I'm fleeing to Switzerland for the weekend with my girlfriend to meet up with a friend, then back with a lot of work before fleeing downunder for a few weeks. Will be some blogging next week and some while downunder, but I'm sure you'll survive without my rantings.
01 April 2006
What's wrong with Oxfam?
After all, they want to fight poverty worldwide don't they?
.
I just got accosted by an Oxfam campaigner. Not an unusual thing in the UK, as there are people out for your money at every corner, but I confronted him and said 2 days a week I pay taxes for the government – and on top of that if he wanted to eradicate poverty he should start advocating free trade, unlike Oxfam.
.
He was stunned and I walked away.
.
So I thought I’d see if my own prejudices against Oxfam are well founded. I figure it is just a bunch of leftie do-gooders out for more state intervention, placing guilt upon the most productive to help the least, and generally being anti-capitalist.
.
The Oxfam website states “Oxfam International is a confederation of 12 organizations working together with over 3,000 partners in more than 100 countries to find lasting solutions to poverty, suffering and injustice. “
.
Poverty presumably means anyone struggling to survive day by day materially, but suffering and injustice are a bit more difficult to define. Suffering is a fact of life, I can’t see Oxfam operating an ambulance to help car crash victims, or people suffering from grief. Life inevitably produces a state of suffering for most people at some point – Oxfam is hardly going to fix that. Injustice is slightly more insidious – as it implies something has been “done” to someone else, it can mean Oxfam is a crime fighter or, more likely, Oxfam is out to take from the rich to give to the poor.
.
Now it is a private organization, and as such it can do as it wishes with whatever money it raises from voluntary sources. So from a libertarian perspective, let Oxfam be free to do as it wishes. However, from an objectivist perspective is its goals moral and are the solutions it proposes moral and workable?
.
Oxfam’s beliefs and approach to its goals are contained in its strategic plan are step by step to evaluate it.
.
Oxfams believe that:
.
He was stunned and I walked away.
.
So I thought I’d see if my own prejudices against Oxfam are well founded. I figure it is just a bunch of leftie do-gooders out for more state intervention, placing guilt upon the most productive to help the least, and generally being anti-capitalist.
.
The Oxfam website states “Oxfam International is a confederation of 12 organizations working together with over 3,000 partners in more than 100 countries to find lasting solutions to poverty, suffering and injustice. “
.
Poverty presumably means anyone struggling to survive day by day materially, but suffering and injustice are a bit more difficult to define. Suffering is a fact of life, I can’t see Oxfam operating an ambulance to help car crash victims, or people suffering from grief. Life inevitably produces a state of suffering for most people at some point – Oxfam is hardly going to fix that. Injustice is slightly more insidious – as it implies something has been “done” to someone else, it can mean Oxfam is a crime fighter or, more likely, Oxfam is out to take from the rich to give to the poor.
.
Now it is a private organization, and as such it can do as it wishes with whatever money it raises from voluntary sources. So from a libertarian perspective, let Oxfam be free to do as it wishes. However, from an objectivist perspective is its goals moral and are the solutions it proposes moral and workable?
.
Oxfam’s beliefs and approach to its goals are contained in its strategic plan are step by step to evaluate it.
.
Oxfams believe that:
.
1. Poverty and powerlessness are avoidable and can be eliminated by human action and
political will.
.
Well poverty is typically avoidable by those who are poor – in some cases it can’t be eliminated because it is due to catastrophe. However, the best cure for poverty is economic development. This allows people to produce surpluses to tide them over bad times, or through disaster. The only economic system that has produced such surpluses is capitalism. Political will, in respect of allowing people to produce, enforcing criminal and civil laws and property rights, is essential in this – though I don’t think it is what Oxfam means.
.
2. Basic human needs and rights can be met. These include the rights to a sustainable
livelihood, and the rights and capacities to participate in societies and make positive
changes to people's lives.
.
Well that’s nice, they can be met – the question is, by whom? Who supplies a right to a sustainable livelihood and what is a sustainable livelihood? Does this mean you have a right to your business continuing to be successful, if so who guarantees that if you have insufficient customers? Does it mean your employer is required to support you, even if you are largely superfluous? Who stops people from participating in societies and the right to make positive changes to your life? In other words, this is wishy washy nonsense,
.
3. Inequalities can be significantly reduced both between rich and poor nations and within
nations.
.
Well, of course then there wouldn’t be rich and poor nations would there. Of course, this is right – look at Korea (South only), Taiwan, China, Singapore, Malaysia, Vietnam and India – they are certainly getting wealthier, while the socialist France, Italy and Germany haven’t been going anywhere. However, it is telling that there is an emphasis on inequalities. It wouldn’t matter if the poor countries all fed, clothed and housed - what would matter is that there are rich countries where people own cars, engage in travel. No recognition that inequality can reflect the different value of what is being produced, different levels of efficiency and different skills. The assumption is that equality is fair – which is nonsense as well. I am presuming it is material inequality that is the concern, although socialists often say capitalists are only concerned with money – socialists aren’t wanting Britain to have the beaches of the Maldives.
.
4. Peace and substantial arms reduction are essential conditions for development.
.
