By Barnaby Perkins
When it comes to the burgeoning industry surrounding health and safety legislation I am, like the chorus in T.S.Eliot’s play ‘The Family Reunion’, ‘afraid of all that has happened, and of all that is to come’.In our age, H.S.E. (Health, Safety and the Environment) practitioners, legislators, auditors, and general gurus, have become like the high priests of some new religious faith or cult. They permeate every area of our lives, impinging on and infringing our personal liberty and dampening down the human spirit. They dog each move we make in a society, becoming evermore concerned with how we manage our own individual, and our civilization’s, ‘safety.’
Just like the many things that arrive in our lives and ‘sit at the door, as if they had been there always,’ so has the legislation in this area arrived on our doorstep, like an amorphous black blob, providing a multitude of reasons to hobble us in our day-to-day activities.
‘Sorry – it’s against health and safety regulations’ has become a watch cry, the overarching excuse for anyone who can not, or will not, be bothered to exercise the freedom of the human spirit in the general public anaesthetising of our times.
In New Zealand the Health and Safety in Employment Act first came to sit at our door in 1992 and, according to the Department of Labour, was reviewed and amended substantially in 2002. So, eighteen years of unimpeded growth, with a substantial boost eight years ago—this particular thing at the door has by now wormed its way under the portal and now permeates our entire collective consciousness.
As the Department of Labour remarked at some point:
“The object of the Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992 is to promote the prevention of harm to all people at work, and others in, or in the vicinity of, places of work.”Now, how can one cavil against that? It has got to be good stuff has it not?
Again the Department of (Slave) Labour:
“The Act applies to all New Zealand workplaces and places duties on employers, the self-employed, employees, principals and others who are in a position to manage or control hazards.”
Great! Anyone protesting H.S.E. legislation is immediately branded as a negative unit, an industrial saboteur at worst, and a social misfit at the very least. How can one rail against something which is so obviously and basically intrinsically ‘good’?
Yes – it is the Emperor’s New Clothes all over again. Only the odd little voice in the wilderness dares exclaim ‘Let us live free from your silly restrictions – please!’
A recent letter to the editor of a provincial newspaper (regarding the closure, by the district council, of a hydroslide at the local aquatic centre, after 250,000 successful rides and 41 ‘unfortunate incidents’—all attributed to lack of personal common sense) has lead the correspondent to wonder if,
‘in this cotton wool wrapped, politically correct society [has perhaps become] alone in this view, or is it a case of the silent majority being dictated to by a vocal, powerful lily-livered minority when it comes to any activity that has a small element of danger………?’No, fear not—you are not alone. But read the Department of Labour’s own words once more. This legislative persiflage really has, or knows, no bounds. It is good for you.
It applies to everyone and everything everywhere and it is for your own benefit—or is it?
What about the thousands of, legislators, high priests and acolytes, safety officers, auditors, trainers, and civil servants who depend on the full extension of this cant for their, often well-padded, livings?
Having come to sit at our doors, these people will not just go quietly away.
I would hesitate to use the word ‘academic’ in this context, but there are even University qualifications available for serious health and safety practitioners. (Universities need to be safe and make money too!)
Rather like the ‘certified ordinations’ for bush Baptist ministers, obtainable my mail and distance study—for a small donation—these are readily available for ‘would be’ high priests of the art.
No doubt pitched to suit the working mindset of a precocious seven year old—the thought patterns directing safety legislation seem to operate well in this rarefied atmosphere—these qualifications are proliferating as we speak. There is certainly a GradDipOSH (distance learning) offered by Massey University and a MOHS (Yes—that is Master of Occupational Health and Safety) obtainable from The University of Newcastle, Australia.(again by distance learning!)
There is probably even a PhDOSH coming online somewhere if you care to look.
Wonderful letters to put after your name, should you be so inclined.
I often wonder where, in the political scheme of thing, all these safety and health practitioners were in the years between 1914 and 1918, or 1939 to 1945, when we really needed them.
Where were the ‘explosion hazard’ and ‘ looking over the top of this trench could be injurious to you health’ signs – when they could have done some good?
They are here now and I am still afraid. There are three choices really:
1) Get qualified and become one of them. Join the cult – it requires little or no intelligence otherwise they wouldn’t be doing it! An easy and fiscally rewarding solution - if you can afford the cost.
2) Remain as one of the sheep – follow their ever encroaching curtailment of your life and freedom – if you can afford the cost.
3) Protest. Ignore them wherever possible. Rant against the Emperor’s new clothes. Laugh at them. Join the growing number of voices in the wilderness. You can’t afford not to.
© Barnaby Perkins April 14, 2010
Barnaby Perkins is a Taranaki based freelance writer, Ship’s Captain, and monocle wearer.
| Share this post : |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
35 comments:
"ever encroaching curtailment of your life and freedom"
Haha, classic scaremongering, is it not giving people the freedom to be safer at work?
