# Are we a failed state?



## horusd (23 Jun 2011)

What kind of monsterous society do we live in? Judges must volunteer for wage cuts at least until the referendum, likewise the chief ex.'s of semi-states. Vastly overpaid hospital consultants will be excluded from the wage ceiling whilst they consult with the health minister. No such choices for the minimum wage earners. They must take what they are given.

Meanwhile, debt incurred privately by the rich is socialised and laid on the backs of taxpayers who had no hand, act or part in incurring them. Bankrupt  speculators rush to protect their assets using legal loopholes (transfers to the wife etc). No one is sitting in a jail cell for any of this, or even before a court. Bank executives who beggared their banks walk away with vast pay-outs. Politicians who beggared the country likewise. None of them can be touched. 

Billions can be found to rescue banks, but we leave schoolkids in portacabins and cut special needs teachers. Rich pensioners keep medical cards and the rich get priority in healthcare. 

And the unelected officials at the ECB and the EU now control our destiny. We are at their mercy, and the mercy of Germany & France. 

Where is democracy in Ireland? where is justice? Where is fairness? Where is morality? Where the hell are republican values that are supposed to underpin this nation of supposed equals? 

For my part, I think we are a failed state. There is something deeply wrong with this country.


----------



## Chris (23 Jun 2011)

horusd said:


> For my part, I think we are a failed state. There is something deeply wrong with this country.



Very interesting thought, I hadn't actually tried to look at Ireland in this perspective. At first when I read you using the term failed state I thought of Zimbabwe and that it would be ludicrous to make such a comparison. Anyway, to avoid jumping to conclusions I looked up the wikipedia definition of a failed state:


> The term failed state is often used by political commentators and journalists to describe a state perceived as having failed at some of the basic conditions and responsibilities of a sovereign government. In order to make this definition more precise, the following attributes, proposed by the Fund for Peace, are often used to characterize a failed state:
> 
> * loss of control of its territory, or of the monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force therein,
> * erosion of legitimate authority to make collective decisions,
> ...



I think there is a very good argument to be made to deem Ireland a failed state based on these points. Nevertheless, Ireland does not feature on the list of failed states, but of course everything is relative: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Failed_States_Index

Seems like the devil lies in the detail of defining the above 4 characteristics. Compared to Germany and Switzerland Ireland is definitely a failed state. Compared to Zimbabwe and Yemen it is a total success story.


----------



## zztop (23 Jun 2011)

40,000 semi state workers who have suffered no pay reduction
and in many cases have gotten pay increases....


----------



## dereko1969 (23 Jun 2011)

horusd said:


> What kind of monsterous society do we live in? Judges must volunteer for wage cuts at least until the referendum, likewise the chief ex.'s of semi-states. Vastly overpaid hospital consultants will be excluded from the wage ceiling whilst they consult with the health minister. No such choices for the minimum wage earners. They must take what they are given.
> 
> *Meanwhile, debt incurred privately by the rich is socialised and laid on the backs of taxpayers who had no hand, act or part in incurring them.* Bankrupt speculators rush to protect their assets using legal loopholes (transfers to the wife etc). No one is sitting in a jail cell for any of this, or even before a court. Bank executives who beggared their banks walk away with vast pay-outs. Politicians who beggared the country likewise. None of them can be touched.
> 
> ...


 
Anyone who lied about how much money they earned, who took out 100% mortgages, who bought houses they didn't want to live in in places they didn't want to live in to "get on the ladder" must take some blame also. Groupthink took over and now that it's been shown to be, what it always was, greed - people are looking to blame others. 

People need to take responsibility, it's not always someone else's fault.

I would say in many respects we are a failed state, but we got the state that people voted for in election after election so we have no-one to blame but ourselves.


----------



## One (23 Jun 2011)

horusd said:


> Meanwhile, debt incurred privately by the rich is socialised and laid on the backs of taxpayers who had no hand, act or part in incurring them.