Peace yes. Arms reduction, no. South Korea has developed very well while remaining well armed – in fact without being armed it would have been invaded by North Korea. The US is well armed and is hardly poor. The issue is what arms are used for, if used for attacking and pillaging then the problem is those actions, if used in self defence they are an asset.
.
Oxfams understand that:
5. Poverty is a state of powerlessness in which people are unable to exercise their basic
human rights or control virtually any aspect of their lives. Poverty manifests itself in the
inadequacy of material goods and lack of access to basic services and opportunities
leading to a condition of insecurity.
Unable to exercise basic human rights? Poor people can’t move or speak? They can’t sell their labour? Patronising nonsense to claim they cannot control their lives or exercise basic human rights. Poverty is a lack of opportunity now – so who owes the poor opportunities? Poverty by definition leaves someone insecure as they lack the necessities of life, but does this mean something else?
.
6. All poverty is almost always rooted in human action or inaction. It can be made worse by
natural calamities, and human violence, oppression and environmental destruction. It is
maintained by entrenched inequalities and institutional and economic mechanisms.
.
Well it is rooted in human action or inaction, such as mistakes or negligence. However, the true agenda is in the second sentence “maintained by entrenched inequalities” (whatever they are ) and “institutional and economic mechanisms” (whatever they are). If I was generous it would because people in poor countries have poor education, no property rights, limited infrastructure and often harassment by governments, paramilitaries or groups keen to keep down anything new or innovative that may challenge their power. I could also say this could mean the nonsense of international trade protectionism and subsidies, and the appalling wastefulness of the UN. Oxfam definitely IS concerned about trade protectionism, but only in one direction – it wants developed countries to open their markets, but not developing countries. This is despite the evidence that closed markets stagnate economies.
.
The Oxfam approach is that:
7. Our programs will:
a. address the structural causes of poverty and related injustice
.
Marxist terminology – but does this include enforcing private property rights? Doubt it.
..................
b. work primarily through local accountable organizations, seeking to strengthen their
empowerment
.
Not individuals, not clear if this is voluntary or government or both. Probably both.
.
c. help people directly where local capacity is insufficient or inappropriate for Oxfams'
purposes
.
Fine
.
d. assist the development of structures which directly benefit people facing the realities of
poverty and injustice and which are accountable to them.
.
What sort of structures? Independent accountable courts and enforceable property rights?
.
8. In all our actions our ultimate goal is to enable people to exercise their rights and manage
their own lives.
.
Wonderful, so let’s ensure governments only protect people from each other.
.
9. For people to be able to exercise their rights:
a. opportunities must be created so people can participate in governing all aspects of their
lives, and
.
No, rights are distinct from opportunities. People should not participate in governing all aspects of their lives, they should be in control of their lives to the extent possible. They govern their bodies, their property and how they contract those with others.
.
b. they must have the genuine capacity to organize and take advantage of those
opportunities.
.
Organise? Like unions? Why can’t people just act? How do you guarantee people have capacity to take advantage of opportunities? You educate them in everything so they can take advantage of any opportunity? Slightly far fetched.
.
10. Gender inequalities and other diversity issues will be addressed in our actions and
programs.
.
Fair enough – much has to be done about discrimination against women or other races, religions, or indeed people of different political beliefs.
.
11. In the economic arena, we will seek:
a. to enable people to meet their needs by creating opportunities within markets, while
protecting themselves against the excesses of unregulated market forces
.
What are these excesses? Why is there no mention of the excesses of unregulated government force?
.
b. to strengthen institutions intervening in the market in the interests of the poor.
.
Regardless of whether those institutions intervening actually advance their interests. Maybe intervening in the market is against their interests.
.
12. Preventing and reversing damage to the environment is essential to achieving
sustainable livelihoods.
.
OK, so let’s destroy buildings, roads, farmland and revert the environment back to how it was before people “damaged” it. Damage could mean any emissions, any earthworks, any weeding. There is no cost/benefit tradeoff here – not cases where “damaging the environment” saves lives.
.
13.. Action against violence must include:
a. coming to the aid of victims,
.
Important, ambulance at the bottom of the cliff though and Red Cross does this well already.
.
b. strengthening people's capacity to peacefully resolve conflicts, and
.
Harmless enough…and
.
c. demanding a determined response from the international community where the situation
warrants it.
.
OK, so aid victims, encourage peaceful resolution and international intervention. What about people’s right to self defence, what about government actions to do violence to people?
.
There you have it. Oxfam has some good goals, and I don’t doubt how positive it would be if more people in poor countries had clean water, housing, adequate food and peace. However, they have no right to claim others in other countries to pay for it for them. The standard of living in the West was earnt through hard work and innovation, the standard of living in the poor countries needs to be earnt the same way.
.
More importantly, Oxfam has a deluded old peace activist socialist view as to why poverty happens. It ignores the importance of property rights and independent fair judiciary to enforce criminal law, contract law and property law. You don’t get this in most countries that are performing badly. Peace is important, but it is not enough- because the importance of peace is not that there is no war, but that there is no violence being initiated. Violence can be initiated by governments against their people and individuals against one another. Any time this happens, it destroys wealth and is psychologically debilitating. Having no legal system able to respond makes it worse.
.