Love these Fox style freedom rants. I'm always trying to figure out who's freedom has been lost. I've never considered safety regulations to be taking away my freedom, but rather increasing it.
And ironically I consider talk of "personal freedom" to be the most predictable PC stance anyone can take. If the majority of the public gain something - in this case safety, isn't that increasing freedom for the majority?
Umm? Not exactly - but then it can not be expected that everyone will be bright enough to understand the point being made here!
Please explain your point then.....
For me (and the majority of workers), more safety means I have the freedom to go about work with the knowledge that I'm safer and more protected. That is freedom to me.
What is freedom to you? Working in a less safe environment?
The word freedom has been hijacked by neo-liberalists, you are not talking about freedom, you're talking about neo-liberal ideals.
Less government won't give the majority more freedom, its an ignorant illusion. It'll give the rich more freedom, but the poor less freedom, since there are more poor people, you are promoting less freedom.
You can put another cheap-shot post up if you want, or you can argue your point, if you have one
@Anonymous: Well, let's begin by defining our terms, as I've done physical compulsion.
It means the freedom to exercise and act on one’s choice and judgement, not the “freedom” from disagreeable circumstances promoted by statists.
Contrary to your suggestion, it's not a matter of class warfare.
Moreover, it's not enough simply to say we're talking about "less government," since it's not necessarily true to say that the government tat governs best governs least.
It's not true, because the job of government--its only legitimate job--is to prohibit the initiation of physical force; and to do that succesfully it must be as large as it needs to be.
But when it is held to that job, and only to that job (no fear taking that monopoly of force and doing people over instead of protecting them), then both rich and poor have more freedom--and the poor have withal the important freedom to become rich themselves. :-)
PS: Please put a name to your posts. It makes it more convenient for everyone.
(sorry about the name - computer illiterate, and the physical compulsion link is dead)
"It means the freedom to exercise and act on one’s choice and judgement"
How does having safer workplaces affect my choice and judgment? I just don't see a link, I really can't get my head around this issue of 'freedom' - and I watch a lot of Fox news.
"the job of government--its only legitimate job--is to prohibit the initiation of physical force"
Just physical force? Do we just allow people to freely commit other crimes and hope for the best?
The problem with this reference to physical force is you seem to assume its the only unfair use of power, I see at as one of many, I see economic force as being far more powerful than any other force, thats why I consider everything to be related to class, to a degree.
If we restrict peoples choices and judgment through economic oppression, how do you expect people to "exercise and act on one’s choice and judgement"
Hi Joe,
Sorry about that, here's the link again: 'Cue Card Libertarianism: Force'
You ask "just physical force? Do we just allow people to freely commit other crimes and hope for the best?"
When you boil it all down, there are no other crimes, since expanding the range or crimes beyond that makes the very definition illegitimate.
The purpose of government--the only purpose--is not to randomly pursue whatever random range-of-the-moment goals the current clique favour, but to bar the initiation of force. To protect you from in initiating force against me.
Why? Because the evil of force, in essence, is that it is the negation of a person's mind and the choices they would make if left uncoerced.
It is, therefore, an assault on our distinctively human attributes: our very essence as a human being. It is only by such direct physical coercion that a man's rights may be violated, by compelling him by force to act against his own judgement.
You also say, "The problem with this reference to physical force is you seem to assume its the only unfair use of power, I see at as one of many, I see economic force as being far more powerful than any other force."
Joe, you need to understand the distinction between economic power and political power--or as Harry Binswanger puts it so memorably, the difference between the dollar and the gun.
"The symbol of political power is the gun. The symbol of economic power is the dollar.
"The only power a business has to induce customers to give it money is the value of its products. If a business started to produce an inferior product, it would eventually lose its customers.
"By contrast, the only power that the government has to offer is a threat: 'We'll dictate what businessmen can and cannot do—and businessmen better toe the line or we'll throw them in jail.'"
http://pc.blogspot.com/2006/06/cue-card-libertarianism-power.html
Joe,
Just a quick question:
Would you, personally, make your workplace less safe (deliberately) just because the OHS laws are repealed?
Your argument seemed to be based on the following premise (and please correct me if I have it wrong): People, by choice, prefer to work in unsafe environments, and will continue to do so unless otherwise compelled by law.
Now I do not know a single person for which that premise holds true, do you?
PC,
You make a little more sense now you've expanded beyond physical force, I'd taken that the wrong way.
"Because the evil of force, in essence, is that it is the negation of a person's mind and the choices they would make if left uncoerced."
Do you not consider being poor is a negation of a person's mind and the choices they would make?
It affects my choices.
"The only power a business has to induce customers to give it money is the value of its products. If a business started to produce an inferior product, it would eventually lose its customers."
