"Welcome to the welfare state: Give a man a fish and he’ll demand chips too."
..........................................- Bernard Darnton
Wednesday, 29 July 2009
Quote of the day: Bernard Darnton on the what we've just learned about welfare
Too good to wait until tomorrow morning's NOT PJ column, here's one lesson Bernard's drawn from The Bennett Affair:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
It's worth remembering what happened when the baleful eye of the State fell upon Tim Selwyn...
Yes, OB .. the Libz will not forget that in a hurry. It was a disgrace.
Bernard, that line is perhaps your best yet -- and that's a big call.
I suspect that little beaut is going to be repeated many times from hereonin ... :)
And I will HAVE to use that quote in conversation!
Excellent quote!
Reminds me of the first Harry Hill comedy programme.
"If a dolphin'll jump out of the water for fish, imagine what he'll do for chips!"
Hello Bernard,
It's a bad quote because you gave the man a fish in the first place.
Why did you give the man a fish?
And if he demands chips too, you were wrong in giving him fish.
In other words, your reason for giving him fish was flawed.
Is it wrong for the women to demand Training Incentive Allowance when the State is paying them for the results of their sexual encounters?
Hell yes!
Where are the fathers?
Shari
There is nothing woring with voluntarily donating a present to another person. What is wrong is when the recipient demands and expects more presents on an on-going basis as an entitlement. It is especially wrong when a third party is ultilised to force the donation.
---
Regarding fathers.
It is not my business who sleeps with who. Nor is it yours. If some silly slapper gets herself pregnant after the rut, then the consequences are hers to deal with. In order to track down the "father" and force him to pay upkeep would require the expenditure of significant resource, time and effort. Someone would have to pay for that effort and its (significant) administration and maintenance overhead. No-one should be forced to do that.
The best thing to do about this situation is absolutely nothing. Let people deal with their own circumstances.
LGM
Hello LGM,
Ah! You speaketh for the leader. Pray tell. Would you be mouth-piece or bagman?
Who was looking for someone to ride shotgun? Was it Elijah? No matter.
"Voluntarily donating a present" - a present is never forced.
"Demands and expects more presents" - I am reminded of children and Santa Claus.
"Wrong .... force the donation" - agree.
"It is not my business who sleeps with who. Nor is it yours." Err ... yes, it is, if I am forced to pay for survival of the offspring.
"The best .... absolutely nothing." - Okay. Let's drink to individualism.
Is that Dionysus I hear? Cool.
Shari
1/. I speak on behalf of no-one except myself. Surely, by now you'd have worked that out for yourself. No need for you to start playing the fool here.
2/. The point was that one shouldn't be forced to pay for the bastard progeny of some slapper who got herself pregnant. You shouldn't be forced to pay for that. I shouldn't be forced to either.
3/. Given that, there is no need for me, or you, to be concerned who mated with who, who was on top, who was not, what they did, with what, where, when, drunk or sober, whether the Earth moved, whether it was cosmic experience for them, who was father, who was mother etc. etc. etc. etc. None of it is of any relevance or concern to either of us. It should not be my or your business.
4/. Hence, there should be no requirement to be concerned about it, expend any energy thinking about or considering it whatsoever. Not my business. Should not be yours either.
5/. There is no need to require compulsory funding of a third party to collect information about it or to track people down or to administer it etc.
6/. Other people's business is exactly that. It's not my (or your) business. It should never be forced upon me (or upon you).
LGM
Hello LGM,
1/. I have played the fool in the past and others will perceive I do so at present. Because the best predictor of future behaviour is past behaviour, it is likely I will play the fool in future.
2/. Agreed.
3/. I happen to live in NZ, and not in a country without a Welfare System. Because I live in NZ, I am subject to her laws which includes participation in one form of another in her Welfare System. It is fair to suggest some welfare recipients perform voluntary work in their communities.
4/. Yes, it is my business if offspring are born into homes of welfare recipients because I live in NZ.
5/. Okay.
6/. Sounds fair.
Shari
1/. Play the fool, be a fool. You shouldn't lower yourself to that standard.
3/. Nevertheless none of that information (pertaining to what other people do or did, who was on top etc.) is any business of yours.
4/. No. It is not your business, never has been and never will be (even with government interferences in peoples lives being as prevalent as it is, do you really reckon govt takes instruction from you?).
What is occurring is that the govt. takes money from you by force, fraud and coercion for the survival, operation and expansion of the govt. As it happens a SMALL, TINY portion of takings is directed towards the DPB. Govt largess such as that is used as a justification for the continued depredations of the govt. Among other things it is claimed that operating a welfare state is a necessary function of government.
What is directly your business is the taking of that which is yours. That is, your business is with the government. Your attention should not be distracted by some low level slapper breeding to receive. That's badness, sure, but such behaviour would diminish were it not funded with your money in the first place. Direct your attention to your business and consier what the largest overhead in your life actually is.
LGM
Hello LGM,
1/. Ah yes. Standards. Now there's a concept upon which many elements could pass through.