Oxfam would be far better if it focused on three goals:
- End to all forms of initiated force (war, terrorism, crime, government);
- Removing all barriers to free consensual trade across borders and within borders;
- Establishment of private property rights and contract law, able to be defended and enforced with an independent judicial and law enforcement system.
.
Sadly, I just think it is more concerned about making people in richer countries feel guilty. I wont give to Oxfam, because it has a socialist agenda - it is more concerned with fair trade (which is a fraud according to the Adam Smith Institute). Read also this article from the Globalisation Institute, which explains why free trade IS fair trade, and those who argue against free trade are just plain wrong. Oxfam needs to dump its ideological baggage and look at why some poor countries are doing remarkably well - it is not because of Oxfam.
1. Poverty and powerlessness are avoidable and can be eliminated by human action and
political will.
.
Well poverty is typically avoidable by those who are poor – in some cases it can’t be eliminated because it is due to catastrophe. However, the best cure for poverty is economic development. This allows people to produce surpluses to tide them over bad times, or through disaster. The only economic system that has produced such surpluses is capitalism. Political will, in respect of allowing people to produce, enforcing criminal and civil laws and property rights, is essential in this – though I don’t think it is what Oxfam means.
.
2. Basic human needs and rights can be met. These include the rights to a sustainable
livelihood, and the rights and capacities to participate in societies and make positive
changes to people's lives.
.
Well that’s nice, they can be met – the question is, by whom? Who supplies a right to a sustainable livelihood and what is a sustainable livelihood? Does this mean you have a right to your business continuing to be successful, if so who guarantees that if you have insufficient customers? Does it mean your employer is required to support you, even if you are largely superfluous? Who stops people from participating in societies and the right to make positive changes to your life? In other words, this is wishy washy nonsense,
.
3. Inequalities can be significantly reduced both between rich and poor nations and within
nations.
.
Well, of course then there wouldn’t be rich and poor nations would there. Of course, this is right – look at Korea (South only), Taiwan, China, Singapore, Malaysia, Vietnam and India – they are certainly getting wealthier, while the socialist France, Italy and Germany haven’t been going anywhere. However, it is telling that there is an emphasis on inequalities. It wouldn’t matter if the poor countries all fed, clothed and housed - what would matter is that there are rich countries where people own cars, engage in travel. No recognition that inequality can reflect the different value of what is being produced, different levels of efficiency and different skills. The assumption is that equality is fair – which is nonsense as well. I am presuming it is material inequality that is the concern, although socialists often say capitalists are only concerned with money – socialists aren’t wanting Britain to have the beaches of the Maldives.
.
4. Peace and substantial arms reduction are essential conditions for development.
.
Peace yes. Arms reduction, no. South Korea has developed very well while remaining well armed – in fact without being armed it would have been invaded by North Korea. The US is well armed and is hardly poor. The issue is what arms are used for, if used for attacking and pillaging then the problem is those actions, if used in self defence they are an asset.
.
Oxfams understand that:
5. Poverty is a state of powerlessness in which people are unable to exercise their basic
human rights or control virtually any aspect of their lives. Poverty manifests itself in the
inadequacy of material goods and lack of access to basic services and opportunities
leading to a condition of insecurity.
Unable to exercise basic human rights? Poor people can’t move or speak? They can’t sell their labour? Patronising nonsense to claim they cannot control their lives or exercise basic human rights. Poverty is a lack of opportunity now – so who owes the poor opportunities? Poverty by definition leaves someone insecure as they lack the necessities of life, but does this mean something else?
.
6. All poverty is almost always rooted in human action or inaction. It can be made worse by
natural calamities, and human violence, oppression and environmental destruction. It is
maintained by entrenched inequalities and institutional and economic mechanisms.
.
Well it is rooted in human action or inaction, such as mistakes or negligence. However, the true agenda is in the second sentence “maintained by entrenched inequalities” (whatever they are ) and “institutional and economic mechanisms” (whatever they are). If I was generous it would because people in poor countries have poor education, no property rights, limited infrastructure and often harassment by governments, paramilitaries or groups keen to keep down anything new or innovative that may challenge their power. I could also say this could mean the nonsense of international trade protectionism and subsidies, and the appalling wastefulness of the UN. Oxfam definitely IS concerned about trade protectionism, but only in one direction – it wants developed countries to open their markets, but not developing countries. This is despite the evidence that closed markets stagnate economies.
.
The Oxfam approach is that:
7. Our programs will:
a. address the structural causes of poverty and related injustice
.
Marxist terminology – but does this include enforcing private property rights? Doubt it.
..................
b. work primarily through local accountable organizations, seeking to strengthen their
empowerment
.
Not individuals, not clear if this is voluntary or government or both. Probably both.
.
c. help people directly where local capacity is insufficient or inappropriate for Oxfams'
purposes
.
Fine
.
d. assist the development of structures which directly benefit people facing the realities of
poverty and injustice and which are accountable to them.
.
What sort of structures? Independent accountable courts and enforceable property rights?
.
8. In all our actions our ultimate goal is to enable people to exercise their rights and manage
their own lives.
.
Wonderful, so let’s ensure governments only protect people from each other.
.
9. For people to be able to exercise their rights:
a. opportunities must be created so people can participate in governing all aspects of their
lives, and
.
No, rights are distinct from opportunities. People should not participate in governing all aspects of their lives, they should be in control of their lives to the extent possible. They govern their bodies, their property and how they contract those with others.
.
b. they must have the genuine capacity to organize and take advantage of those
opportunities.
.
Organise? Like unions? Why can’t people just act? How do you guarantee people have capacity to take advantage of opportunities? You educate them in everything so they can take advantage of any opportunity? Slightly far fetched.
.
10. Gender inequalities and other diversity issues will be addressed in our actions and
programs.
.
Fair enough – much has to be done about discrimination against women or other races, religions, or indeed people of different political beliefs.
.
11. In the economic arena, we will seek:
a. to enable people to meet their needs by creating opportunities within markets, while
protecting themselves against the excesses of unregulated market forces
.
What are these excesses? Why is there no mention of the excesses of unregulated government force?
.
b. to strengthen institutions intervening in the market in the interests of the poor.
.
Regardless of whether those institutions intervening actually advance their interests. Maybe intervening in the market is against their interests.
.
12. Preventing and reversing damage to the environment is essential to achieving
sustainable livelihoods.
.
OK, so let’s destroy buildings, roads, farmland and revert the environment back to how it was before people “damaged” it. Damage could mean any emissions, any earthworks, any weeding. There is no cost/benefit tradeoff here – not cases where “damaging the environment” saves lives.
.
13.. Action against violence must include:
a. coming to the aid of victims,
.
Important, ambulance at the bottom of the cliff though and Red Cross does this well already.
.
b. strengthening people's capacity to peacefully resolve conflicts, and
.
Harmless enough…and
.
c. demanding a determined response from the international community where the situation
warrants it.
.
OK, so aid victims, encourage peaceful resolution and international intervention. What about people’s right to self defence, what about government actions to do violence to people?
.
There you have it. Oxfam has some good goals, and I don’t doubt how positive it would be if more people in poor countries had clean water, housing, adequate food and peace. However, they have no right to claim others in other countries to pay for it for them. The standard of living in the West was earnt through hard work and innovation, the standard of living in the poor countries needs to be earnt the same way.
.
More importantly, Oxfam has a deluded old peace activist socialist view as to why poverty happens. It ignores the importance of property rights and independent fair judiciary to enforce criminal law, contract law and property law. You don’t get this in most countries that are performing badly. Peace is important, but it is not enough- because the importance of peace is not that there is no war, but that there is no violence being initiated. Violence can be initiated by governments against their people and individuals against one another. Any time this happens, it destroys wealth and is psychologically debilitating. Having no legal system able to respond makes it worse.
.
Oxfam would be far better if it focused on three goals:
- End to all forms of initiated force (war, terrorism, crime, government);
- Removing all barriers to free consensual trade across borders and within borders;
- Establishment of private property rights and contract law, able to be defended and enforced with an independent judicial and law enforcement system.
.
Sadly, I just think it is more concerned about making people in richer countries feel guilty. I wont give to Oxfam, because it has a socialist agenda - it is more concerned with fair trade (which is a fraud according to the Adam Smith Institute). Read also this article from the Globalisation Institute, which explains why free trade IS fair trade, and those who argue against free trade are just plain wrong. Oxfam needs to dump its ideological baggage and look at why some poor countries are doing remarkably well - it is not because of Oxfam.
31 March 2006
Energy efficiency obsession
I see that Energy Minister Trevor Mallard and Government Spokesperson on Energy Efficiency Jeanette Fitzsimons (didn’t know that existed) have announced the ending of the current National Energy Efficiency and Conservation Strategy (NEECS). Unfortunately a new one is going to be developed, which will be one of the most pointless exercises engaged by bureaucrats in the next year or so.
.
Why?
.
Because the last one did bugger all. This government is obsessed with strategies, which are meant to direct bureaucrats, and they are usually destined to not be successful or be so broadly defined to look like every year is a step “along the path”. The new NEECS is to feed into a new Energy Strategy (see what I mean?).
.
Let’s start from first premises. The objective of NEECS is to “set the agenda for government programmes to promote greater energy efficiency and renewable energy”.
.
Why?
.
Is energy efficiency good? Well, yes it is. Wasting energy is unproductive. Most businesses don’t like to waste any inputs into production, so they strive to be more efficient across the board. This includes everything from turning off lights, to buying more efficient machinery, to closing down inefficient operations. In respect of energy, as long as it is priced efficiently (i.e. not subsidised or not overpriced), then energy users will decide whether it is more efficient to use it or not. For example, an emphasis on energy efficiency alone may mean extra expense in labour to monitor lights or whatever. So the government doesn’t need to promote energy efficiency. If you are stupid enough to leave all your appliances on, then you pay more for electricity – nobody subsidises you. If there isn’t enough electricity to meet demand, the price should go up to encourage you to be more efficient.
.
In short, there is not the slightest need for the government to give a damn about energy efficiency if electricity, gas, coal and petrol are priced according to supply and demand.
.
Is renewable energy good? Well, it doesn’t really matter. If it is a non-renewable resource, when it is becoming scarce the price goes up and others are found. In itself, renewable energy sounds good – but it is rather irrelevant.
.
So, in short, NEECS has little value – the appropriate answer to energy efficiency is to get out of the way, and let users pay and energy producers have freedom to seek whatever sources of energy they wish. To help that, the government ought to privatise its remaining electricity SOEs.
.
Why?
.
Because the last one did bugger all. This government is obsessed with strategies, which are meant to direct bureaucrats, and they are usually destined to not be successful or be so broadly defined to look like every year is a step “along the path”. The new NEECS is to feed into a new Energy Strategy (see what I mean?).
.
Let’s start from first premises. The objective of NEECS is to “set the agenda for government programmes to promote greater energy efficiency and renewable energy”.
.
Why?
.
Is energy efficiency good? Well, yes it is. Wasting energy is unproductive. Most businesses don’t like to waste any inputs into production, so they strive to be more efficient across the board. This includes everything from turning off lights, to buying more efficient machinery, to closing down inefficient operations. In respect of energy, as long as it is priced efficiently (i.e. not subsidised or not overpriced), then energy users will decide whether it is more efficient to use it or not. For example, an emphasis on energy efficiency alone may mean extra expense in labour to monitor lights or whatever. So the government doesn’t need to promote energy efficiency. If you are stupid enough to leave all your appliances on, then you pay more for electricity – nobody subsidises you. If there isn’t enough electricity to meet demand, the price should go up to encourage you to be more efficient.
.
In short, there is not the slightest need for the government to give a damn about energy efficiency if electricity, gas, coal and petrol are priced according to supply and demand.
.
Is renewable energy good? Well, it doesn’t really matter. If it is a non-renewable resource, when it is becoming scarce the price goes up and others are found. In itself, renewable energy sounds good – but it is rather irrelevant.
.
So, in short, NEECS has little value – the appropriate answer to energy efficiency is to get out of the way, and let users pay and energy producers have freedom to seek whatever sources of energy they wish. To help that, the government ought to privatise its remaining electricity SOEs.
Working for benefits
Now as a libertarian I don’t believe in compulsory state welfare. At best it doesn’t represent caring at all, because instead of consciously considering how to assist those in need, most people simply accept that taxes are taken from them and some bureaucrats hand money over to the needy. It means the chattering classes can clink their chardonnay glasses in Wadestown or Parnell, and feel they are doing their bit for those in Cannons Creek, Otara or Murupara – without having to actually be conscious of it. They can vote Labour feeling like, somehow, this system makes them better citizens – whilst many avoid the needy like the plague. It also means that bureaucrats, many with good intentions, always have a supply of money to dish out to the needy – and have power with this, and beneficiaries think that their money is an “entitlement”. “Entitlement” is a powerful word, hard to argue against being entitled to something, like holding a certificate proving you have a right to land or some money.
.
At worst state welfare breeds an attitude of dependence of not seeking the best in yourself – an attitude best represented in beneficiaries who would rather watch TV all day than get a job, or wont get a job that “robs them” of their benefit – robbed already from the productive. State welfare is money literally for nothing, taken from force by people who had to earn it in the first place.
.
However, there are plenty who believe that even if the state welfare system is wasteful and has gone too far, that there should still be a bottom line “safety net” for those destitute and unable to work through sickness or disability or to bridge a gap between jobs. This is the line that ACT takes, that welfare should be short lived and be incentivised to encourage or require people to take employment where possible. In other words, welfare for those with no means to provide for themselves or their families. This was, I believe, the vision of New Zealand’s most popular socialist – Michael Joseph Savage.
.
Today, Helen Clark and Michael Cullen have taken that vision and vastly increased the number of those receiving welfare, with the so-called “Working for Families” package. This means that most people with children will now receive social welfare benefits simply because they bred. So let’s just think very clearly about what this system means:
.
1. People work hard, earn money and have tax taken off them, around half paying 33% or more of their income in tax.
2. The state takes a proportion of that to pay bureaucrats to run a system whereby…
3. People with children, with certain income thresholds, can get welfare benefits if they apply for them – simply because they are families.
.
At worst state welfare breeds an attitude of dependence of not seeking the best in yourself – an attitude best represented in beneficiaries who would rather watch TV all day than get a job, or wont get a job that “robs them” of their benefit – robbed already from the productive. State welfare is money literally for nothing, taken from force by people who had to earn it in the first place.
.
However, there are plenty who believe that even if the state welfare system is wasteful and has gone too far, that there should still be a bottom line “safety net” for those destitute and unable to work through sickness or disability or to bridge a gap between jobs. This is the line that ACT takes, that welfare should be short lived and be incentivised to encourage or require people to take employment where possible. In other words, welfare for those with no means to provide for themselves or their families. This was, I believe, the vision of New Zealand’s most popular socialist – Michael Joseph Savage.
.
Today, Helen Clark and Michael Cullen have taken that vision and vastly increased the number of those receiving welfare, with the so-called “Working for Families” package. This means that most people with children will now receive social welfare benefits simply because they bred. So let’s just think very clearly about what this system means:
.
1. People work hard, earn money and have tax taken off them, around half paying 33% or more of their income in tax.
2. The state takes a proportion of that to pay bureaucrats to run a system whereby…
3. People with children, with certain income thresholds, can get welfare benefits if they apply for them – simply because they are families.
