It is a clash of civilisations - it's about time we were proud of our's

Back when I studied international relations at university, Samuel Huntingdon’s “Clash of Civilisations” was not cited as a particularly seminal work.  It was thoroughly criticised, as the prevailing view at the time was that Fukuyama’s “End of History” thesis appeared to be more valid.  Bear in mind this was just after the end of the Cold War, and followed what appeared to have been a successful excising of Saddam Hussein’s gangster regime from Kuwait, under UN Security Council sanctions.

The heady days of humanitarian intervention appeared ahead, and with Russia a friend of the West, China focused almost entirely upon economic growth and internal stability and Middle East peace talks focused around pathways towards resolving the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, it did not look like there was great international disunity like was seen under the Cold War.

Liberal democracy and basics levels of individual rights and free speech seemed largely universal now that what was the Soviet bloc, seemed to embrace them.  The weeping sores of Israel/Palestine, South Africa, Northern Ireland all seemed to be on pathways to progress.   China, albeit a large country still a long way from any embrace of such rights, appeared to be pointing in the right direction, and was inwardly focused only likely to lash out over Taiwan or Tibet.  Latin America appeared to have rid itself of virtually all of its tyrants.  East Timor was finally liberated from Indonesian military rule.  Saddam Hussein seemed contained.  The Balkans were a disaster and a travesty, but after (finally) intervention against Serbia, it all seemed to come to a halt, and Europe has managed to ringfence and rebuild those lands that were once Yugoslavia.   However,  Rwanda/Burundi and Liberia showed how easy it was for political/military leaders to incite mass extermination campaigns.

It has been clear now, at least for 11 years, that this rosy view of the world has been a mistake.  Most importantly, it is abundantly clear that the values of individual freedom, free speech and freedom of religion, are not embraced by the majority of the world’s population.

Whilst those of us in the “Western” world see differences between the US and Europe, these differences are insignificant between those of other civilisations on the planet.  It is taken for granted in the “West” (by which I mean the EEA countries, US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand), that women should be equal under the law to men, that racism is unacceptable and barbaric, that free speech including the right to criticise all political views, and to both criticise and mock public figures, is inviolable, and that freedom of religion and from religion are part of a modern society. 

However, whilst many share some of these values, many not only disagree but cannot even comprehend a viewpoint that holds them.

It is fair to say that support or embrace of those values may be slightly weaker in Latin America than in the West, and moreso in the former USSR.   Confucian and Hindu cultures in east and South Asia also carry less tradition and support for such freedoms, but there have been, by and large, positive paths towards that (although racism/sectarianism remains rampant).   Sub-Saharan African countries have also a different view of such freedoms, which are more diverse than Huntingdon could reveal.

However, the big conflict is with the Islamic world, which itself has many diverse strands, but which by and large, with the exception of the likes of Bosnia, Albania and Turkey, is hostile to individualism, secularism and freedoms of speech and religion.

The reaction seen across the Muslim world, and in many Western countries, is a throwback of some centuries, indeed it is a difference that is more profound that than between Marxism-Leninism and Western liberal democracy/mixed capitalist countries during the Cold War.

The flames being fanned by Islamists are ones of values that are completely contrary not only to the post-enlightenment settlement between Christianity, the state and society, but also international law on human rights, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

 
The protestors are predominantly men, promulgating a misogynistic world view, which not only treats women and girls as possessions, but has no tolerance for even engaging in debate or challenge of their religious view.  Freedom of speech is to be burnt at the stake along with all those who they feel have hurt their point of view.  It is as dangerous as it is infantile, as fanatically anti-reason as the anti-semitism of the Nazis, the anti-classism of the Khmer Rouge and every sectarian conflict you can remember. 

They are as incredulous about the relaxed Western view over a film produced privately in the US, as Westerners are over their violence and (literal) sabre rattling.  They live in societies where drawing an image of their prophet can get you executed, and indeed even deciding that you no longer believe in Islam can mean death.    This is accepted as being integral to their entire social system and set of beliefs.   Religion is not an adjunct to life that provides meaning for certain ethical questions or advice on living under difficult circumstances, for reflection at least once a week.  It is central, fundamental and provides a source of guidance on a daily basis.  The closest parallel outside it in modern history is seen in the personality cult laden totalitarian regimes of Nazi Germany, the Stalinist world, Maoist China and today in North Korea.   In all of them, the thoughts and words of the personality cults meant everything, their lives, their deeds took up so much time in education and daily life.   For many Muslims, Islam is that special.  The idea anyone would choose to abandon such believes is not only foolish, but dangerous and any such element is likely to bring down their proud culture.
 