Its not as simple as that, surely you don't believe it, big businesses don't stay big because of their product, McDonalds is not the biggest because of the value of their products.
This could go on for ever, I could never become a Libertarian, I do believe its possible to have no poor people, let alone consider it good.
Dolf,
Would I make a workplace unsafe, of course not.
But people do, all the time, they are called sweatshops. They are in poor countries, set up by rich. They are a product of unregulated employment conditions,laissez-faire.
Thanks for making my point
Joe, I find it hard to believe that you talk of "economic oppression", but you still:
a) have access to a computer
b) have access to a TV
c) find enough time to be posting here, as well as find the time to watch Fox News.
REAL oppression did exist, under feudal and monarchical systems of government. Capitalism brought the first widespread move out of poverty for many people whose ancestors lived a generally miserable existence.
(As well as leading to the inventions that you now use to talk about "economic oppression").
"They are in poor countries, set up by rich."
No, most are local firms. Multinationals often offer wages several times greater to their workers than native companies.
"They are a product of unregulated employment conditions,laissez-faire."
I assume that's why workers were treated far, far worse in Soviet Russia? At least under Capitalism, workers can switch jobs and form unions. Anyone who attempted the same when the USSR was industrializing would've been sent to the gulag.
Joe,
I think you would agree that "sweatshops" constitutes force, which would be illegal. Free people, unregulated and protected from force, do not work (and cannot force others to work) in unsafe environments.
but back to my question: If I would not work in unsafe environments, and you would not work in unsafe environments, and neither of us know anybody that would work in unsafe environments, who are these "people" you keep referring to?
Where are the hordes just waiting for the OHS to get scrapped so they can get pissed and juggle chainsaws?
If this horde does not exist (and arguably even if they do), then the law is at best a pointless waste of money, and at worst a tool to wield power over otherwise law abiding citizens. In neither instance is it justified.
Oh, and one more thing:
Macdonald's is big because it sells an assload of hamburgers. It is not the main reason it is big, it is the only reason it is big. If it were to half it sales today, it would not be as big. There is some causality at play here.
Now Macdonalds does not sell an assload of hamburgers because nobody wants them, they are selling them because they are popular and a vast amount of people find value in their product.
And a last thing:
Where are these sweatshops, that you use to prove that I proved your point?
How many sweatshops do you find in countries with democratically elected governments, with proper constitutions and that would be rated in the top 10 of any freedom index? http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking.aspx
No, the sweatshops that you use to prove that capitalism is bad, are never found in capitalist countries. They are, without exception found in socialist countries.Because socialism empowers employers to use force. Capitalism, true capitalism, does not.
Dolf;
"I think you would agree that "sweatshops" constitutes force"
No, there is no force to go work in these places, if there was force it would be called slavery. The people have an option, work for next to nothing in order to feed your family, or starve. No force in sweatshops.
"neither of us know anybody that would work in unsafe environments, who are these "people" you keep referring to?"
Of course there are no NZ's working in these conditions, because we have regulations. Take the regulations away and we could get sweatshop like conditions. They have them in the U.S.
"Where are the hordes just waiting for the OHS to get scrapped so they can get pissed and juggle chainsaws?"
I don't recall saying that, or anything along those lines, please don't make up things I haven't said.
"then the law is at best a pointless waste of money"
The laws are saving us money by having less accidents, since we have a public heath system (of sorts) at this time. Otherwise its an ambulance at the bottom of the cliff.
"Macdonald's is big because it sells an assload of hamburgers"
You've found something we agree on, but we disagree on why they sell so many. I'm not naive enough to believe that its because "a vast amount of people find value in their product".
I think its more to do with controlling a market through advertising power and what I would call economic violence.
"Where are these sweatshops, that you use to prove that I proved your point?"
All over the world, from the poorest countries to USA.
"How many sweatshops do you find in countries with democratically elected governments, with proper constitutions and that would be rated in the top 10 of any freedom index?"http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking.aspx
Haha, freedom index, there goes that word again.....not sure what you mean here referring to democracy & constitutions.......I was talking workers rights, most of those countries in the top 10 have heavy workplace safety regulations, so you are right, not much sweatshop action.
Except surprisingly for the USA, govt deregulation from Reagan / Bush era has caused this. Sweatshops can be found throughout Europe too.
http://www.heartsandminds.org/articles/sweat.htm
"the sweatshops that you use to prove that capitalism is bad, are never found in capitalist countries.They are, without exception found in socialist countries.Because socialism empowers employers to use force. Capitalism, true capitalism, does not."
Wrong. Bangladesh, India, USA, Mexico, Indonesia...I could go on, but its pretty obvious.
Dolf you are clearly living on a different planet.
