbed for the sake of more long term institutions. And I’m not advocating coercion in this, only my own preferences.

    jtfsoon

    January 4, 2010 at 4:40 pm

  298. I’m thinking of private catholic schools, jc, which often perform worse than many public schools in some areas.

    THR

    January 4, 2010 at 4:41 pm

  299. they were more prevalent then, but I don’t imagine they do equate; and then we have the problem of moving from mere church attendance to the practice of Christian values which seems to me another imponderable. You also have the problem of assuming that Christian values alone giving rise to altruism; and, moreover, the problem of certain modes of Christianity not being very altruistic (I thinking here of varieties of Protestantism).

    Yes it is imponderable but you then why do you so resolutely reject my suggestion? Show me some evidence for your claims. On the raw number of Church attendance the philanthropy – christian mores holds up. I know this is complex but then I am just a scientist who knows nothing about history and is incapable of understanding it.

    No, if you read my previous post I specifically mentioned for your benefit that there is now emerging research showing that altruism is more “intrinsic” than we may think. It’s fascinating stuff, given time I would like to look at how culture shapes and encourages altruism.

    It’s situations like this that scientists display a lack of historical sense.

    That’s certainly true but at least I made an effort to present some data.

    John H.

    January 4, 2010 at 4:43 pm

  300. Yea jase but one doesn’t have to be libertine to be libertarian although some of our mutual friends could suggest the opposite. 🙂

    You don’t have to live a libertine life. However a male also doesn’t deserve to be a pack horse to the legal system in the 50/50 event the marriage gets into trouble.

    Furthermore the fodder for the welfare state is kids. As Europe is showing the welfare racket is about to come to a sorry end in the next 2 decades as there simply isn’t enough youth to act like pack mules for that rancid state of affairs.

    JC

    January 4, 2010 at 4:46 pm

  301. How stacked up is marriage against males?

    1. A superior court here held that a father can’t avoid paternity even if a DNA test proves they are your kids.

    2. Feminist groups have been advocating a ban on paternity testing and can actually achieve that.

    3. Since that monster threw a kid off a Melbourne bridge as a result of divorce entanglements, a legal friend of mine in the divorce business says that act has become the equivalent of 911 with Australian courts tightening up further on paternity visits and court orders to stay away.

    4. The feminist are wizened up to where things ae heading and have made even distant relationships a reason to claim support.

    That’s how fucked up things have become.

    I’m not suggesting some male hatred of marriage, I’m simply suggesting to say with the flow in that if the legal system is stacked against you don’t mess with it and stay away from getting roasted by NOT GETTING MARRIED.

    JC

    January 4, 2010 at 4:59 pm

  302. “Yes it is imponderable but you then why do you so resolutely reject my suggestion? Show me some evidence for your claims. On the raw number of Church attendance the philanthropy – christian mores holds up. I know this is complex but then I am just a scientist who knows nothing about history and is incapable of understanding it.”

    Two things, all I have claimed is that there has been more or less no change in community-mindedness. You claim that higher church attendance is in some manner correlated with higher rates of philanthropy. Apart from the numerous problems involved with this suggestion it is likely the case that increasing government welfare through more taxation is likely correlated with reduced philanthropy for a variety of reasons. Secondly, neither of us has provided any figure which indicates a decline in philanthropy since the 19th C so we are both speculating and about something neither of us has in fact demonstrated.

    “No, if you read my previous post I specifically mentioned for your benefit that there is now emerging research showing that altruism is more “intrinsic” than we may think.”

    Yes, I saw that you mentioned it. What would you like me to add? So far as these sorts of studies are concerned I think they generally confirm what the research aims to find. Generally, I think human beings are neither ‘intrinsically’ self-regarding or other-regarding.

    “That’s certainly true but at least I made an effort to present some data.”

    May be I was a little harsh but sometimes the quality of data that is presented is less than what one desires and it seems in some instances that researches will do with any sort of data rather than simply admitting that we really don’t know.

    dover_beach

    January 4, 2010 at 5:18 pm

  303. May be I was a little harsh but sometimes the quality of data that is presented is less than what one desires and it seems in some instances that researches will do with any sort of data rather than simply admitting that we really don’t know.

    Oh god yes, in psychology it is laughable. You should hear how two of my neuro friends carry about the babble that is modern psychology.

    Yes, govt intervention is probably impacting on philanthropy. My personal view DB is that libertarians don’t go far enough, they simply wish to remove government from many areas of life and then hope for a spontaneous order to emerge, a suggestion of animism that also permeates a great deal of psychology. I think we need to completely redesign government, devolving its power through a type of outsourcing where even policy and strategy are determined by specialists, not politician generalists. This is dreamtime stuff but it seems to me that the modern structures of governments have become atavistic. It is the sort issue that people with your background can better address.

    John H.