Given they live in states which enforce this society, they find it remarkable that other states do not also reflect their national religions.  The idea that private American citizens can produce a film, without any official endorsement or state oversight, seems improbable and impossible to them.  After all, surely all governments everywhere enforce the religious values of their societies?  Just because the West has corrupt ones, and Christianity has been debased so much (they would say), is not the point.  After all, the Islamists would say, they certainly don’t allow people to poke fun at Christianity (don’t ask about the Jews though).

The seriousness by which they take religion, the state and the offence they feel, is palpably toxic.  Because they fanatically embrace Islam (almost entirely because they were born and raised with it), and because they believe anyone departing from it must be both foolish and evil, they see anyone who dares challenging it to be challenging them personally.  They see it as the devil – like an ancient tribe of animists who see outsiders mocking their totems.   They see it as dangerous and genuinely feel that a challenge or mockery of their faith is an attack on themselves.

Yet people in the West are regularly exposed to mocking, to having either religious or political beliefs challenged.  Few would resort to mass violence to defend their point of view.   You see, Western culture and society has embraced free speech, a diversity of views, open discourse and satire as being healthy.  The amount of mockery and what would be seen as blasphemy against Christianity is significant, and is seen across the Western world (although there are parts of the US where it is a bit scarcer than others).   However, the Christian response is, mostly, to engage, to debate, sometimes to call for new laws, but it isn’t to go out and vandalise or demand beheadings.

That is the response I’d have expected 600 years ago.  That is roughly where many in the Islamic world are.   It is why the invasion of Afghanistan is failing, because barely any effort has gone into changing culture – a culture which is as sexist, racist and religiously intolerant as Western society was in the dark ages, and as economically and scientifically innovative. 

So what does this mean?  The key question is how to respond to such sabre rattling.

There are, logically, five options.

Submit, appease, ignore, engage or fight.

Submitting to such declaration of bigotry or ignorance is not an option, it is surrendering that which literally millions of men and women have died to defend.  No one who even considers such an option deserves to live in a free society.

Appeasement is the worm’s way out, and indeed is the option that more than a few politicians will adopt.  This is to agree with the bigots, and to call for greater “respect and tolerance” of beliefs that themselves embrace little respect and tolerance.  This is the vile sycophantic selling out of more than a few on the left, who are only too quick to want to placate the men who want to continue to treat women as chattels, and execute apostates, rape victims and homosexuals.  No one who speaks the language of appeasement deserves to even be considered to be liberal or respectful of human rights.  It is telling that this is the response of the UN Secretary General.  It is also not the path for victory, for ultimately you will have sold out all of your freedom to placate those who hate the values you say you believe in, but prove by actions that you'll sell for some short term peace.

Ignoring the protests is a viable option, until of course, they start engage in vandalism and violence against the innocent.  In some places, they are on a scale where this appears the only logical option, to “let off steam”, but this simply means steam will build up again.  Nobody who fought for fundamental freedoms would see this as being honourable.

Engaging them, would appear to be the most logical and productive step forward.   Indeed, it is promising that counter-protests have appeared in some cities, such as Tripoli, and that some Muslims fear the approach taken by protestors is to deny the freedom some have fought for.   The message to them all should be very simple:

• -          Secular states do not control what films private citizens produce;
• -          Freedom of religion and freedom of speech include freedom to offend, to challenge and to mock;
• -          The response in a free society to being offended, is to challenge back and mock back, to disarm others through argument, reason and one’s own creativity, not violence;
• -          Those that advocate violence or vandalism to make arguments for their religion have already lost, as they are incapable of debate.

Finally, the need to fight in self-defence is critical.  Whether it be people or property owners, the application of violence should be resisted by the state and individual victims to the extent necessary to defend themselves.  For let's be clear, 9/11 was undertaken by those willing to destroy our way of life.   People who are not amenable to reason and engage in force, must be fought - there is no peaceful option to deal with those willing to kill you.