Whether a Government is democratically elected or not has nothing to do with the issue of regulated vs unregulated Capitalism.
Take India for example. No minimum wage, no OSH, no 4 weeks annual leave. Ticks all the Libertarian boxes surely?
If there is no 'force' at play in the Indian Capitalist economy then why do so many people choose to work in such appalling conditions?
Callum:
I'm a student, so I need a computer, got cheap rent which comes with sky - not my choice. I got loads of time, being a student.
This doesn't mean I'm rich or well off, I can't find a job, my debt is rising and I'm sick of eating porridge. I'll finish uni in a few years with thousands owing and a future of a poor wages - so I'll be heading overseas asap. I'm not sticking round here to help pay the retirement of people who put me into debt :)
"Capitalism brought the first widespread move out of poverty"
For a few countries, others were victims of slavery and or raped of their resources.
"(As well as leading to the inventions that you now use to talk about "economic oppression")."
Dunno if capitalism was responsible for computers, I'll have to verify that. I'm actually using Ubuntu rather than Microsoft Windows right now, which is created and shared using socialist ideal (its way better than windows, try it)
"They are in poor countries, set up by rich."
Sorry that should read rich companies.
"I assume that's why workers were treated far, far worse in Soviet Russia?"
???? sure Russia was a bad example of socialism, is that your point? I can point out loads of other times and places where socialism sucked. Same for Capitalism, There are so many other variables influencing every example. To cherry pick one is a waste of time.
Jothebummer,
Your argument looks like someone who is doing a degree in women's studies, because of the weaknesses of your arguments here. Am I correct here? There is no doubt in my mind that you're a student of arts, perhaps anthropology or women studies, for the very reason that they're not intelligent at all. You're one of those.
"For a few countries, others were victims of slavery and or raped of their resources."
You may want to read up on history, Joe. Slavery was a product of mercantilism. It was abolished during the Industrial Revolution. In the US South, it proved a MASSIVE impediment to Industrialization.
"Dunno if capitalism was responsible for computers, I'll have to verify that."
Yes, it is. Only in a Capitalist economy could invention reach such a massive that we see today, owing to the fact that it's the only system under which men have been free to produce. Once again, a brief look at history confirms this.
"
???? sure Russia was a bad example of socialism, is that your point? I can point out loads of other times and places where socialism sucked. Same for Capitalism, There are so many other variables influencing every example. To cherry pick one is a waste of time."
No, my point is that to call Capitalism responsible for bad working conditions when there are far worse examples under the exact opposite system is ridiculous, at best.
Ross: India ranks 124 out of 179 countries in the Heritage Institute's Index of Economic Freedom. Not exactly a gleaming example of a Libertarian country.
"Labor freedom is especially weak, with rigid regulations a costly impediment to further economic growth and job creation."
"India’s informal economy remains an important source of employment. The non-salary cost of employing a worker is moderate, but dismissing an employee is costly."
It seems regulation has driven many businesses into the informal market. Hardly "Libertarian".
Anti-Anarchist-
"perhaps anthropology or women studies, for the very reason that they're not intelligent at all"
Sexist and ignorant, you must be quite the charmer :)
Callum,
"You may want to read up on history, Joe. Slavery was a product of mercantilism"
Slavery is not a product of only mercantilism, capitalism helped produce slavery at times. Slavery lasted thousands of years (some say its still happening) so has had many causes/influences. I admitted capitalism brought some people out of poverty, just giving you the other side too.
"Yes, it is. Only in a Capitalist economy could invention reach such a massive that we see today"
This is delusion at its finest, please, please show me how capitalism was responsible for computers, what else? Radios?
The problem is that in socialist and communist countries, they have computers too, and have for some time. You have heard of China?
"No, my point is that to call Capitalism responsible for bad working conditions when there are far worse examples under the exact opposite system is ridiculous, at best"
I never called capitalism responsible for....
I used the term laissez-faire. I also went on to note that "There are so many other variables influencing every example"
If you want to compare apples with oranges, then go ahead, and again please
don't make up things I never said.
"India ranks 124 out of 179 countries in the Heritage Institute's Index of Economic Freedom. Not exactly a gleaming example of a Libertarian country."
Well done, you're right here, India is not an example of a Libertarian country.......but
Read my post again, I did not mention India in reference to the Heritage Institute's Index of Economic Freedom, nor to Libertarianism. India was an answer to:
"the sweatshops that you use to prove that capitalism is bad, are never found in capitalist countries.They are, without exception found in socialist countries.Because socialism empowers employers to use force. Capitalism, true capitalism, does not."
India is a capitalist country.
India has lots of sweatshops.
To say sweatshops are never found in capitalist countries, is almost as crazy as thinking capitalism is responsible for computers.
Did you know socialism was responsible for roller skates? ;)
Joe
A little advice.