    January 4, 2010 at 5:26 pm

  304. You can’t avoid paternity by not getting married.

    rog

    January 4, 2010 at 5:35 pm

  305. Catholic teachers college is crap compared with the State.

    rog

    January 4, 2010 at 5:37 pm

  306. I think we need to completely redesign government, devolving its power through a type of outsourcing where even policy and strategy are determined by specialists, not politician generalists

    no freaking way seeing you end up with Doc. Pachauri as head of the IPCC and Jim Hansen wanting to jail power plant operators.

    No freaking way. As bad as democracy is I would much rather Rudd at the top (and I despise the bureaucratic little prick) than a Jim Hansen type issuing arrest order for the Origin CEO or Doc. Pachauri squeezing out every dollar he can stick his grubby little paws on.

    No thanks.

    JC

    January 4, 2010 at 5:37 pm

  307. Rog says

    You can’t avoid paternity by not getting married.

    True so don’t get married and don’t have kids. Ignore the Vatican’s advice…… always wear a condom.

    JC

    January 4, 2010 at 5:39 pm

  308. “My personal view DB is that libertarians don’t go far enough, they simply wish to remove government from many areas of life and then hope for a spontaneous order to emerge,…”

    Of course, removing welfare without replacing it in some form in the voluntary sector via friendly/ mutual societies, etc. would be a recipe for disaster, politically and socially.

    “I think we need to completely redesign government, devolving its power through a type of outsourcing where even policy and strategy are determined by specialists, not politician generalists.”

    Sorry, John H, but this I think would be an absolute disaster. One of the emerging political problems our society faces is the rising political power of so-called ‘experts’; this is precisely the Baconian dream, in tooth and claw, where we are ‘administered’ by managers, scientists and technicians; what Bacon called Illuminati, St Simon, lumierers. I will gladly die in a ditch to prevent the civitatas cupiditatis from appearing more clearly than it already has.

    dover_beach

    January 4, 2010 at 5:52 pm

  309. JC, what you are mostly talking about are not reasons to avoid marriage; they are reasons for men to avoid having children. If they are going to have reasonably regular sex and still achieve that over a number of years, having the snip seems the only safe bet. Should I be pleased that a younger version of you would not be reproducing today?

    steve from brisbane

    January 4, 2010 at 5:54 pm

  310. JC,

    In my model democracy remains alive and well and no single individual will ever be able to determine policy and strategy. I have been discussing this with a few friends and they can see what I am getting at. The idea of generalists making policy in the modern world is ridiculous. That must change. In my model decisions are spread through the relevant sectors of the society, not left in the hands of some yobs elected because of their spin ability\background.

    No, I’m not proposing the same thing as Hayek, who by one reading I encountered wanted a set of experts to remain in power for 15 years to “sort things out”. In my model no-one is consistently making all the decisions, the devolvement of decision making is rotating through various expert committees.

    You have misunderstood me. Must be that little ad hoc experiment I’ve been involved in. Neurogen, a means of enhancing neurogenesis. In my case though the amine-idoleamine balance is out of whack(more tryptophan and less tyrosine!). So everyone keep working hard because until such time as we can nut that out I’m relying on your taxes to eat. It’s cool, promotes new neurons at multiple rates above the norm. My problem is controlling the energy. Hence the recent aggression. Sorry about that. So all the best for the coming year and Do svidaniya!

    John H.

    January 4, 2010 at 5:59 pm

  311. Should I be pleased that a younger version of you would not be reproducing today?

    In a word, no, Steve. If history is any guide i have tended to produce smart kids, not as smart as i am of course seeing they only received 50% of my genetic make up. 🙂 Smart enough however to lift the average. Future cloning off course could solve that problem. LOL

    Your solution isn’t going to solve the problem steve and as usual you’re going half baked on the issue and not thinking things through hard enough.

    1. Males won’t get married and then refuse a woman’s demands to produce rug rats. That just doesn’t happen because in the end a male will either be beaten into submission or the threat of divorce will be put on the table. Estrogen centric family laws are still stacked against the male even if there are no kids as the female meal ticket is still handed out.

    2. The snip… Yea right like how many young marriages would survive if the first thing the male did after attending to the marriage vows was to visit the local snip clinic. Good luck with that one.

    I’m shocked, steve. I would have thought of you as a zero-pop aficionado and here you are peddling marriage and kids.

    DON’T GET MARRIED.

    JC

    January 4, 2010 at 6:12 pm

  312. “Of course, removing welfare without replacing it in some form in the voluntary sector via friendly/ mutual societies, etc. would be a recipe for disaster, politically and socially.”

    I had an idea once that you could out compete the Government in philanthropy, environmentalism and so on, and eventually, people would abandon socialism etc.

    Rudd’s latest intervention to force philanthropic foundations to give away so much cash each year that it makes self funding organisations relying solely on reinvested capital unviable, basically sinks that as an option.