3/. Apart from government employees perhaps? For surely the people have a right to know what their representatives are being paid. Are welfare beneficiaries government employees? Or are they called recepients? Do beneficiaries pay taxes? Do they buy goods and services? Is Peter being robbed to pay Paul?
4/. In a democracy, I would like to think the government takes instructions from its people.
That is nothing sadder than death and taxes.
Something tells me you are in the manufacturing business. It matters not.
Yes, there is ample reason for government to reduce taxes and levels of bureaucracy.
Perhaps if people were dissatisfied with their government, they may choose to protest to the point where they are willing to spill blood on the streets.
What would be your ideal form of government and what would you call it?
Shari
4/. Since when did the government take its instruction from people outside itself? Fundamentally, with the present arrangement, the government governs. It is not governed.
You wrote: "What would be your ideal form of government and what would you call it?"
We've had that discussion previously.
LGM
Hello LGM,
Indeed yes, we have had a discussion on the libertarians' ideal form of government.
Let me shift through my memory and attempt to see what it was.
Ah yes! You were on the individualism - collectivism spectrum and I was on the anarchy-democracy-sovereignty spectrum.
That's right! I sailed away with me bottle of port. LOL.
Yes, I went away not knowing what the name was of the libertarians' ideal form of government.
I have been pondering the matter while observing the thinking processes of some libertarian postings. There's even one of you folks who calls himself "Male God."
Interesting, is it not, the handle one chooses? No matter.
So, who ARE the NZ Libertarians?
My perception is that it is a group of educated, well informed, and dedicated people.
They appear to be dedicated to family, business, and politics.
It would be fair to suggest the average Joe does not concern himself too much with politics, preferring to vote according to feelings and personalities.
But Libertarians are no average Joes.
So what have I observed about the thinking processes of libertarians?
That they are capable of expressing ideas into words which are succinct, and to the point.
That their ideas carry the element of common sense.
But! They will never be a political force to be reckoned with.
Why?
Because they abuse others and name it 'sport'.
Because they put other people down based on personal circumstances.
Because they have a tendency to use bad, or demeaning words.
And because the philosophy of the libertarians stems from objectivism.
They forget the VERY nature of man lie in the realm of subjectivism.
So, where on the political spectrum do libertarians lie?
I think it's got to be somewhere between anarchy and democracy.
It can't be between democracy and sovereignty because the nature of the philosophy of the libertarians stems from objectivism.
So, what lies between anarchy and democracy? It's a strand.
Yes - a strand stretching from individualism to collectivism.
So what happens when individualism boils over and becomes a collective force?
The force turns into anarchy.
Is it possible for the elements of collectivism to take hold before individualism boils over? Let's say it is possible.
So what happens when collectivism takes hold?
Do they turn towards the idea of democracy?
If so, what is democracy?
At its very base, it is about leadership, and votes.
But libertarians do not call their ideal form of government democracy.
If they do, they would join forces with other similar minded political groups.
That is, if they are dedicated to politics.
But libertarians do not join other similar minded political groups.
Why?
Sure, nothing is perfect, but their ideas, which carry the element of common sense, can be implemented into policies.
So why are the libertarians on the fringe of politics?
It comes down to personalities because groups are made up of individuals.
What are personalities?
Personalities lie on the spectrum of id, ego, and superego, that is, the child, the self, and the mind.
The essence, though, lie in the ego realm.
So, what, or who, are the egos of libertarians?
I don't know.
But I observe the thinking processes of libertarians, and think, maybe, just maybe, they do not understand human nature.
If libertarians are dedicated to politics, and they are possessed of fine minds, surely they will recognise that the art of compromise lie embedded within the realm of politics.
Where does the art of compromise reside?
In the realm of subjectivism.
Where am I going with this?
Nowhere because I am lost.
I can't see anarchy. Can't see democracy either.
So, to be in a libertarian mindset is to be in limbo on the political spectrum.
In limbo. Without a name. With just the idea of an ideal form. Inaction. Only volume.
Yo Joe! Turn the volume up, will ya?
It's in the airwaves.
Okay, I have now received some guidance as to why my spectrum of government may not be palatable to the NZ Libertarians.
In particular, the word "Anarchy".
The spectrum I should be on is that of voluntary contracting- fascism.
And in reading Dr. Sowell's thoughts this morning on Care vs. Control, I applied this new spectrum of government to Obama's Health Reform.
The application works. It makes sense, I think.
What lies at the heart of voluntary contracting?
The recognition of the principle of the element of harm.
What lies at the heart of fascism?
Control.
So, my apologies to libertarians.
I was on the wrong spectrum.
Great to hear the NZ libertarians' voices being aired by Leighton, in particular where to stop with Key to counter the actor who played a role in Whale Rider.
Your ideas, coupled with Leighton's developed ability to reason combined with his innate sense of concern for his fellow being, will resonate with the average NZ Joe.
So, come on, all you male libertarians.
Surely you are provoked sufficiently by now to start a revolution.
Or are libertarians insufficiently provoked still?
Post a Comment