You write, "This doesn't mean I'm rich or well off, I can't find a job, my debt is rising and I'm sick of eating porridge. I'll finish uni in a few years with thousands owing and a future of a poor wages - so I'll be heading overseas asap. I'm not sticking round here to help pay the retirement of people who put me into debt".
All wrong.
The reason you are in debt is because YOU borrowed the money. That debt is YOUR responsibility. You made the choice to borrow. You can't blame anyone else for a financial situation that you created for yourself. In other words, you put yourself into debt and, it would appear, continue to rack up yet more.
Don't be crying about how tough your living conditions are. They are the direct consequence of your decision to continue to increase debt while making yourself unavailable for full-time (or even part-time) gainful employment.
The trouble with the immature approach to life that you have displayed here is that it is encouraged by the educational system you are but one victim of. It is nurtured by the welfare system people like you end up bludging sustenance from. Such people develop a belief in an entitlement to a good life, with a high standard of living and with intellectually stimulating activities provided for your pleasure. Bad news is that you are entitled to absolutely nothing. I'm certainly not going to fund it for you. Don't be demanding that anyone else should be forced to either.
Your view of the world is skewed indeed. It does not help that your life experience amounts to little more than existence in a sheltered workshop administered by retarded socialists. As a result, your arguments amount to little- just the tired old socialist canards that have been demonstrated as false many times over. Do some research and you'll soon discover that for yourself (start with Hazlitt's "Economics in One Lesson, move on to Mises' "Socialist Economy", and then you might be ready for Reisman's "Capitalism").
You need to get serious with life. It goes by very, very quickly. The greatest opportunities you are likely to ever experience are encountered when you are young enough to take them. The ability to identify opportunities and make sound decisions regarding them is developed from a young age. It is developed by experience. You are delaying the development of that experience by doing as you are.
The big advantage for the young is that you can always start out a second or even a third time when you are young enough to so do. Picking yourself up and starting again after a seriously bad error gets more difficult as you get older (and time becomes more precious). Don't wait too long to start independent life.
Right now you are in a bad place. Do something about it before the intellectual prison that is forming around you becomes physical and permanent. You have little time.
LGM
The problem with Joethebummer is that s/he doesn't know much to make his arguments strong. It is obvious that s/he is not well read, just look at some of the recommendations on topics that were made to her/him by Callum to read.
He doesn't even think that people reading this blog are highly educated, i.e., PhDs, engineers, scientists, lawyers, economists, etc,... He thinks that readers of this blog are just dumbfuck students like him/her.
With his education in either anthropology or women/gender studies, it doesn't surprise anyone here to read about his/her lack of intelligence.
Guys,
Joe here has never paid a dime in taxes in his life.
Give him 10 years, maybe then he'll ask why the hell he should be working his ass off, just so that liberal students living off his taxes (thanks to interest free student loans) can criticise him for being evil, just because he wants to have a say in where his money goes.
Give him time.
And joe,
When you immigrate, be sure to pick one of the wonderfull socialist Shangri-la's out there. I hear the weather in the Ukraine and Belarus is almost bearable this time of year. You may perhaps consider something more tropical, like Haiti or Cuba. Or you can always experience the rich lives of the well off peasants in rural China.
Please avoid such capitalist hell holes as Australia, or the USA.
"Slavery is not a product of only mercantilism, capitalism helped produce slavery at times."
Do you have any examples? Also, Capitalism means the ABSENCE of force and fraud - of which slavery is an example - and in a properly Capitalist society, would be banned as such.
"This is delusion at its finest, please, please show me how capitalism was responsible for computers, what else? Radios?"
Absolutely. Only under Capitalism were men free to produce those technologies, and then to sell them. It was the absence of coercion that allowed men to produce.
"The problem is that in socialist and communist countries, they have computers too, and have for some time. You have heard of China?"
Au contraire, have YOU ever heard of China? China has made a large number of pro-market reforms over the last thirty-odd years. As a result, Chinese industry boomed, and large numbers of people made their way out of poverty.
"I never called capitalism responsible for....
I used the term laissez-faire. I also went on to note that "There are so many other variables influencing every example"
If you want to compare apples with oranges, then go ahead, and again please
don't make up things I never said."
So if it's not laissez-faire (Capitalism, with a big C) that causes bad working conditions, why on Earth have you been going on about Capitalism throughout this entire post?
"India is a capitalist country."
Did you even read what I posted? From the Heritage Institute:
"Labor freedom is especially weak, with rigid regulations a costly impediment to further economic growth and job creation."
"India’s informal economy remains an important source of employment. The non-salary cost of employing a worker is moderate, but dismissing an employee is costly."
As I said before, it seems regulation has driven many businesses into the informal market. Hardly "Libertarian" [or "Capitalist"].