    Semi Regular Libertarian

    January 4, 2010 at 6:23 pm

  313. 20 years later and they’re still could be after you.

    Patricia Cohen, the ex-wife of the hedge fund billionaire Steven A. Cohen, has a new lawyer representing her in the civil racketeering lawsuit she filed against Mr. Cohen, Jenny Anderson writes in The New York Times.

    Ms. Cohen asserts that Mr. Cohen hid millions of dollars in marital assets when the two divorced more than 20 years ago. She says he lied under oath about his net worth, conducted mail and wire fraud, and concealed from her and the Supreme Court of New York millions of dollars he held in 1990, thus reducing her divorce settlement.
    She also accused him of conceding to her in 1985, while they were married, that he had received inside information about the takeover of RCA by General Electric. Mr. Cohen runs SAC Capital Advisors, a hedge fund that manages $13 billion.

    JC

    January 4, 2010 at 6:45 pm

  314. Hey, they’ll come after you to pay tax on the airspace where your Twin Towers used to be:

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/breaking-news/ghoulish-bid-to-slap-tax-on-destroyed-twin-towers/story-fn3dxity-1225815785135

    C.L.

    January 4, 2010 at 6:52 pm

  315. Another triumph for Welfare:

    http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE60010D20100101

    Youths burned 1,137 cars across France overnight as New Year’s Eve celebrations once again turned violent, the French Interior Ministry said on Friday.

    Those darn “youths” and their car-burning ways!

    Michael Fisk

    January 4, 2010 at 6:58 pm

  316. One of the emerging political problems our society faces is the rising political power of so-called ‘experts’… I will gladly die in a ditch to prevent the civitatas cupiditatis from appearing more clearly than it already has.
    .
    I’ll be there in the ditch with you. I won’t be so glad about it.
    .
    I think the principle error libertarians commit generally is that they assume government to be the sole threat to freedom. If you actually look at government and at corporate industry you see the same types of thinking, a lot of it is technobabble concealing a view of others as machine-like with various sophistic platitudes. In industry it’s talk of individuality, ‘flexibility’ and style utopianism; in politics it’s the use of ‘economics’ to justify policy (the real meaning of economic rationalism) and the ever more highly skilled use of the media to present as the the dead centre of something called the ‘mainstream’.
    .
    In reality it’s a network of persons whose primary skill is the capacity to manipulate information and other peoples’ money to make themselves rich and powerful. Tony Blair, Nick Leeson, Damien Hirst. They’re all the same robot only Leeson had a faulty sneakiness chip and got caught.

    Adrien

    January 4, 2010 at 7:34 pm

  317. John H – The idea of generalists making policy in the modern world is ridiculous. That must change
    .
    We are not ruled by generalists John. Politicians are not generalists; their staff are not generalists.
    .
    Politicians are overwhelmingly lawyers who write laws and cut deals. They study law, they study business relationships, and they study politics which is, as idealists never seem to appreciate, a trade, quite apart from all theory. The trade has to do with assembling numbers of people and linking them in alliance. And not just at election time. It has always been about that because it’s not just a trade but instinctive behaviour.
    .
    Very possibly most politicians are Arts/Law (shame few’d be Science/Law) people so they qualify as generalists as well. But I’d bet a bucket of cold cash that they selected Arts subjects from the Schools of Politics and History. There’d not be much by way of, say, Russians Romanticism or Non-Linear Geometry.
    .
    They aren’t generalists. And even if they were they already outsource their policies and strategies. I’m surprised that that escapes you. Isn’t that part of what you do?
    .
    Generalists have a function which is not well understood or integrated into the way people actually work. And genuine generalists are a threatened species. Most ‘generalists’ are simply people who’ve majored in Advanced Technocracy and Managerial Gobblegook.

    Adrien

    January 4, 2010 at 7:47 pm

  318. Hello everybody,

    I have a few things to say. I hope you find this curious.

    I live in public housing and I have done so for my entire life. I was born into public housing and I am now 18 years old. So far I have finished my first year of a 4 year technical university degree. I am currently being sponsored by scholarship by large mining/energy company. In addition to cash annuity, this also allows for a considerable amount of paid work with said mining/energy company. This essentially means I can work full time during holiday periods and work perhaps 2 days per week during term in addition to studying full time. My GPA is 6.8 out of 7.

    My experience of public housing has been rather unique. I do not live in a high density establishment. I live in an isolated medium density unit in a relatively wealthy suburb. The set of units in which I live consists of my own family, 4 elderly couples, 3 disabled individuals to various degrees and 2 single parents with children. It is fairly quiet where I live and relatively uneventful.

    There are few other public housing tenants who really have a sense of individualism, all of them are fine to interact with socially but also extremely paternalistic to the public housing organisation. I suspect this is particularly caused by their respective conditions and significantly by the public housing system itself.