 
I agree with this for the most part, but I don't agree with it entirely. I live in Mayo and bought a house here in 2003. I could just about afford it. I often travel to Dublin and from 2003 to 2009 whenever I was in Dublin I would always stop at the front window of an estate agents, and look at the house prices in Dublin. I mean always. The house prices in Dublin were maybe 3 or 4 times more expensive than Mayo, and I wondered how could anyone who was my age living in Dublin afford property. If they were going to buy, they would have a massive mortgage for decades. This thought horrified me. I thought something in this country is very wrong. The economy in Ireland was awash with borrowed money and the housing boom was unsustainable. But Fianna Fail won the 2007 general election by a landslide. Who voted for them? The majority of Irish taxpayers did! Who purchased over priced houses? Irish taxpayers did!

I agree that most of the blame has to lie with the politicans and bankers, and with a failed system of checks and balances and lack of accountability but the taxpayer isn't 100% blameless. The taxpayer chose the politicians that lead this country into a mess, and in 2007 re-elected them again.


----------



## DerKaiser (23 Jun 2011)

I see where horusd is coming from. Most of the time you live in hope that we'll pull through this mess somehow, but then there are days when things come home to roost, such as yesterday:

1) Why do we have to seek voluntary pay cuts from those on big bucks rather than just enforce these cuts? If it's a difficult process, then now is the time to overhaul it.

2) Why does a transport company, in this day and age, say that one of their intended responses to falling demand is to hike customer prices?

The two points above need more aggressive action from those we voted in to take care of such things


----------



## Shawady (23 Jun 2011)

I don't know about a failed state but there seems to be an attitude of 'Looking after number 1' in the past couple of years.
IMO the previous government didn't help this by only cutting certain areas instead of spreading the pain to everyone. There is no reason why the proposed cuts to semi-state pay and judges pay could not be addressed two years ago.
In fairness to Brendan Howlin, he appears to be at least talking the talk so far.


----------



## DB74 (23 Jun 2011)

Of course we are a failed state

1. Our finances are in absolute shatters and it's unlikely that we will ever be able to pull ourselves out of it without some form/level of state bankruptcy. The tax system just drives more and more people to social welfare and/or the black market where they can be better off than their working neighbours.

2. Our health system is a disgrace with waiting lists reminiscent of a Soviet food queue. However if you want to go private then you see a consultant within a week. Any moves from ministers to try to sort any aspect is met with strike threats and cries of "it's not our fault" from the relevant parties, be they administrators, nurses, junior doctors, or consultants.

3. Our justice system is massively out of touch with reality and you can't walk down the main street of most towns in Ireland after 10 o'clock without a chance of being beaten up or worse. The fact that we have to hold a referendum to reduce the pay of the judiciary just shows how out of touch these people are with the state of the country.

4. Our education system has been slipping down the list from 5th (of 39 countries) to 17th in terms of literacy in the last 10 years. But still ministers spout on about our "World-class education system". How do we improve it? We cut funds and special needs assistants from schools.

5. Our transport system is a joke with 5 or 6 different types of public transport available in our capital city but little or no linkage between some of them. The most recent addition, the Luas, has no link between the 2 lines. Trying to get from one Dublin suburb to another without a car involves military planning (and a lot of luck).


----------



## Ceist Beag (23 Jun 2011)

yadda yadda yadda. Maybe we're failed, maybe we're not. One thing is for sure, we have become a little bit spoiled over the years. Sure there are problems, and we may well be in too deep to get out of the financial mess, I don't proclaim to be an expert (nor are many of the commentators btw!), but we complain about so much these days it's hard to see how we can ever improve things unless we get a grip and start trying to be more proactive. Some of those points DB74 are just laughable they are so hysterical. 
"Our health system is a disgrace with waiting lists reminiscent of a Soviet food queue. " - come on, it's far from perfect but reality check please. Maybe just maybe part of the problem with our health system is the strain it is being put under by us, the people of the state? 
"you can't walk down the main street of most towns in Ireland after 10 o'clock without a chance of being beaten up or worse" - yeah right, it's a real ghetto out there! 
"Our transport system is a joke with 5 or 6 different types of public transport available in our capital city but little or no linkage between some of them" - again a bit of perspective here. Apart from the issue of integrated ticketing I don't think it's that bad at all.


----------



## DB74 (23 Jun 2011)

Ah yeah I was just having a bit of a rant there

However there are very very few areas of this country that we can look at and say "that is working very well, I'm happy with that"

I stand by the gist of what I said:

*Health*
Recent article: http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0622/health.html
Also we have had the recent debacles re unexamined patient referrals in Tallaght hospital

*Crime*
No-on said it was a ghetto. But if you think that alcohol-fuelled violence in all our major towns is not a problem then you do not go out enough

*Transport*
What part of Dublin do you live? A trip from Blanchardstown village to Lucan village for example (< 6 miles) involves taking 3 buses to make the journey. I'm sure there are countless other examples, particularly on the northside.
Also we must be the only capital city in Europe without a rail link to our airport.


----------



## Ceist Beag (23 Jun 2011)

On the crime side DB74, no I don't get out near as much these days as I like but I still feel fairly safe walking around at night when I do get out. I certainly don't think it is anywhere as bad as you paint it. On transport, sure there are issues trying to get from one outer part of Dublin to another, but I doubt Dublin is too unlike other cities of a similar size in that most public transport is from outer parts to the city center. If not being able to get from Blanchardstown to Lucan in one journey is a major issue then I think we've lost sight of what a major issue is. It's far from perfect but in our current state I think public transport is way down the list of concerns.


----------



## Purple (23 Jun 2011)

Good thread Horusd, as usual an interesting discussion topic.


----------



## TarfHead (23 Jun 2011)

What is the 'State' ?

Is it us as a people, or the system of Government; legislative, administrative, judicial.

Can you generalise one persistent character trait across all Irish people, from the farmer in Kerry to the hipster in TCD to the harrassed parent in Longford ?

'_Are we a failed State_' is a useful way of drawing out opinions, but are we all talking about the same thing ?


----------



## Sunny (23 Jun 2011)

We are not a failed State. We are suffering a servere economic downturn  but we are not the only ones. We are not the only State in history that has had property bubbles or a crisis in our banking system. We are not the only Country that has poured billions into banks. We are not the only Country with huge problems in our health system. We are not the only Country where there seems to be one rule for certain sections of society and another rule for the rest. 

The Republic Of Ireland is less than 100 years old as a Sovereign State. We need to give ourselves a break. We are suffering now but we will get through it. The real issue is what type of Country we want to become.


----------



## Shawady (23 Jun 2011)

I think in the future, people will look back at the 'Celtic Tiger' years of 2000-2007 as a major lost opportunity. 
As a country, we blew it.


----------



## Purple (23 Jun 2011)

Shawady said:


> I think in the future, people will look back at the 'Celtic Tiger' years of 2000-2007 as a major lost opportunity.
> As a country, we blew it.



The boom ended in 2003. After that it was a bubble. My analogy is that we were like passengers in a rocket heading straight up in the air. When the engines went silent a few people said “We’re in trouble; the engines have stopped” but the majority said “Rubbish; look out the window, we are still going up”. They confused momentum for propulsion. The propulsion stopped in 2003.


----------



## Leper (24 Jun 2011)

I was listening to RTE Radio 1 last night where one participant forecasted that come September (2011) we will be asking "Can we afford the inevitable 2nd Bailout?" 

Are things going to get worse?


----------



## horusd (24 Jun 2011)

Purple said:


> The boom ended in 2003. After that it was a bubble. My analogy is that we were like passengers in a rocket heading straight up in the air. When the engines went silent a few people said “We’re in trouble; the engines have stopped” but the majority said “Rubbish; look out the window, we are still going up”. They confused momentum for propulsion. The propulsion stopped in 2003.


 
Great analogy Purple, it captures the essence of the economic problem.

The concept of a failed state (my definition) is that we have failed to create the state that is envisioned in the idea of a republic.  The notion of judges, chief exec's etc voluntarily giving up income smacks of  royalist _noblesse oblige._  The pay rates of the upper echelons of power in this country are scandalous compared to others in society and internationally. 


The level of power exercised by small cabals and vested interests is equally scandalous.  From doctors, dentists and lawyers to key unions such as those in the ESB, the balance of power and wealth is firmly in the hands of the few who cream off, consume and profit from the wealth of this nation.  They do this without fear of any consequence. The whole society is in thrall to their needs and wishes and apparently exists to serve their ends. Meanwhilke we can leave kids in portacabins, we can leave people on hospital trolleys,  kids can "disappear" from  HSE care, bankers & their ilk can beggar the state with impunity, we can pay the likes of Marion Finnucane something like 750 K, I could go on and on. 

And what is the control on power in this state? The legal system? No. Powerless and toothless and itself a vested interest. The media? At best patchy withe the big exception of* Prime Time Investigates.*  Isn't it truly scandalous, shocking and fearsome that almost the only effective tool or voice is a few reporters in RTE who take their job seriously? This is almost our only defence against hegemony. 

I repeat this is a failed state. This is little short of an abomination. This is not what the 1916 declaration was about. We have been mugged.


----------



## Purple (24 Jun 2011)

Are we a failed state?

Politics:
Our electoral system lends itself to cronyism and parochialism, in fact it necessitates it.
We will always have a strong Parliament and a weak government, therefore populism is inevitable and hard decisions are almost impossible to make. 
This cocktail leads inevitably to corruption and cronyism as in order to get things done our weak government has to get too close to the vested interest groups that have an effective veto over change. Garrett Fitzgerald said in an interview last year that the only reason that Ireland didn’t become totally corrupt before the 1980’s was the integrity of the various leaders we had. I’m inclined to agree.
Conclusion; our political structures are not fit for purpose.

Economics:
We have failed to build a sustainable taxation system to pay for the services we want. We have given ourselves a totally unrealistic level of expectation of what our government can and should provide for us. We have also given the people delivering those services a totally unrealistic level of income expectation; the discussion has always been about what people deserve to get paid, not what the state can afford to pay. 
Over the last 10 to 15 years we have engaged in the most blatant pro-cyclical economic policies possible and the public ignored all calls to counter this. 

Governance:
The Civil Service is often referred to as the permanent government of the state and for good reason. If the Cabinet is the board of directors, passing through every few year, the Departmental Secretaries are the permanent managers who implement policy. They should also have an advisory function. We now see that the Department of Finance was incapable of voicing it’s concerns over government policy over the period of a decade. The department of justice is incapable of competently framing legislation so we have a situation where nobody will be prosecuted for the gross mismanagement of the banks, building societies or other large businesses whose activities have so damaged the state.      

Citizenship:
Perhaps the biggest failing of all can be levelled at the citizens of this state.
Many of us, perhaps most of us, behaved like spoiled children over the last 10 to 15 years. We became greedy, arrogant and shallow. We all wanted to be net recipients of the states largess and while many of us were increasingly aware of what our rights were few of us asked ourselves if we had any responsibilities as citizens. This is a democracy and we are the state; the book stops with us. We have failed, we are the failed state.


----------



## Ceist Beag (24 Jun 2011)

Good post Purple, depressingly I would have to agree with all of that. Now if only there was a way out of this mess that we could all believe in and get behind, as I'm fed up moaning and cribbing, I would like to start channeling some positive energy to help improve things.


----------



## Sunny (24 Jun 2011)

And you think this just describes Ireland. I have lived in a few Countries over the years and despite Irish peoples propensity to always think the grass is always greener on the other side, I have yet to experience a Country that didn't have many of the same problems as we have here. 
Ireland has many problems and this is the opportunity to change things for the better but do I think we are a failed State. No, I don't. 

I was at a business conference recently and I was talking to an foreign investor. He couldn't over the Irish people's ability to beat themselves up over the recession and the State of the Country.


----------



## Shawady (24 Jun 2011)

Sunny said:


> He couldn't over the Irish people's ability to beat themselves up over the recession and the State of the Country.


 
Or blame each other.


----------



## Ceist Beag (24 Jun 2011)

Sunny said:


> He couldn't over the Irish people's ability to beat themselves up over the recession and the State of the Country.



Sunny I think you just referred to paragraph 4 in Purples post re citizenship!


----------



## michaelm (24 Jun 2011)

horusd said:


> And the unelected officials at the ECB and the EU now control our destiny. We are at their mercy, and the mercy of Germany & France.
> 
> Where is democracy in Ireland?