"India has lots of sweatshops."
Indeed, mainly due to regulation pricing many employers out of the actual market, and the general lack of actual Capitalism. As Capitalism means the absence of force and fraud, it also means that workers are able to switch jobs and form unions. If these freedoms are denied to one group of people, that is NOT Capitalism as it is initiation of force to do so.
"Did you know socialism was responsible for roller skates?"
So now, according to you, it's absurd to say Capitalism is responsible for computers, but sensible to say socialism was responsible for roller skates?
You could at least be a bit consistent, to say the absolute least.
Also, Anti-Anarchist, the reading suggestions were made by LGM.
Haha! There's a lot of assumptions from angry people here!
You people do like to accuse, don't you, does it make you feel better?
LGM-
"The reason you are in debt is because YOU borrowed the money."
Thanks for pointing that out, you must be the bright one?
"That debt is YOUR responsibility. You made the choice to borrow. You can't blame anyone else for a financial situation that you created for yourself. In other words, you put yourself into debt and, it would appear, continue to rack up yet more."
Of course its my choice and responsibility, never said it wasn't. But I was forced into very few choices.
"Don't be crying about how tough your living conditions are. They are the direct consequence of your decision to continue to increase debt while making yourself unavailable for full-time (or even part-time) gainful employment."
I'm ready to work, but there's nothing about, it will also compromise my studies if I do, but I am willing to.
"The trouble with the immature approach to life that you have displayed here is that it is encouraged by the educational system you are but one victim of."
Imature? I do think education should be free, look at NZ, its fairly uneducated, if we want a knowledge economy, we have to educate people.
"Bad news is that you are entitled to absolutely nothing. I'm certainly not going to fund it for you. Don't be demanding that anyone else should be forced to either.
Wrong, we are all entitled to lots of things, do you believe in public toilets? I used one yesterday, and some news for you, you are partly paying for my education right now.
"Your view of the world is skewed indeed. It does not help that your life experience amounts to little more than existence in a sheltered workshop administered by retarded socialists. As a result, your arguments amount to little- just the tired old socialist canards that have been demonstrated as false many times over. Do some research and you'll soon discover that for yourself (start with Hazlitt's "Economics in One Lesson, move on to Mises' "Socialist Economy", and then you might be ready for Reisman's "Capitalism")."
I can see why you people always tell me to go do some research.....you are unable to argue for yourself.
My arguments may be the same old sociaist blah blah, just the way your argument is the same old libertarian blah blah. Unless you've come up with new political theories, don't act like your sh!t don't stink, you can't even out argue a bum student.
"The big advantage for the young is that you can always start out a second or even a third time when you are young enough to so do. Picking yourself up and starting again after a seriously bad error gets more difficult as you get older (and time becomes more precious). Don't wait too long to start independent life."
Jeeze, you sound like an regreatful old man on your deathbed. I'm living my life, been living it for 29 years, lots and lots of fun :)
Right now you are in a bad place. Do something about it before the intellectual prison that is forming around you becomes physical and permanent. You have little time.
Haha, thats classic, you guys here live a life of fear
Anti-Anarchist
"He doesn't even think that people reading this blog are highly educated, i.e., PhDs, engineers, scientists, lawyers, economists,"
I wouldn't put engirneers or economists in that list, or lawyers for that matter, most I've met come across as rather ignorant. PHDs and scientists usually have some level of intelligence, but in the end their title just means they can write essays/reports ;)
"He thinks that readers of this blog are just dumbfuck students like him/her. With his education in either anthropology or women/gender studies, it doesn't surprise anyone here to read about his/her lack of intelligence."
Its one thing to resort to personal abuse, but to repeat your abuse in 2 posts is a bit lame
-My suggestion is you lay off the sexist accusations, apart from being wrong (doesn't seem to be an issue on these boards), it makes you look like a sexually frustrated arsehole.
-try again, you can do better.
Joe
29??
Such anger in one so old!
George
Callum
Do you have any examples?
Of course, slavery has existed in, or been used by many capitalist countries. What do you think USA was built on?
"Also, Capitalism means the ABSENCE of force and fraud - of which slavery is an example - and in a properly Capitalist society, would be banned as such."
That sounds like a very nice sort of capitalism, some would say utopian.....never existed, keep dreaming
"Absolutely. Only under Capitalism were men free to produce those technologies, and then to sell them. It was the absence of coercion that allowed men to produce. Au contraire, have YOU ever heard of China? China has made a large number of pro-market reforms over the last thirty-odd years. As a result, Chinese industry boomed, and large numbers of people made their way out of poverty."
Please stop with the capitalism produced computers argument, you're giving me the giggles! I keep telling everyone I know, great fun. Socialists countries have computers too!
"So if it's not laissez-faire (Capitalism, with a big C) that causes bad working conditions, why on Earth have you been going on about Capitalism throughout this entire post?"