    The housing system is at times a fantastic organisation to work with however at other times it is rather difficult to work with. The difficulty arises essentially when one tries to move from welfare to work. Irregular work is workable within the housing system but it comes with significant interaction and negotiation with the organisation to calculate rents and whatnot. I have no issues in dealing with this myself but I can see how it would be an inhibitor for others.

    Anyway, I can’t think of any more curiosities or views from my perspective within the public housing system as of yet. Questions are welcome.

    Regards,
    R

    Rationalist

    January 4, 2010 at 8:18 pm

  319. Housing is a basic need for people and perhaps it is biggest money spending so it is important to have a good housing system and finance. It will impact on the overall economic growth.

    Kevin Roe

    January 4, 2010 at 8:35 pm

  320. Housing is a basic need for people
    .
    No it’s secondary. The only necessities are air, water and food in that order.
    .
    Everything else is luxury.

    Adrien

    January 4, 2010 at 8:43 pm

  321. “The difficulty arises essentially when one tries to move from welfare to work.”

    It’s the elephant in the room. I’ve mentioned it a few times before here.

    Semi Regular Libertarian

    January 4, 2010 at 9:23 pm

  322. No it’s secondary. The only necessities are air, water and food in that order.
    .
    I would class “shelter” as a necessity.
    You might reply that if it really was a necessity, homeless people would not exist (in the sense that oxygen-deprived people don’t exist).
    .
    A good point! (oh Adrien-of-my-imagination).
    .
    But, I reply, it’s a matter of degree. Going without oxygen will kill you instantly. going without shelter probably won’t kill you right away, but will increase the chance of misfortune and death.

    daddy dave

    January 4, 2010 at 9:31 pm

  323. Rationalist, thanks for your input.
    My observations on your story are that
    i) you’re not a “bludger”, thus exploding any myths that people might hold that all public housing residents are such;
    ii) but you have benefited immensely from state largesse. Few people would refuse such government assistance in terms of housing or anything else; I know of no stories of “stimulus” money being returned. But even though it’s helped you, perhaps in the cold light of day you might wonder whether it’s good policy overall.
    iii) I venture that you’re going to have a better education, and earn more money, than the vast majority of public housing recipients. You’re the tail end of the curve.

    daddy dave

    January 4, 2010 at 9:37 pm

  324. “The difficulty arises essentially when one tries to move from welfare to work.”
    .
    That’s a well documented phenomenon, with welfare in general. It’s got a catchy name, but I can’t remember what it is. ‘Poverty trap’ or something like that.

    daddy dave

    January 4, 2010 at 9:39 pm

  325. I am curious however of the views of Catallaxy readers have on things like public housing privatisation, like the right to buy scheme in the UK under Thatcher?

    Dave, yes. It is true in my case with both government organisations. I think my EMTR is in the order of magnitude of 50-60% although I would need to do the proper calculations to confirm this.

    The state largesses that I see is one which on a per person or per unit basis would yield a frightening cost on the state, gross cost however wouldn’t as frighting as say the Commonwealth welfare bill. For example, I have found that the system tends to shy against working outside the housing department for say maintenance. I try hard to work within the private maintenance system for basic things (and things I am allowed to). The housing department allows this however it also puts greater emphasis on paperwork with the department so tradespeople working within the public housing system, contracted privately are burdened. I personally would like to see the housing department develop a more facilitative approach to perhaps privately funded maintenance by tenants rather than the department.

    The public housing system from my experience is fantastic once you get in however it tends to bring out skills and traits which make returning to market based housing difficult. Long term housing residents like many long term cash welfare recipients simply have considerable difficulty in entering the labour force. Many are paternalistic which is intrinsically opposite to the ideal participant in the workforce.

    Rationalist

    January 5, 2010 at 5:52 am

  326. “I am curious however of the views of Catallaxy readers have on things like public housing privatisation, like the right to buy scheme in the UK under Thatcher?”

    It was a fantastic idea.

    “I personally would like to see the housing department develop a more facilitative approach to perhaps privately funded maintenance by tenants rather than the department.”

    Socialised production is where the concept is in short, wrong.

    It has been a well documented result of economic research that production should be left to the private sector, and income redistribution can be left to the State.

    Tenants, not houses should be funded, much like school vouchers or a HECS style educational or healthcare system.

    The operational flaw here in Australia of course is that the supply side of housing has been put in a deep freeze by bad policy.

    Semi Regular Libertarian

    January 5, 2010 at 8:45 am

  327. Going without oxygen will kill you instantly. going without shelter probably won’t kill you right away, but will increase the chance of misfortune and death.
    .
    Sure but it won’t kill you, you don’t need it in the sense that you need food, water and air. All of us lived for the best part of 90 milllenia without shelter.

    Adrien

    January 5, 2010 at 6:13 pm


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: