The Role of Government? Which areas should spending be cut from?

[lakemac]

Lakemac, Chops has just beaten me to saying how offensive I find your comments. You speak as someone who has never faced chronic illness, whether physical or mental, adversity in any form, or unexpected setbacks.

The notion of a society where we refuse to care for people who need help is one I hope never to see. Certainly, there is middle class welfare which should be means tested but to suggest all welfare should be abolished is simply heartless and completely unreasonable.

Under your "utopia" what would happen to people who had no family?
How would people with severe mental illness look after themselves without support?
I doubt from your comments whether you have ever encountered people who are genuinely disadvantaged and in absolute need of support from those of us who can cope. If you did, I imagine from your disparaging comments that you would simply term them "losers" and ignore their plight.

Just to clarify, I have no personal stake in needing welfare. I've been fortunate enough to be able to provide for myself. Not everyone can do this.
But for many years I have worked with e.g. people with mental illness, victims of domestic violence etc, and understand that there is a whole other sector of society out there which we simply need to support. I gather you would just cast them on the scrap heap.

I am glad that I have sparked some debate about this issue. What I wish people would do is to lift their thought process above their emotions and discuss the issue not the feelings.

Now onto Julia's comments: You assume I have never faced adversity. Without going into details your assumption is very wrong. I speak in fact coming from experiencing that adversity and having direct experience of the adversity of others at the very bottom of society. The difference is how you respond to that adversity. Do you expect to sponge of the government or help yourself? The choice is a personal one.

Also you are getting confused with the source of the assistance rather than its existence. I am not advocating a society in which we refuse to help anyone. I am advocating a society in which the government does not perform that role. Having government look after welfare is inefficient. If you really want to assist the needy then go private enterprise (in a very loose sense I use the term - we commonly refer to these organisations as charities) they are far more efficient at it. I hold up the Salvos as an example. In your approach LESS assistance is getting to the needy not more. How does that help them. It doesn't.

In your senario of the government handling welfare, you are pointing that gun at my head saying "pay up or else" - that is coercion. It is no different if I was to do the same thing in reverse and say "Owing shares is now illegal". You are being coerced to do something against your will. (This happened in a slightly different way in the US when the government made it illegal for their citizens to own gold - Executive Order 6102 April 5 1933 - funnily enough it was partially related to what was then their anti-terrorist acts... hmmm... lesson there for those asute enough to see it). Back on topic - people don't respond well to force yet that is what you advocate.

As to those who don't have support from family, re-read my comments about the privately run charities that existed prior to government intervention. I am not sure how much historical research or background reading you have done in this topic but I would be interested in some more references myself. If you can prove to me that having a government run welfare is more efficient and results in more assistance (dollars as well as support) getting to those in need then we have something to discuss. Otherwise a privately run system will always outperform a centrally planned government one.

 

[lakemac]

lakemac,
maybe i didnot go deep enough for you,
what i mean about letting government look after the big picture stuff is we need a central entity to look after it, if we left it to private enterprises to build major roads/ highways, water projects (like snowy) they would never get done, not enough return straight away in them. the only entities that could do these project without flinching are governments as they don't have shareholders to please, i know you'll say they have us the public, but they would have our support if they put the money and time to look at and manage these projects. and they would not need to just go out and vote buy, as they do now wasting money on projects that have no real imput into the future of the counrty(some do some don't).

As with the make up of the government we would need to pay more so they could attract the top people in the country to apply for these jobs (department heads), the candidates would need experience in their choosen role not just be elected. at the moment all we get is political hacks that are breed to be pollies.
the federal government needs to be looked at as the largest company in this country not just a slush fund for people to spunge off.

As with the defense of the country i would like to know it is there all the time not just on a contract basis and not been run for a profit, but for the benefit of the country, plus it should only operate within our borders, we don't need to be running around the world policing other peoples backyards when ours still need looking after first.

The major problem now is for all this to happen we would need to skip a generation of people to totally clean out current thinking and change the way we think about politics and government. and that's not going to happen! as so many people now count on this current system for their way of life.

You mention the snowy as and example - why wouldn't it have been done privately? The return on energy sources is a good one. It may not have been built at the time but if it made economic sense it would have been built. Other countries don't have government run electricity grids. We are only just starting to privatise ours now. Far too late imho. Major roads - why again government? Paying too much for too little. People complain about tolls yet if the government got out of building roads the tax you get back would more than cover the cost of roads. Again you are lulled into current soft thinking - roads were constructed well before any government took on that role. It is just you think only a government can do it. Again (not sure if you are familiar with Sydney) but the M7 is an example of a private road - which i use btw).

Paying more for government or political masters does not solve the fundamental problem and that is central planning just does not work. You can't know everything. What people don't get is that there is no feedback mechanism in central planning (your vote every 3 years is hardly feedback). Bring money into the equation and you get instant feedback (just watch the stock market on any day). You act (even on a big scale) and get the feedback "oh yes that worked people want my product" or "oh no that was a waste of money - won't do that again". Ruthless market efficiency (I know this will upset the bleeding hearts again...)

You want to have that security all the time. That is a choice you make - what is called your "preference" (using the terminology of the economist Ludwig von Mises). So you are prepared to pay some of your income in the form of "insurance". So do others - you move to an area that has such protection available. Others may not be as paranoid or have different preferences - they might prefer to live unprotected as it were. New Zealand is such a place. They shut down a lot of their defence force some years ago. The difference is you make that choice, you shouldn't by coercion force it on others.

As to implementing all this. No need to skip a generation - just get a leader who has the forsight to implement it. Yes it will be painful, change always is.

 

[lakemac]

Another crock.

The fact is most public mental hospitals wont take you in unless you are an immediate threat to your self, or others, no matter how sick you are. Usually the only way to get the doc to do anything is by threatening them outright.

Sad but true.

And the reason is this happens is that the government has decided not to allocate many resources to mental health. Who made that decision? Let the private sector take the role and you will get a better system.

BTW Chops_a_must maybe the market is giving you a good signal here. If there is a demand then there are ways to make it work. You just have to build a model that works. Not saying that is easy but it can be done if the government would let you.

 

[lakemac]

Another crock.

The fact is most public mental hospitals wont take you in unless you are an immediate threat to your self, or others, no matter how sick you are. Usually the only way to get the doc to do anything is by threatening them outright.

Sad but true.

Another thought chops_a_must, I seem to remember (but don't quote me) that this problem on happened after the government changed the rules on mental health. If I recall the problem escalated after some central planner decided to turf mental health patients out of the institutions...

Whilst your comment probably reflects the current state of affairs, ask yourself was this always the case? You may care to do some research into the historical issues surrounding this particularly government decisions. I would also look back in history and see what the effects of government intervention have done. Google is your friend...

Always question your assumptions.
Double check and always cross reference your sources.
Think people. Think.

 

[lakemac]

So lets discuss the "grossly offensive to women" issue with respect to the role of government and spending.

What exactly is grossly offensive? The fact that I said women need to get better financial education or that they need to become finacially independent? I stand by both of those comments. And I direct the same to men as well. Is that not why we frequent this forum - to better educate ourselves and become financially independent?

Maybe the issue is to cut the support of "single mothers". And probably my suggestion to dismantle child support and spousal maintenance. Why is it offensive to suggest such things?

I find it offensive that I am forced (yes at the point of a gun) to pay taxes to support the choices that other people make. Specifically single mothers. I have two families that I support but because the way the welfare system works it make more economic sense for my ex not to work. Take away the spousal maintenance and welfare she would have to work. But what about looking after the child - private enterprise. How do you afford it - by making sure you have a good contract in place when you get married. There is a whole industry just waiting in the wings to properly set up binding financial agreements that cover these things. Contract law is all you need.

This comes back to one of my main criticisms of our education system.
There are four things that our current system does not teach - all of which affect us as adults in major ways.
They are:
1. The understanding of how the law works: contracts, precedent, the courts and how laws are made/repealed.
2. Relationships: Where is Alan Pease when you need him - this should also include the legal issues that arise in marriage or any form of co-habitation (even flatmates).
3. The understanding of money: how money is created and destroyed, the real role of the banks and credit creation, how the free market works, other ways that an income can be created other than subsituting your time for money (ie. jobs vs business vs investing).
4. How business structures work: companies, trusts, partnerships, sole traders etc. Include in here how employess fit into these and how to read financial reports.

Oh and that brings me back on topic - private education - not public. Again more efficient and able to tailor your education to what suits you best. Why should your children be forced to study a ciriculum that has been centrally planned by the government. Any wonder we turn out unquestioning robots just ready to be tax payers when they start their working lives.

Finally another thought: consider the baby bonus - why would a government pay people to have babies? Australia probably can't support a much higher population than it already does without some much better land management. The reason - collect more taxes to pay for the retiring baby boomers. Consider this there has been a surge in births since the introduction of the bonus. The leading edge of the baby boomers are just hitting retirement. The bulk of that group will be in most need of government handouts just as those babies now start to pay taxes... Yup government welfare state - such a wonderful thing... not!

 

[Superfly]

Oh and that brings me back on topic - private education - not public. Again more efficient and able to tailor your education to what suits you best. Why should your children be forced to study a ciriculum that has been centrally planned by the government.

With a majority of teachers in Australia pushing their leftist views on the young ( only telling one side of the story etc etc), this is why the Howard government attempted to stop this. Like the school teachers who march the kids down the streets in an anti Iraq war rally... disgraceful ...I can remember myself arguing with a teacher about Veitnam after the teacher made some ridiculous comment about that war... besides that very much needs to be changed improved, for a start teachers should be on performanced based pay. My young niece back in Australia is at a private school and is studying German as a second language...when my sister told me this I was dumb founded..German !! why teach the kids German.. what good is that..Mandarin is what should be taught... the school answer to my sister is that if one day thet go backpacking it will be handy... oh my god !!! prime example of a lost opportunity and being let down by the education system. Private schools need attention as well in Australia. But agree 100% that private would be better with the government just keep it in check....

Is the Australian flag flying over all school yards now ?... it should be ... or would that offend some group....if so that's disgraceful....

 

[Julia]

I am glad that I have sparked some debate about this issue. What I wish people would do is to lift their thought process above their emotions and discuss the issue not the feelings.

Agreed. Debate is always useful. I've spent some time thinking about your suggestions, trying to be objective, and putting the emotional response aside.

Now onto Julia's comments: You assume I have never faced adversity. Without going into details your assumption is very wrong. I speak in fact coming from experiencing that adversity and having direct experience of the adversity of others at the very bottom of society. The difference is how you respond to that adversity. Do you expect to sponge of the government or help yourself? The choice is a personal one.

I was simply offering my interpretation of your own situation gleaned from your comments which seemed to me to be those of someone who has never felt they simply didn't know how to cope. If that's wrong, then I unreservedly offer my apology.

What I think I'm trying to get at is that some of us possess the innate capacity to cope with adversity, and are able to make the choice not to allow abuse or any other of life's hurdles to mortally wound us. We can pick ourselves up and work out how to start over. I don't know where this comes from - perhaps it's genetic, perhaps it's a result of decent parenting?
But we are all different and some people just don't have those coping skills.
Perhaps they can be taught in some cases, but in others no they can't.
Look at it as you would a physical disability like epilepsy. Just a feature of that person's personality. So these are the people we need to look after.

That said, I agree entirely that there are a large number of people who are just lazy, unmotivated, and who are leeching off their fellow citizens.
Perhaps your notion of a privately run welfare system could afford the personnel required to do individual interviews of everyone and decide who is genuinely deserving and who just needs a good kick and a reality check.
But wouldn't such an organisation be answerable to its shareholders and therefore reluctant to employ more people than Centrelink does currently?

Also you are getting confused with the source of the assistance rather than its existence. I am not advocating a society in which we refuse to help anyone. I am advocating a society in which the government does not perform that role. Having government look after welfare is inefficient. If you really want to assist the needy then go private enterprise (in a very loose sense I use the term - we commonly refer to these organisations as charities) they are far more efficient at it. I hold up the Salvos as an example. In your approach LESS assistance is getting to the needy not more. How does that help them. It doesn't.

Not sure what you mean in saying the needy are receiving less assistance.
Could you clarify this?

So, to use your example of the Salvos, would they be expected to fund their welfare scheme entirely from donations as they do at present? Would there be any other source of funding? e.g. tax dollars?

A further point on 'charities' looking after people, especially those with a religious base like the Salvos, St. Vinnies etc: Their credo is to give every person the benefit of the doubt. They are very non-judgmental in whom they assist. If someone has blown their entire dole on the pokies or drugs, they will still come to their rescue in paying rent or electricity. I don't think that's what you have in mind and I'd agree.

In your senario of the government handling welfare, you are pointing that gun at my head saying "pay up or else" - that is coercion. It is no different if I was to do the same thing in reverse and say "Owing shares is now illegal". You are being coerced to do something against your will. (This happened in a slightly different way in the US when the government made it illegal for their citizens to own gold - Executive Order 6102 April 5 1933 - funnily enough it was partially related to what was then their anti-terrorist acts... hmmm... lesson there for those asute enough to see it). Back on topic - people don't respond well to force yet that is what you advocate.

This is reasonable to a point. I guess it depends on your fundamental attitude about what sort of society you want to live in. For myself, although I resent stuff like the baby bonus, and feel much of the welfare system is inequitable, I am happy for my tax dollars to support people who need help.
I'd much rather see politicians' overly generous superannuation arrangements chopped and other areas of waste removed, than refuse to help human beings who for whatever reason are simply inadequate. The whole welfare system needs to be completely overhauled.

As to those who don't have support from family, re-read my comments about the privately run charities that existed prior to government intervention. I am not sure how much historical research or background reading you have done in this topic but I would be interested in some more references myself. If you can prove to me that having a government run welfare is more efficient and results in more assistance (dollars as well as support) getting to those in need then we have something to discuss. Otherwise a privately run system will always outperform a centrally planned government one.

Not disputing that government administered welfare is inefficient. Agree.
I'm just not sure that a private organisation which is primarily focused on making a profit, is going to have human interest at heart.

Earlier you suggested that the difficulty faced by people with mental illness in getting treatment these days dates back to the closing of most of the psych institutions. Yes, I'd agree completely. I remember (was in NZ at the time) when governments proudly said "it's time to regard people with mental illness as an integral part of our society. So we will stop locking them up in big institutions, and instead care for them within the community". Well, great idea, except it just didn't work. The 'care in the community' was miserably inadequate and as a consequence the ex-institutionalised people were pretty much left to look after themselves. So they were not compliant with their medication, their behaviour therefore was unacceptable in the community in many instances, so they were even more stigmatised and shunned than before.

In a psych hospital, they were with people like themselves and supported as necessary. What I'd like to see happen now is the establishment of hostel like places where those who can't cope entirely on their own have a measure of independence, but have the support of a live in nurse/mental health worker who would ensure they managed their money, took medication, ate properly etc. Perhaps, Lakemac, even this is "nannying" them too much?

Re single mothers: Pretty unfair to categorise all these together. There is certainly a large element where it's just easier to keep having babies than do anything more constructive. The baby bonus has encouraged this hugely.
Is it likely the progeny of these young women will grow up to be functional and independent taxpayers given the parenting and role modelling they have received? I doubt it. More likely they will just add another generation of idlers on welfare.

But then you have women escaping domestic violence or other adverse relationships. We need to help them until they have re-established their ability to cope. The previous government's introduction of the requirement for single mothers to seek work after the child is a certain age was a good thing and should have happened years ago.

Re your point about women needing more financial education: yes, agree, but not just women. Many men are financially hopeless.
Even so, there are still going to be those I've referred to above - people who simply don't have the skills or capacity to learn basic survival without assistance.

 

[lakemac]

Agreed. Debate is always useful. I've spent some time thinking about your suggestions, trying to be objective, and putting the emotional response aside.

I commend your fortitute to take up the challenge of spirited debate .

I was simply offering my interpretation of your own situation gleaned from your comments which seemed to me to be those of someone who has never felt they simply didn't know how to cope. If that's wrong, then I unreservedly offer my apology.

None needed but apology accepted none the less. I find the hardest thing sometime to do is to admit when we are wrong about something. Humble pie is always a character building exercise.

What I think I'm trying to get at is that some of us possess the innate capacity to cope with adversity, and are able to make the choice not to allow abuse or any other of life's hurdles to mortally wound us. We can pick ourselves up and work out how to start over. I don't know where this comes from - perhaps it's genetic, perhaps it's a result of decent parenting?
But we are all different and some people just don't have those coping skills.
Perhaps they can be taught in some cases, but in others no they can't.
Look at it as you would a physical disability like epilepsy. Just a feature of that person's personality. So these are the people we need to look after.

I fully agree. I don't have an answer to why some of us pick ourselves up and others languish in a morass of self pity or just plain bad luck. I have seen people with physical, mental and emotional impediments rise way above them to achieve fantasic goals where others able bodied gripe about their situation. Who knows. Personally I would like to see a better education system - not centrally planned that provides training for this kind of psychological support. But alas it ain't gonna happen

That said, I agree entirely that there are a large number of people who are just lazy, unmotivated, and who are leeching off their fellow citizens.
Perhaps your notion of a privately run welfare system could afford the personnel required to do individual interviews of everyone and decide who is genuinely deserving and who just needs a good kick and a reality check.
But wouldn't such an organisation be answerable to its shareholders and therefore reluctant to employ more people than Centrelink does currently?

You can do the job with LESS people than Centrelink has. Why? I am sure you, like most people, well know the moral standing of those you associate with. You can tell the laggards from the truly in need almost in an instant. Why? Personal contact. That is the difference between a "faceless" government department metering out some statist doctrine - the person in Centrelink through no fault of their own just can't form any personal relationship with the recipient of the welfare. Central planning just doesn't allow it. Charities - the really good ones that care form exceptional bonds with the people they deal with. I can attest to that from personal experience. On the other hand when in my dim dark past in a moment of weakness actually applied for welfare (yes Virginia there is a Santa Claus) I have no recollection of the government employee to whom I took my application to.

Not sure what you mean in saying the needy are receiving less assistance.
Could you clarify this?

What I mean is the amount the needy actually get as a percentage of the money put in in the first place. For example I believe the Salvo's achieve an efficiency of about 86%. In other words if I donate $100 to them $86 actually gets to the needy. $24 goes in overheads. I don't have any figures for other charites or Centrelink but I am sure it is no where near this efficient (which is why my donations go to the Salvos). By using less efficient means (government assistance for example) we are effectively reducing the amount they could be recieving relative the amount put in.

So, to use your example of the Salvos, would they be expected to fund their welfare scheme entirely from donations as they do at present? Would there be any other source of funding? e.g. tax dollars?

Yes. I do believe (but don't quote me on this) that the Salvos do receive grants from government even so. By using tax dollars you are being coersive again. It also precludes people from making informed choices as to which cause/charity best suits their personal preferences and or ideals.

A further point on 'charities' looking after people, especially those with a religious base like the Salvos, St. Vinnies etc: Their credo is to give every person the benefit of the doubt. They are very non-judgmental in whom they assist. If someone has blown their entire dole on the pokies or drugs, they will still come to their rescue in paying rent or electricity. I don't think that's what you have in mind and I'd agree.

Actually one reason I personally support the Salvos is they (mostly) are non-judgemental. But see my comments about personal contact above.

This is reasonable to a point. I guess it depends on your fundamental attitude about what sort of society you want to live in. For myself, although I resent stuff like the baby bonus, and feel much of the welfare system is inequitable, I am happy for my tax dollars to support people who need help.
I'd much rather see politicians' overly generous superannuation arrangements chopped and other areas of waste removed, than refuse to help human beings who for whatever reason are simply inadequate. The whole welfare system needs to be completely overhauled.

I would prefer to live in a society that truly values family and one that does not force its population to hand over money for inefficent services, welfare or otherwise. I am sure from the above comments you would too

Not disputing that government administered welfare is inefficient. Agree.
I'm just not sure that a private organisation which is primarily focused on making a profit, is going to have human interest at heart.

Most are not for profit anyway. Philantrophy is a singularly human trait.

Earlier you suggested that the difficulty faced by people with mental illness in getting treatment these days dates back to the closing of most of the psych institutions. Yes, I'd agree completely. I remember (was in NZ at the time) when governments proudly said "it's time to regard people with mental illness as an integral part of our society. So we will stop locking them up in big institutions, and instead care for them within the community". Well, great idea, except it just didn't work. The 'care in the community' was miserably inadequate and as a consequence the ex-institutionalised people were pretty much left to look after themselves. So they were not compliant with their medication, their behaviour therefore was unacceptable in the community in many instances, so they were even more stigmatised and shunned than before.

It comes back again to the issue of personal contact doesn't it. A government can never give you that.

In a psych hospital, they were with people like themselves and supported as necessary. What I'd like to see happen now is the establishment of hostel like places where those who can't cope entirely on their own have a measure of independence, but have the support of a live in nurse/mental health worker who would ensure they managed their money, took medication, ate properly etc. Perhaps, Lakemac, even this is "nannying" them too much?

No nothing wrong with love and support - we all need it at times. Even the strongest of us have our moments of weakness.

Re single mothers: Pretty unfair to categorise all these together. There is certainly a large element where it's just easier to keep having babies than do anything more constructive. The baby bonus has encouraged this hugely.
Is it likely the progeny of these young women will grow up to be functional and independent taxpayers given the parenting and role modelling they have received? I doubt it. More likely they will just add another generation of idlers on welfare.

But then you have women escaping domestic violence or other adverse relationships. We need to help them until they have re-established their ability to cope. The previous government's introduction of the requirement for single mothers to seek work after the child is a certain age was a good thing and should have happened years ago.

I recognise that there are diverse situations for mothers (and some fathers) with children. However this categorisation all together is exactly what government regulations and laws do. There are many inequities in such a centrally planned statist approach. Better to remove the government and let individuals make the choices. There will (and always has been) support for those that truly need it. Idlers on welfare - you sound just like Mr Hazlitt writing 150 years ago LOL. The more things change the more they stay the same. cf the Poor Tax back in 1850.

Re your point about women needing more financial education: yes, agree, but not just women. Many men are financially hopeless.
Even so, there are still going to be those I've referred to above - people who simply don't have the skills or capacity to learn basic survival without assistance.

I do believe I did make mention of men in my earlier repost.

Thanks for a well reasoned response. Cheers.

 

[cashcow]

G'day lakemac

I'll start by saying that, whilst I neither entirely agree nor disagree with your suggestions, I do find them thought provoking and, in some cases, compelling.

However, I have a question: You state that a better education system would yield, to people,

<snip>
"The understanding of how the law works: contracts, precedent, the courts and how laws are made/repealed"
<snip>

I agree. But then I hit several snags when I tried to imagine a privatised legislature, judiciary, and (for criminal law) police force.

Any comments?

 

[lakemac]

ok cashcow,

you mention legislature, judiciary and police.

1. you don't need a legislature - there are only two laws: contract and protection of self (you can actually roll this into contract law, so in reality you only have one law).

2. privatised judiciary - the USA used to have this, particularly when new settlements were popping up across the land. Even today there is a vestiage of it left - the election of their judges in most states of the USA. What is wrong with a privatised judiciary. You (not some stuffy official) get to choose who shall determine cases for and against you. Personally I would back this 100% when you see the likes of Judge Shaw and the missing blood sample, or former judge Marcus Einfeld impaling himself on perjury laws...

3. privatised police - we already have them. They are called security guards, bouncers and guard dogs. With only one law in operation it is simple to understand - you break the contract you get hauled in front of the judge I elected in my area to deal with you as he sees fit.

Ah but what about consistency of sentencing. Bollocks. Who cares. That is just a figment of central planning again. I elect a judge who I know will give decent sentences. If we as a local community decide to elect a tough judge who hands out long sentences then watch out if you break the contract against a person or their property. If I were considering a crime I would pick an area that has a slack judge... This also comes down the argument about defence. The whole thing revolves around security right?

Ok so I live on the coast and I want protection just in case the hordes of terrorists (yeah right) come to invade me. So I hire a private company that can defend my property. I would probably choose a company that had built up a good reputation in my local area and one that could show it has the necessary equipment and skill to protect my interests. So as a local community we are protected. You on the other hand decide hordes are ok you don't need that protection (same as insurance). If the hordes never come you are in front. If they do I am in front. Thing is it is your choice not statist coercion.

I actually come back to the point of not needing F-18's. Maybe we do as a threat. So a private company buys these F-18's and is prepared to fly them around displaying how good they are at scaring away invaders. Only the people near potential invaders have to pay for that service. If they choose to. Yes there will be those who don't pay and get to free load in the "protective shield" as it were - so what lucky them. But what if all of a sudden the people paying for F-18 protection decide to move elsewhere... Ah the free market you gotta love it

 

[cashcow]

...
1. you don't need a legislature - there are only two laws: contract and protection of self (you can actually roll this into contract law, so in reality you only have one law).

Hang on ... you're trying to tell me laws don't need to evolve??

2. privatised judiciary - the USA used to have this, particularly when new settlements were popping up across the land. Even today there is a vestiage of it left - the election of their judges in most states of the USA. What is wrong with a privatised judiciary. You (not some stuffy official) get to choose who shall determine cases for and against you. Personally I would back this 100% when you see the likes of Judge Shaw and the missing blood sample, or former judge Marcus Einfeld impaling himself on perjury laws...

Granted the judicial system isn't perfect because it is, when all is said and done, a human construct. But I can't see how a private, popularly elected version would be run sans the same limitations we observe in the existing ones. Am I missing something?

3. privatised police - we already have them. They are called security guards, bouncers and guard dogs. With only one law in operation it is simple to understand - you break the contract you get hauled in front of the judge I elected in my area to deal with you as he sees fit.

Security guards are certainly an avenue available to those with the means, but what about those without? Is it fair to discriminate like that, against people who might otherwise be perfectly worthwhile?

In any event, I don't equate security guards with police - their (legally endorsed) scope is limited. And if you're talking about a true privatised police force, thereby making money their raison d'etre, a whole new raft of issues arises.

Ah but what about consistency of sentencing. Bollocks. Who cares. That is just a figment of central planning again. I elect a judge who I know will give decent sentences. If we as a local community decide to elect a tough judge who hands out long sentences then watch out if you break the contract against a person or their property. If I were considering a crime I would pick an area that has a slack judge... This also comes down the argument about defence. The whole thing revolves around security right?

Ok so I live on the coast and I want protection just in case the hordes of terrorists (yeah right) come to invade me. So I hire a private company that can defend my property. I would probably choose a company that had built up a good reputation in my local area and one that could show it has the necessary equipment and skill to protect my interests. So as a local community we are protected. You on the other hand decide hordes are ok you don't need that protection (same as insurance). If the hordes never come you are in front. If they do I am in front. Thing is it is your choice not statist coercion.

I actually come back to the point of not needing F-18's. Maybe we do as a threat. So a private company buys these F-18's and is prepared to fly them around displaying how good they are at scaring away invaders. Only the people near potential invaders have to pay for that service. If they choose to. Yes there will be those who don't pay and get to free load in the "protective shield" as it were - so what lucky them. But what if all of a sudden the people paying for F-18 protection decide to move elsewhere... Ah the free market you gotta love it

You must be very privileged indeed, to be able to fund your own air force!