.
Now the Greens moan about how unemployed and sickness beneficiaries aren’t getting this – because the Greens think state welfare is truly wonderful and if you need money, then fleecing those who make it is fair.
.
However, how do YOU feel about paying a lot of tax and either having it churned through bureaucrats to make you a beneficiary, or it going to middle class families with children?
Now the Greens moan about how unemployed and sickness beneficiaries aren’t getting this – because the Greens think state welfare is truly wonderful and if you need money, then fleecing those who make it is fair.
.
However, how do YOU feel about paying a lot of tax and either having it churned through bureaucrats to make you a beneficiary, or it going to middle class families with children?
Take this statement from the Government's own press release:
Most families with children, earning under $70,000 a year are likely to be eligible for family tax relief, but many families earning up to $100,000 may also be able to claim some family assistance.
.
$100,000!! Forget being a responsible young couple in your 20s saving for a mortgage, have babies and get some money from the state. Apparently Dr Cullen's tax increase for the "rich" earning over $60,000 isn't about rich people anymore - so why does middle-upper income New Zealand have to pay 39% income tax?
.
One view is that everyone should share the financial burden of raising children. Why? Unless the children are collectively “owned” by everyone, why should anyone else bear responsibility for the breeding habits of others? People who have 5 children get more money than those with 1 or none. Having children is essentially a lifestyle choice, some people want none – some people can’t have them and must adopt – others want enormous families. However, having children is, by and large, a choice. Nobody makes you have unprotected coital sex, unless it is rape and that is a different matter. Making the choice to have children means taking enormous responsibility and trading off the time, energy and financial commitment of a child, vs. what else you might do with that time and money. If you are unwilling to take on that commitment, then you short change the child – and you’ve made a bad decision. It is YOUR fault – not MY fault that I haven’t given you money for your child.
.
The main criticism of cutting welfare for children is that the children suffer – yet of the two main things children need, material provision is one. The other is time and attention – which is also where the greatest rewards come from. If I am expected to give up money to help children be raised for the greater good, I want to share in their upbringing – after all, children need attention and time from adults to learn and grow fulfilled and to experience life. I’m sure parents receiving welfare from non-child bearing taxpayers would baulk at anyone expecting time with their “shared responsibility”.
.
Quite simply, there is nothing special about having children. Children cost time and money, both for parents and, with the state education system, for every net taxpayer (not everyone is a net taxpayer remember – all those on benefits and working for the non-productive state sector are not) – and the single biggest thing anyone does that increases consumption in the environment is to breed. However, the Greens want people to be subsidised to breed.
.
So why has Labour set up this bureaucratic system to hand out welfare to middle income families? In essence, it comes down to two motives. The first is income redistribution (known as theft if you engage it in) - Labour believes that those that earn and produce, particularly those without children, should have part of those earning taken from them and given to those with children. In short, people with the income of Heather Roy with five children deserve money from people with half her income and no kids, because Labour wants to subsidise them.
One view is that everyone should share the financial burden of raising children. Why? Unless the children are collectively “owned” by everyone, why should anyone else bear responsibility for the breeding habits of others? People who have 5 children get more money than those with 1 or none. Having children is essentially a lifestyle choice, some people want none – some people can’t have them and must adopt – others want enormous families. However, having children is, by and large, a choice. Nobody makes you have unprotected coital sex, unless it is rape and that is a different matter. Making the choice to have children means taking enormous responsibility and trading off the time, energy and financial commitment of a child, vs. what else you might do with that time and money. If you are unwilling to take on that commitment, then you short change the child – and you’ve made a bad decision. It is YOUR fault – not MY fault that I haven’t given you money for your child.
.
The main criticism of cutting welfare for children is that the children suffer – yet of the two main things children need, material provision is one. The other is time and attention – which is also where the greatest rewards come from. If I am expected to give up money to help children be raised for the greater good, I want to share in their upbringing – after all, children need attention and time from adults to learn and grow fulfilled and to experience life. I’m sure parents receiving welfare from non-child bearing taxpayers would baulk at anyone expecting time with their “shared responsibility”.
.
Quite simply, there is nothing special about having children. Children cost time and money, both for parents and, with the state education system, for every net taxpayer (not everyone is a net taxpayer remember – all those on benefits and working for the non-productive state sector are not) – and the single biggest thing anyone does that increases consumption in the environment is to breed. However, the Greens want people to be subsidised to breed.
.
So why has Labour set up this bureaucratic system to hand out welfare to middle income families? In essence, it comes down to two motives. The first is income redistribution (known as theft if you engage it in) - Labour believes that those that earn and produce, particularly those without children, should have part of those earning taken from them and given to those with children. In short, people with the income of Heather Roy with five children deserve money from people with half her income and no kids, because Labour wants to subsidise them.
.
United Future and NZ First endorse this. It is pure envy – a straight out transfer from some people to others – because Labour likes them.
.
The second motive is far more insidious. Tax cuts reduce dependence on the state and reduce the size of the state. They are preferred by individualists because they mean you get back money the state isn’t using so you can spend it yourself or save it, or do as you wish – after all it was your money to begin with. If you hadn’t worked, or invested or spent, the state wouldn’t have had it. It keeps a cap on the size of the state, which is why Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan, Bill Birch all supported tax cuts – it keeps the state from wasting money on whatever activity was popular with politicians, but which you would never choose to fund yourself. Like rap study tours or middle class children.
.
Extending welfare to include middle class families ties them to the state – some see it as effectively a tax cut, because they get some of their money back, so it’s “ok”. Anyone promising to remove it better give them something as good or better. However, that is the thing – many of those on middle class welfare wouldn’t be better off with a tax cut, unless it was a large tax cut – the sort National would not introduce. Labour now has these people as more likely voters, because to reverse Working for Families and introduce tax cuts instead, there would be losers (low to middle income families) and winners (middle to high income single people). Labour knows very well that the losers outnumber the winners, and the winners are hated by the great Kiwi socialist clobbering machine working in TVNZ, TV3, Radio NZ, the NZ Herald etc etc. Labour has bought voters with this package – and knows that most will remain loyal. They are now dependent on bureaucrats and a Labour government for getting some of their income – something that a tax cut would never mean. That is why it is so insidiously evil.
.
No well functioning economy needs the state to take money off of people to redistribute to middle income working families. How inefficient is that? How ridiculous is it for welfare to have shifted from being the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff for those in dire need, to being a day to day source of income.
.
The appropriate response IS to replace it with tax cuts – scrap the whole Working for Families package, eliminate vast tracts of pointless bureaucracies and cut taxes, dramatically. National should stick to this, take its old tax cut plan and take it further. As much as it is hard for National to dismantle socialism Labour introduces, it is as hard for Labour to reverse tax cuts that apply to the vast majority.
.
While I thought the extent of the cuts were too low, Don Brash is right in his press statement about the Working for Families package:
.
As we have seen from Labour's TV ads, much of the extended Working for Families handout will go to higher income families who can afford to live in plush homes and own the latest electronic gadgets.
United Future and NZ First endorse this. It is pure envy – a straight out transfer from some people to others – because Labour likes them.
.
The second motive is far more insidious. Tax cuts reduce dependence on the state and reduce the size of the state. They are preferred by individualists because they mean you get back money the state isn’t using so you can spend it yourself or save it, or do as you wish – after all it was your money to begin with. If you hadn’t worked, or invested or spent, the state wouldn’t have had it. It keeps a cap on the size of the state, which is why Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan, Bill Birch all supported tax cuts – it keeps the state from wasting money on whatever activity was popular with politicians, but which you would never choose to fund yourself. Like rap study tours or middle class children.
.
Extending welfare to include middle class families ties them to the state – some see it as effectively a tax cut, because they get some of their money back, so it’s “ok”. Anyone promising to remove it better give them something as good or better. However, that is the thing – many of those on middle class welfare wouldn’t be better off with a tax cut, unless it was a large tax cut – the sort National would not introduce. Labour now has these people as more likely voters, because to reverse Working for Families and introduce tax cuts instead, there would be losers (low to middle income families) and winners (middle to high income single people). Labour knows very well that the losers outnumber the winners, and the winners are hated by the great Kiwi socialist clobbering machine working in TVNZ, TV3, Radio NZ, the NZ Herald etc etc. Labour has bought voters with this package – and knows that most will remain loyal. They are now dependent on bureaucrats and a Labour government for getting some of their income – something that a tax cut would never mean. That is why it is so insidiously evil.
.
No well functioning economy needs the state to take money off of people to redistribute to middle income working families. How inefficient is that? How ridiculous is it for welfare to have shifted from being the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff for those in dire need, to being a day to day source of income.
.
The appropriate response IS to replace it with tax cuts – scrap the whole Working for Families package, eliminate vast tracts of pointless bureaucracies and cut taxes, dramatically. National should stick to this, take its old tax cut plan and take it further. As much as it is hard for National to dismantle socialism Labour introduces, it is as hard for Labour to reverse tax cuts that apply to the vast majority.
.
While I thought the extent of the cuts were too low, Don Brash is right in his press statement about the Working for Families package:
.
As we have seen from Labour's TV ads, much of the extended Working for Families handout will go to higher income families who can afford to live in plush homes and own the latest electronic gadgets.
It's clear the extension was aimed at middle and higher income earners - proving it was a huge and desperate bribe to get Labour re-elected."But thousands of Kiwis miss out. People without children will subsidise those with children to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars."National's policy at the 2005 election was to offer tax cuts to working New Zealanders. These would have provided far better incentives for working people to get ahead in life from their own efforts.
30 March 2006
Israel seeks peace
The Arab-Israeli dispute has origins that only the doggedly stubborn use to determine their perspective. The Palestinians who want Israel eradicated (such as Hamas) are dreaming - Israel was, unfortunately, a creation of the UN, supported by both the western powers (US, UK, France and then non-communist China) and the USSR. It had been promised by Britain, the colonial power.
The best option at the time would've been to give Palestine independence, and allow Jews, Arabs and others of Palestine to live together -in a liberal democratic state. However, the Balfour Declaration in 1917 did promise a Jewish national homeland, as long as it did not prejudice Arab communities. The events that followed meant the creation of Israel - which tragically saw some Arabs expelled or fleeing homes in Israel, while some Jews were expelled from Arab states. A unified Israel was not going to happen, as Arab states opposed the establishment of Israel - so the UN partition plan was meant to be a compromise. That plan was what Israel originally intended to be - but the Arabs were not interested in a separate Palestinian state. So then came war, and war, and war and war.