This entire post has covered a few different subjects, a reply to a statement is just that, it is not my whole argument. Try harder to keep up and stop moving the goalposts
"As I said before, it seems regulation has driven many businesses into the informal market. Hardly "Libertarian" [or "Capitalist"]."
I'd say it is a capitalist country, its capitalism that doesn't work, the country is too populated and poor for it to work. A car with flat tires and a broken engine is still a car, just a useless car.
You people love pointing out when socialism or communism goes wrong, but when capitalism goes bad, you pretend it never happened. Delusion
"Indeed, mainly due to regulation pricing many employers out of the actual market, and the general lack of actual Capitalism. As Capitalism means the absence of force and fraud, it also means that workers are able to switch jobs and form unions. If these freedoms are denied to one group of people, that is NOT Capitalism as it is initiation of force to do so."
How are they supposed to form unions or switch jobs when there is a billion people there? Hows that going to work, you got millions upon millions waiting for a job paying a few cents an hour. No workers rights there, no safety regulations. Tell me how they are supposed to form a union? Solve that and you may have me converted :) Thats my issue with capitalism, the dollar is the bottom line, workers rights go out the door
"Did you know socialism was responsible for roller skates?"
So now, according to you, it's absurd to say Capitalism is responsible for computers, but sensible to say socialism was responsible for roller skates?
You could at least be a bit consistent, to say the absolute least.
Hahahahaha! Sorry, I should have put in brackets that that was a joke. You are correct! Well done, socialism did not create roller skates.
(and I'm supposed to be the dumb one here?)
Dolf
"Joe here has never paid a dime in taxes in his life."
No, wrong. Worked full time for 10 years (been working about 18 years, started a paper round at the age of 11) and was happy to pay taxes, just unhappy about the pay rate and how all the company's earnings ended up in the hands of the laziest people :(
"Give him 10 years, maybe then he'll ask why the hell he should be working his ass off, just so that liberal students living off his taxes (thanks to interest free student loans) can criticise him for being evil, just because he wants to have a say in where his money goes."
No, wrong again.
I'll always beieve in free education, rather have educated people than uneducated, I'd be happy to pay taxes for education, I'll most likely be furthering my own education later in life, but I probably won't be here in 10 years, I'm heading off overseas as soon as I graduate :)
I'd take interest free loans a step further and give them free education right across, let them concentrate on studies and really learn something
"When you immigrate, be sure to pick one of the wonderfull socialist Shangri-la's out there. I hear the weather in the Ukraine and Belarus is almost bearable this time of year. You may perhaps consider something more tropical, like Haiti or Cuba. Or you can always experience the rich lives of the well off peasants in rural China."
Does sound nice, except for Haiti, they are poor as dirt, to many sweatshops set up by uncle sam, they are victims of capitalism. Cuba would be good though, share and share alike.
"Please avoid such capitalist hell holes as Australia, or the USA."
Ozzy is the last place I'll end up, USA would be nice, always fun to laugh at rednecks ;)
George
No anger here, but when people personally abuse me, anyone would take offense to it.
Being called dumbfuck shows more anger than anything I've put down.
I treat as I've been treated
Is 29 old?
Jobthebummer, getting education in life at 29? Jeez, no wonder you're loser. I completed my PhD at 26 and started a business at 27, sold it by the time I was 30. I have another business now (Tech industries) and, I am only in my mid-30s, so I don't like to be heavily taxed to pay for scum like you. Oh, BTW, I employ PhD candidates (scientists & engineers) and none from humanity courses/qualifications (as anthropology, gender/women studies, sociology, etc,...). You don't want to ask me why, because it should be obvious to you. They are dumb. I have had some students from humanity courses who have turned up in recent holiday breaks looking for temp jobs and I told them that the only thing they could do for me is to serve coffee in the lunch room or if they're desperate, then the toilets always need cleaning.
Here is my advice. Go and do your learning, explore the world, get experience in earning real money and not leeching from taxpayer, and once you achieved those, then come back here to post an opinion about the real world, because in reality, you have no fuckn' idea of how the real world works.
29 old?
Depends from which side of it you're looking.
Re India. Since Independence it has been typified as a socialist mess. Socialist in the context of government control. That has overlaid a dog-eat-dog and rat-eat-rat desparate society where corruption and caste rules. Now that government controls are being relaxed they are showing the effects of being let off the leash. The Indian banking and capital markets are an example of true capitalism that Wall Street could take lessons from. They don't lend money to idiots no matter how much flair the said idiots display. The basis of Indian society is the family, total commitment to total success or failure for them all. There are companies which are exemplary such as the Parsee corporations like Goodreg and Tata. They are uncorrupt, pay fairly, educate and house their workers and families and are formidable in world commerce. All this is not due to any compulsion except from the core ethical values of their Parsee faith.