In conclusion, it is critical for those in the West, whether they be libertarians, conservatives, socialists, Christians or atheists, to understand that the commonly shared basic Western values of individual autonomy, equality of the sexes and races, and tolerance of different religious beliefs, are not shared by many on the planet (indeed they are inconsistently shared in the West).  For those values to get greater adherence requires patience, it requires leading by example and it requires continuous consistent engagement against those willing to take it on, and the use of force in self-defence for those willing to initiate force.

This has significant implications for a whole range of public policies, including immigration, education, defence, foreign relations, international aid policy, the welfare state and media.

These require politicians who are prepared to embrace a principle, rather than kowtowing to avoid offence.  Politicians who are proud of the freedoms fought for since the Enlightenment.  However, for them to come out, it requires citizens of Western countries to want to articulate loudly to defend the society that so many have, by and large, done little to defend. 

Post-modernist moral relativists have no place in this.  Neither do those wishing to appease.

Geert Wilders allowed into the UK

Geert Wilders says he is a libertarian. He is a Dutch MP. He hates Islam with a passion and was banned from entering the UK earlier this year. He was banned because Home Secretary Jacqui Smith said ... wait for it... "his opinions threatened community security and therefore public security".

Land of the free? No. Except the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal have overturned the ban. It has disappointed the neo-fascists at the Home Office who "oppose extremism in all of its forms", and have done such a stunning job at stopping it.

Even the Quilliam Foundation, which finds his views offensive, did not want him banned, but wanted his views on Islam debated. The British Government couldn't allow that. You can publicly criticise Christianity, you can be a Muslim preaching anti-Western sentiments, but you can't be a European citizen hating Islam (not Muslims he explicitly says).

You can hate Christianity, capitalism, fascism, environmentalism and communism in the UK, but not Islam.

So that is why Geert Wilders has been branded "far right" although many of his policies are quite libertarian, with much lower tax, smaller government, much smaller role for the EU, although he also seeks to ban non-European immigration, founding new mosques and Islamic schools and some populist statements about public services.

The point is that he expresses an opinion about a religion, which should be protected free speech in the UK. I hate Islam, I have no time for religion preaching submission, and I have yet to see anything in it to like. I also have no time for any other religion, but should I be banned from expressing that view?

What's most galling is the House of Lords got to see Wilders's controversial film criticising Islam which is here. His visit to the UK might inflame and upset some people, but so what? As long as he does not do violence and does not incite violence, then he is not to blame. If others seek to do violence to him or his supporters, the law should punish them.

The UK should be a country where people accept the right of free people to have freedom of speech, religion (or no religion) and political belief. That means tolerating the spectrum of opinion and philosophies. Those who don't like it may also express that view, but if they wish to impose their views on others, they should simply leave.

There are plenty of countries in the world that tolerate only an official line on religion and politics. Europe was once overrun with such governments. Today it should proudly assert that it rejects this, and anyone who lives in Europe or enters Europe who seeks to use force or democracy to destroy free, secular, liberal democratic government, should simply be asked to go.

Immigration policy rewards lazy kiwis

That is what THIS case is about.

The woman has a job, her employer says it has been unable to find anyone else suitable and Sunita Khan "has proven to be a very competent and caring person who delivers care to the elderly with expertise and commitment.

"Sunita's empathy and enthusiasm ... exceeds that of those we currently see in the market."

In other words, because locals are too lazy and not competent enough by comparison, she is invaluable to the employer, and by implication the employer's customers (who are elderly). She works 6 days a week, as does her husband (quick tell the unions, there are people who work harder than they do and are pleased to do so).

However, immigration bureaucrats think otherwise. None of them with productive jobs themselves, they want to deport a woman and her husband who are.

So if the bureaucrats (and by implication the politicians who made the law) have their way, out they go, just so the employer can hire someone second rate who is a keewee.

Too fat for New Zealand?

Now on first looks I am sure many would say it right to exclude an American woman weighing 135kg from having residency in New Zealand, because of the risk she would pose to claiming under the public health system. The NZ Herald reports that:

"A medical assessor said there was a relatively high probability that the wife would cost the health service more than the threshold $25,000 over the next four years.

He noted that the guidelines said that people with BMI over more than 35 should not be considered."

Keep that fat woman out! I hear it now, hoards saying she'll cost you all.