Throughout the last nearly 60 years, Israel has fought for its right to exist. Only the most blinkered socialist would say that it would have been preferable for the authoritarian bully Nasser or totalitarian Asad to replace Israel. Israel has maintained a liberal democratic state, that has allowed Israelis to develop, trade and be reasonably free (although Israeli Arabs tend to feel like second class citizens). Compared to Egypt, which has had three Presidents, none democratically elected - Syria, a one-party state and Lebanon (only recently recovered from Syrian imperialism), Israel was a shining light for individual freedom. Even Nasser would listen to Kol Israel (Radio) to get the truth of the defeat in the Six Day War, because Arab broadcasters were so beholden to state propaganda of success and victory.
The Six Day War was Israel's response to an imminent attack - a wonderful victory over bullies ready to destroy it - and take enough territory for borders that could be readily defended. It also provided the chance for some Zionist plans for greater Israel to be implemented - the West Bank was known by some as Judea and Samaria - sacred Hebrew territory, and settlement were established as part of a grand plan to keep Israeli borders to the river Jordan.
Israel has always been willing to seek peace with security. It surrendered the majority of the land it annexed in 1967 (the Sinai) when it made peace with Egypt - which cost President Anwar Sadat his life due to an Arab extremist assassin. Syria has refused to guarantee Israel peace, which is why Israel retains the Golan Heights. Jordan has made peace in 1994, recognising Israel and refusing any historic claim to the West Bank - so now it is the matter of the Palestinian Arabs.
Until 1988, the Palestinian Liberation Organisation - a terrorist group if ever there was one - refused to recognise Israel's right to exist. At that point, Israel still did not believe that land for peace could work. After the Cold War ended (and Soviet sponsorship of the PLO evaporated), the US pushed for Israel to negotiate with the Palestinians - and President Yitzhak Shamir did not even recognise the Palestinians could be a nation. It was only because the US intervened decisively against Saddam Hussein to roll back his invasion of Kuwait, that Israel commenced peace talks with Palestinians, but not the PLO.
The Oslo Accords in 1993 saw Israel agree to the creation of the Palestinian Authority - allowing Palestinian self-government - an enormous change from the greater Israel envisaged by the Likud party previously. It cost Yitzhak Rabin his life. However, the PLO's corruption and inability/unwillingness to stop terrorism was its downfall. Every time a bus was bombed by Hizbollah, Israel rightfully blamed the PLO for being unable to secure its borders or clamp down on terror.
The second intifada has seen Israel respond with enormous force - which is unsurprising. So Israelis have faced three options:
- Continue to intervene in the West Bank and Gaza, and defend the settlements - maintaining the occupation;
- Negotiate a settlement with the Palestinian Authority for peace;
- Withdraw from Palestinian territory and defend what is left.
Voting Kadima means the third option. Israel withdrew from the Gaza Strip because it gave nothing - the land was not important for defence, and it was costly. Better to leave it to the Palestinian Authority to have a go at running everything, and seal the border off if it couldn't stop terrorists slipping into Israel. The strategy for the West Bank wont be far different - abandon vast swatches of the West Bank to the Palestinian Authority - maintain a military presence along the Jordan Valley (which is sparsely populated, but can also control arms into the West Bank), clear out settlements that are not close to Israeli borders and build a wall around what is left.
Given in the first instance, despite much Western Aid, the Fatah (PLO) run Palestinian Authority was a disaster - and now Palestinians have voted for the terrorist thugs Hamas - can you blame Israel? Well, it wont probably work - unless Palestinians start running a civilised operation, Hamas renounces terrorism, recognises Israel and respects all previous agreements - and then starts to negotiate. Only then will Israel consider relinquishing more of the West Bank, moving the concrete wall barrier and talk about the hardest issue of all - Jerusalem.
A Palestinian state will only emerge when it can not be a haven for those bent on terrorism in Israel - and when it can be reasonably uncorrupt and focused on protecting Palestinians, and a shared peace in the Middle East with Israel. Nothing else would contribute to peace in the Middle East and the world more generally than a settlement - but it wont come at the cost of Israeli security. Nor should it. Those supportive of the Palestinian's plight should take time to notice how far Israelis have come. They want to leave Palestinians to govern themselves, and withdraw settlements - the dream of greater Israel is only held by a small minority. However Palestinians have not helped their cause, by having political masters that have been inept and corrupt, and are now advocates for terrorism and Israel's annihilation. Hamas could - if it tried - prove it wants to be competent and uncorrupt - but it will be for nought if it refuses to recognise that Israel, nuclear armed and war wearied, will go away or be defeated or tolerate Palestinian territory being a base for attacks on civilians. Anything less is uncivilised, and Palestinians who cannot understand that deserve to live under occupation. A liberal democratic open tolerant Palestinian state would not threaten Israel, and be a model for its corrupt neighbours like Egypt or despotic regimes like Syria - and would remove one of the reasons Arabs have to remain united, despite their governments' continued pillage and abuse of their people.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)