It's not all bad in the world of capitalism
George
"Of course, slavery has existed in, or been used by many capitalist countries. What do you think USA was built on?"
Slavery was introduced in the colonies in the 1600s, as a result of MERCANTILISM. Industrial Capitalism appeared around 1750. Around 100 years later slavery had been stamped out, Britain being the first country to do so. So as much as you try to fabricate history, the coming of Capitalism heralded the end of slavery.
"That sounds like a very nice sort of capitalism, some would say utopian.....never existed, keep dreaming"
No, that IS Capitalism, regardless of how much you evade the point. And no, it hasn't existed in its entirety - but why does that mean it can't exist?
"Please stop with the capitalism produced computers argument, you're giving me the giggles! I keep telling everyone I know, great fun. Socialists countries have computers too!"
Oh yes, because, according to you, most of the world's technologies were invented by slaves in gulags. What gives me the giggles is your complete lack of understanding of history and economics, which show that when men are free to produce ... they produce. Who'd have thought?
Socialist countries have computers only because they were invented by free people in other countries, in the first place. Most socialist countries wouldn't be beyond the agrarian stage of development if it weren't for capitalism elsewhere (and many still are). As the USSR again shows, the people of a socialist nation pay a high price (e.g. bread lines) for economic development.
And if you have shown my argument to "everyone", let's see if they have any guts and actually reply to me.
"This entire post has covered a few different subjects, a reply to a statement is just that, it is not my whole argument. Try harder to keep up and stop moving the goalposts."
You said, on sweatshops, "They are a product of unregulated employment conditions,laissez-faire." When I pulled you up on this, you went ahead about how there are so many different variables, and could also happen in socialist countries.
So YOU are the only one here shifting the goalposts, mate. When you provide an argument, you're supposed to back it up with facts, not try to blatantly change your argument when you find there are none.
"I'd say it is a capitalist country, its capitalism that doesn't work . . . You people love pointing out when socialism or communism goes wrong, but when capitalism goes bad, you pretend it never happened. Delusion"
No, because it's not Capitalism. You're the one pretending that it is. Delusion.
"How are they supposed to form unions or switch jobs when there is a billion people there? Hows that going to work, you got millions upon millions waiting for a job paying a few cents an hour ... Thats my issue with capitalism, the dollar is the bottom line, workers rights go out the door."
Joe, that's exactly why India needs industrial Capitalism, because only when industry develops to its potential (through industrialization) can workers start developing useful skills that do earn money, and can specialise in work. To do that, India needs Capitalism, which it has little of right now. Once again, history and economics both confirm this. And, they can start forming trade unions.
"Hahahahaha! Sorry, I should have put in brackets that that was a joke."
It's hard to tell what is a joke with you, sometimes. Perhaps with the exception of the last point, your argument consists of insults, fabrication of history in regard to slavery, ignorance of facts in regard to India, and moving the goalposts in regard to Capitalism and working conditions.
You do not have a coherent argument based on sound reasoning and empirical evidence. What you have are a number of disjointed claims that either evade the point or are plain false.
Joe seems like a product of the free education he values so highly. GIGO.
Joe
You're pretty brittle.
You claim, "I'd be happy to pay taxes for education".
Yet you are not prepared to pay for your own education. There's a word for that. Starts with "h".
This was amusing: "I'm ready to work, but there's nothing about"
Ah, the well known chorus of the under-achiever. With your defective attitude to life it is no wonder that you have been too incompetent to locate employment. You do need to remedy that.
"it will also compromise my studies if I do, but I am willing to."
Then get off your arse and find some work. There is PLENTY of it about. No-one owes it to you though. You are not entitled to it. It is up to you to locate gainful employment and prove to your employer that you are worth what he pays you. Here is one of those great opportunities for you to gain some valuable life experience. Go to it.
It is surprising that despite the claim of an extended period in the workforce you were unable to accumulate sufficient capital to put yourself through tertiary education without going so deeply into debt that you now intend to flee the country. That reeks of stupidity and incompetence. Seems you are not worth very much to other people or perhaps you are a spendthrift or both. You need to change.
YOU are not entitled (and your toilet habits don't alter that). You do need to change.
I recommended the references for you to look up and study. That's the most economical use of your time and of my time. It is the most efficient means for you to understand the shortcomings of the canards you presently promote.
Final point. When you do finally leave the country of NZ to head off for other climes, just remember that you take your attitudes and biases right along with you. Your inability to locate well paid work in NZ does not bode well for your future off-shore. Hence it would be a good idea to alter your attitude and biases. Those references I listed for your perusal may go some way towards assisting you to repair your approach to economics & life in general. Well worth checking them out.
LGM
Post a Comment