 

[Rafa]

This debate has certainly taken an interesting turn, and one that very welcome....

Thanks for your contribution lakemac, very interesting and thought provoking... i find it hard to disagree with the intent of your posts, tho wonder how well the theory will work in practice.

The irony of it all, is that when we look back in history, the way we classify a civilised society and people from general nomadic tribes, is the level and sophistication of government and the standard of public works

I get the feeling govt's are, here to stay which is why tax cuts when offered have to be accepted, otherwise it just gets blown up as big government.

As for the second part of the topic, cutting govt spending... the irony here is that it is the rudd labor govt looking to slash spending from a rather un-liberal (almost whitlamesq) howard govt...

article in today’s Australian...
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23015322-601,00.html

Rudd to axe Lib pledges
David Uren, Economics correspondent | January 07, 2008

BUREAUCRATS have been ordered to begin sifting through 225 individual spending commitments made by the Howard government since last May to identify those that can be axed.

The Rudd Government is aiming to make savings of several billion dollars before the May budget, and expects the overturning of commitments made by the Coalition to make a substantial contribution to his target.

"The former government made many spending decisions at the last minute before the election campaign and we will obviously be scrutinising these decisions very closely," Finance Minister Lindsay Tanner told The Australian.

The Department of Finance has sent a request to all public service departments asking them to identify opportunities for "budget reversal".

.
.
.

The Howard government embarked on a slew of projects, which individually were modest in cost but when combined add a total of $15 billion to budget costs over the next four years.

There were 175 separate spending proposals between last year's May budget and the mid-year budget update, which was ruled off on October 10, four days before the federal election was called.

Over the following seven days, a further 50 spending initiatives were announced, ahead of the government entering the caretaker period, with the writs for the election being issued on October 17.

Labor is finding that its efforts to cut spending are being frustrated by the fact that most public service spending involves contracts with outside parties or with established expectations of entitlements. These are difficult to reverse.

.
.
.

Labor is now putting its beliefs into practice, convinced there are large savings to be made by making individual public service agencies more efficient.

Mr Tanner says the previous government gave public service agencies too much autonomy to spend money as they pleased.

"The highly decentralised model run by the former government has allowed financial inefficiency to flourish," he said.

In some areas, agencies have been claiming more money in their budgets than they have actually been spending, while others are sitting on financial reserves that would be better managed centrally.

"We are strongly committed to re-establishing central discipline in order to ensure that taxpayers get value for money," Mr Tanner said.

He has already announced that the Government will stop individual departments from buying their own supplies and will instead wield the combined buying power of the entire public service to strike a better deal.

The only area of the public sector where this now takes place is in motor vehicle leasing, where costs were cut by about a third.

The Howard government liked to treat individual government agencies as though they were private business entities responsible for their own finances, with the government's role as a shareholder.

An example of the inefficiency this generated was uncovered by Labor during a parliamentary committee inquiry, with the Department of Veterans Affairs paying more than $100,000 to an investment bank to accept a term deposit of $6million.

At the end of the election campaign, Labor estimated that its spending promises would leave the budget with a surplus in 2008-09 of $12.7billion, or 1.07per cent of GDP.

Treasurer Wayne Swan and Mr Tanner would like to add at least $2billion to this, and probably more; however, the final size of its savings will depend on how much political damage the Government is prepared to wear.

 

[awg]

A question that has been on my mind since the day I heard the announcement.

I do not understand how it is sustainable that people over 60 can pay 0% tax,
from there super incomes.

I am sure much better actuaries than me must have worked out that it is better than paying Social Security pensions.

I was just reading the interesting article in the "US recession" thread, basically saying increased Social Security debts may make the USA technically bankrupt.

Some financially astute people I have spoken to agree this is not sustainable.

Super concessions are a large budget expense already.

My estimation as to the time it will take to alter this concession, is when I turn 60!