Well hold on a minute. Let's look at the rest of the details. She applied with her husband and son. On other aspects of the application for residency they scored well:

"The husband was a butcher with an Arts degree and culinary qualification, and the wife who had business qualifications also had 17 year's experience in design.

In fact, if you set aside concern about her cost to the socialist health system:

"INZ concluded that although the couple "had the potential to have a relatively significant contribution to New Zealand through their skills and experience, it was not compelling enough to outweigh the potential cost (the wife) was likely to impose on the NZ health service".

So how about some lateral thinking? How about granting residency to them all, making it clear the wife has no cover for illnesses related to her obesity? She can get health insurance or pay her own way, but other that she isn't covered. The quid pro quo is that she pays proportionately less income tax - equivalent to not contributing to the state health system.

Then New Zealand gets a family with skills, willing to work and look after themselves (more than thousands of locally born people), and taxpayers don't bear the risk.

Indeed, why not offer all migrants the chance to enter and pay no tax for health, education, welfare or retirement?

Why should anyone care if a very obese person migrates, as long as they aren't a charge on you?

Winston's old tune

The NZ Herald reports Winston calling for immigration to be cut to "protect NZ jobs". How big a yawn can that be? Immigration is by and large good, because as long as your immigration policy does not open up the welfare state to the world, immigrants tend to be better motivated and harder working than locals - especially those who never leave!

I have a very simple approach to immigration. It is a halfway house whilst there still is compulsory state health, education and welfare.

You are welcome to New Zealand if:
1) You have no criminal convictions for offences that would be violent/sexual/property/fraud offences if they happened in New Zealand. A false declaration to this effect will result in deportation;
2) You accept you are ineligible for welfare, state health, housing and education (including for your family). After three years you are either eligible or you receive a tax credit to recognise your self sufficiency from the state (which also can be offered to current residents);
3) You have employment or sufficient funds to provide for yourself and your family (jointly if a couple) for three months, including an airfare to your previous resident country;
4) You swear allegiance to not engaging in any criminal activity, under threat of deportation.

After all, if an immigrant isn't a criminal and doesn't claim from the taxpayer, then why would you NOT welcome them?

Unless you're just a whinging xenophobic loser?

The party of moaning New Zealand

Cactus Kate posts on the vileness of NZ First coming to the fore again, with Peter Brown warning that Asian immigrants should "fit in".

Fit in to what? What is this fucking migrant himself think HE is doing picking on migrants from cultures that believe more in education, hard work, self sufficiency and family than HIS one?

So what should they fit into?

The tall poppy syndrome?
The "why doesn't the government" talkback mediocrity that demands that life be made better by the government fixing it?
The narrow minded pig ignorant personality cult followers that demand no accountability for their cult leader between elections, but think he's wonderful every 3 years?

No Mr Brown, you should go home - you and your party have done more harm to positive values of entrepreneurship, looking outwards, applying reason and personal responsibility than most Asian immigrants ever could. After all Mr Brown, what ethnic group has disproportionately low levels of welfare claims, imprisonment and high education achievement?

Yes, can't have people like that can we, because those who can actually read, get a degree and run a business aren't likely to vote for a populist personality cult led nationalist party are they?

The dangers of collective thinking

The Dominion Post reports on a study from Massey University that claims that migrants from the Pacific Islands are a drain on the economy. It makes a number of claims such as:

.

- Pacific Islanders are more likely to be unemployed;

- Pacific Islanders are less likely to start businesses and be self employed;

- Pacific Islanders have proportionately higher rates of prosecutions and convictions;

- Pacific Islanders are more likely to be victims of violent crime;

- Pacific Islanders are more likely to need welfare including housing subsidies;

- Pacific Islanders on average perform poorly at education.

.

The author Dr. Greg Clydesdale also suggest that "because of high fertility and current immigration levels, New Zealand will have a significant population that can contribute little to economic growth".

.

Now such a study is probably meant to indicate there are problems, somewhat cultural around crime, business and education, that Pacific Island communities ought to address if they wish to perform better. This is not something the state can do, and it would be wise for Pacific Island community leaders to listen and consider what value this study may bring. Greater belief in education, confidence to establish businesses and a rejection of welfarism could do a world of good, and I am sure quite a few Pacific Islanders already do that.

.

However, it will be jumped upon by collectivists of the left and right to condemn and throw blame, when in fact it ignores one simple point - many other New Zealanders are criminals, unemployed, lazy, poorly educated and "contribute little to economic growth", and many Pacific Islanders work hard, and live quiet lives not bothering other people.

..

Collectivists on the left will blame "society" or "government" for not doing enough for Pacific Islanders, it will claim some don't understand criminal law, some don't get enough welfare or help from the state. The Labour Party sits nicely in that category. Some on the left may call the study racist, dismiss that Pacific Islanders are to blame for their fate and say it is up to everyone else to address it - in other words, Pacific Islanders are on average poorer and committing crimes because they have been failed by others.

Collectivists on the right will say migrants are a drain, there should be less of them and they are "not like us" and we shouldn't "let them take our jobs and money". This may well be Winston Peters and NZ First. Interesting that he keeps Labour in power too.

What I say is simple. Pacific Islanders should be seen as welcome, as are other migrants. However, they are responsible for abiding by crminal laws in New Zealand, and one of the first reforms of the welfare state should be to deny new migrants access to subsidised housing or welfare. Migrants should not come to New Zealand expecting to live off the state.

.

You see it doesn't MATTER if Pacific Islanders or anyone doesn't "contribute to economic growth" as long as they don't live off of the state. They don't exist to contribute to ANYTHING, other than their own happiness, and as long as they don't expect everyone else to be forced to pay for them, then it shouldn't be anyone else's business.

Taxing migrants?

The Daily Telegraph reports that the UK is considering a levy on new migrants – to pay for the substandard NHS and public education systems. This ignores the elephant in the room. The problem isn't migrants, it is how health and education is funded and how demand for the services is rationed. The model of centrally planned bureaucracy keeps failing, so why keep using it because it seems too damned hard to fix it?

Here’s an idea, it can be applied to the UK, or NZ or indeed many countries....

New migrants don’t pay income tax (or national insurance in the UK), for three years (well they can if they want, but they don't get anything more for it). After that they can choose to do so, and avail themselves of the state provided “services” or continue to opt out. Indirect taxes such as VAT/GST are adequate to cover law and order, defence and other state functions.

In exchange for not paying income tax, new migrants have no claim on the public health system or education system and would be charged on a marginal cost recovery basis with a contribution to fixed costs. New migrants could also not claim taxpayer funding housing or welfare benefits. The years they spend not paying income tax also wont count for old age pensions/national superannuation.

In short, they pay for what they consume and what their families consume. Yes some bits and pieces would need ironing out, you can’t not pay income tax and then pay only the years your kids need an education. You’d need to pay from when they are born. You can’t opt out of income tax and expect to still get access to the state social services at all, it’s like insurance, you opt out and stay opted out.

However, if the state supplied socialised health, education and welfare services appeal, then migrants can pay income tax.

Unfair? How? It stops existing citizens from subsidising new ones through taxes, means the tiresome argument about “paying for infrastructure” is up to the new migrants to pay for, and suddenly the type of migrants you get might actually be those willing to be self sufficient.

In the UK this couldn’t apply to people from EU countries of course, sadly, but it can apply more generally. Of course NZ could apply it across the board, and you’d find out how many people really think they get value for money out of their taxes. You’d also find it a lot easier to recruit overseas doctors and the like.

Socialists will huff and puff that this will benefit their great nemesis - the rich (snarling jaws dripping with envy). Rich migrants of course, bringing their wealth into the country, spending their money. Socialists don’t want to argue that their beloved taxpayer funded social services are always going to be inadequate because they have few mechanisms for accountability, cost control, rewarding good performance and behaviour and penalising bad.

Most socialists show little interest in having a transparent debate about how much of taxes should be about paying for what you use, and how much is about compulsorily paying for other people.

Now that is an honest debate I’d like to have.

Immigration to Britain

So David Cameron is hot on immigration – again, and so is Labour. Apparently there is “too much” as David Cameron says, with no substance behind it other than it imposes "pressure on services and society". Bullshit. It increases property prices and migrants pay their own way, or if they don't it's because of government policies.
^
The government says immigration imposes pressure on crime (so let's deport criminal migrants), housing, health and education (well who should pay for that?), but has no answers.
^
Clearly people like me who are skilled and earning well above the average wage are a problem for Britain – but no, that can’t be true can it? Is it the huge number of Poles who have filled the service sector? Well, no and besides the EU means you can’t debate such things. The truth is that the problem is caused by poorly educated, poorly skilled people from different cultures who seek to claim taxpayer funded services - but nobody will admit that.
^
The reasons given why immigration is an issue comes down to:
- Risk of overpopulation; and
- Unsustainability of taxpayer funded social services.
^
Both arguments are complete nonsense, and moreover any politician honestly talking about immigration in Britain knows that the primary reason Britons are concerned about it is race and religion. Is it racism? Well to a point yes. Moreso seen in working class communities, and reflected in the occasional boost the BNP gets in local elections as the proletariat claim the “Pakis” or “blacks” are taking our jobs, and other nonsense. The deep suspicion and fear of those who “look different” has been exploited by politicians worldwide.
^
However, there is a more substantive concern about immigration of those who don’t adopt the values of British liberal democratic society. Most obviously is the migration of Muslims who seek sharia law, although as many of those are born in the UK as immigrants. It is a genuine concern that people come to live in Britain, ignoring that “honour killings” are unacceptable, or female circumcision are unacceptable.
^
Significant migration to Britain from outside the EU actually comes from the USA, Canada, Australia, South Africa and New Zealand, and let’s face it, most Britons aren’t the slightest bit concerned about that at all. Though I remember before I got permanent residency, how appallingly I was treated at Heathrow every time I visited – quizzed by a petty fascist about whether I would be looking for work here, and when I was living and who I was staying with.
^
Unfortunately, intelligent discussion about this is virtually impossible in Britain. This is why Malthusian nonsense is brought out as the reason, when what it boils down to is concern about race and culture.
^
Britain faces no risk of “overpopulation”, it has extensive rural land, London is far from built out to the M25, even allowing for much open space. The population density of the Netherlands is substantially higher, and there are vast tracts of towns and cities across the UK with housing and room for more housing. So let’s dismiss such rubbish for what it is.
^
The bigger concern is “funding social services”, but this also does not bear close scrutiny. Housing, for example, should be a private sector activity. Indeed, the notion that the taxpayer should be paying to house new migrants is a complete nonsense. The more rational approach should be to remove restrictions on land use that prevent private investment in housing, but more importantly prohibit new migrants from having access to taxpayer subsidised housing for at least five years.
^
Health care similarly is constrained not by migrants, but the sclerotic bureaucracy of the NHS which is virtually without any price signals to ration demand or allocate resources where demand is greatest. New migrants should simply be required to pay the full cost of their health care requirements, or buy insurance to cover it. In exchange they should not have to pay social security tax. The same restrictions should apply to welfare and education, prohibiting new migrants from claiming taxpayer funding for either for a minimum of five years.
^
Of course I’d argue that all new migrants should be able to opt out of all such services in exchange for paying less tax, and then be able to choose to opt in after five years. Then nobody can accuse migrants of not paying their way or public services being “unable to cope”. The flipside is that existing British residents might also want to opt out – then we will see how much true support there is for the “beloved public services”.
^
The Tories wont advocate this, as it is far too Thatcherite and radical, but it would be hard to argue against. Why oppose non-EU migration if the migrants have to pay their way?
^
Labour of course couldn’t stomach the welfare state not being offered to so many potential voters, given Labour’s great love for using the state to take from the successful and give to others.
^
So the immigration itch is being scratched by the Conservatives and Labour not for reasons that are rational, but to scratch an itch that nobody admits is partly racist, but which is also discomfort about high numbers of people from African, Caribbean, Middle and South Asian origin with limited skills and funds. The concern is cultural and concern about funding welfare.
^
The answer to that problem is not to put a cap on immigration from outside the EU, but to cease claims by new immigrants on the state. When being an economic migrant to Britain means get a job, set up a business, look after yourself or get out – then the problem will reduce. When one of the key requirements to migrate to Britain is proving you have the means to return to your home country, when you sign away any right to claim the welfare state for five years, and demonstrate a clean criminal record (and deportation when you commit a violent offence), then maybe the problems attributed to immigration may be addressed.
^
Meanwhile, politicians will dance around this inconvenient truth – the immigration problem is a problem of the welfare state and allowing migration from those who want others to pay for them.