The ECB & EU have been controlling our destiny for many years now.  Most people have been ignorant of that fact.  Irish democracy has been playing second fiddle to our political classes' desire to be seen as good EUropeans.  At least there was a general election between Nice I and Nice II, but Lisbon II was naked treason.  That they conspired to deny a Presidential election last time just underscores the disregard for democracy.  

The slow death of Irish democracy and sovereignty by an increasingly corrupt and short-sighted political class has been compounded by the worst decision in the history of the State.  Ultimately I suppose that the people are to blame; due to the lack of outrage the politicians are detached and feel they can act with impunity, with no fear of being taken out of their beds.


----------



## Complainer (24 Jun 2011)

Shawady said:


> Or blame each other.


Well, it definitely was all YOUR fault.


----------



## Shawady (24 Jun 2011)

Complainer said:


> Well, it definitely was all YOUR fault.


 
Well I'm a public servant like yourself


----------



## shnaek (24 Jun 2011)

Great posts, one and all. I guess the answer to the question depends on your standards. If you have average standards then you will be quite happy with the state. If you have high standards then it will likely appear a failure.


----------



## horusd (24 Jun 2011)

Depressingly as Ceist Beag says there's liitle in Purple's post to argue with. I want to be positive too, and we should all have our shoulder to the wheel in getting us up and out. But we have got to face the truth first. There is a canker at the heart of this country. No effective ethical/moral steering wheel that holds a vision of what we are supposed to be about. What do we mean by a just society? How we intend to implement it? Does anyone think that the idealism and vision of the 1916'rs was about getting re-elected or ensuring a good salary/pension for themselves or looking after their business buddies? It was about moral principles not about markets and money, and blatent self-interest. 

To say other countries are just as bad, or the grass is always greener is to invite and perpetuate a kind of cynicism where lip-service is paid to values. No one, least of all me, is expecting a just utopia, but we must address the glaring defects and honestly admit this state has effectively failed for want of justice. 

And it's *not* correct to say that "it's the economy stupid" and focus on fixing that so we can all go back to economic security, albiet that that too is important. This is the greatest myth of market-driven western economics in which all are just cogs in the financial matrix.

Does anyone really think that lying on their deathbeds, they will regret not having enough money for two holidays a year, or that they failed to be just, be honest, be fair, be generous, be caring or loving ? It might matter more to have left a legacy of a better more just world, a safer, more caring world, a more sustainable planet? These are enduring humanistic values that should guide us , but don't. 

Orwell's_* 1984*_ envisioned a world dominated by a machine-like political system. His greatest fear was communism. But much of his fears have come true within capitalism.


----------



## Sunny (24 Jun 2011)

horusd said:


> To say other countries are just as bad, or the grass is always greener is to invite and perpetuate a kind of cynicism where lip-service is paid to values. No one, least of all me, is expecting a just utopia, but we must address the glaring defects and honestly admit this state has effectively failed for want of justice.


 
You are beginning to sound like John Waters or Fintan O Toole. We can all sit behind a computer and write an opinion piece for a newspaper or post online about how rotten Ireland is and how we have betrayed the people who fought for our independence. And yet few people are willing to do anything to change it. 

How many with views about the political system have attempted to change it from within instead of moaning on the outside. 40-50% of the population can't even be bothered to vote.

We give out about our health system and yet when we try to introduce international best practice, we have people taking to the streets to protect their local services.

We give out about corruption and the law but what have people done about it? How many people contact their political representatives on legislative issues of national interest. How many have contributed to various public consultations on the different issues?

Ireland is not a failed State because the people still control the State. When the days comes that you can't write what you are writing without the State coming for you, then we will be a failed State. Until then, it is your Country so what are you going to do about changing the things you don't like?


----------



## Sunny (24 Jun 2011)

horusd said:


> Depressingly as Ceist Beag says there's liitle in Purple's post to argue with. I want to be positive too, and we should all have our shoulder to the wheel in getting us up and out. But we have got to face the truth first. There is a canker at the heart of this country. No effective ethical/moral steering wheel that holds a vision of what we are supposed to be about. What do we mean by a just society? How we intend to implement it? Does anyone think that the idealism and vision of the 1916'rs was about getting re-elected or ensuring a good salary/pension for themselves or looking after their business buddies? It was about moral principles not about markets and money, and blatent self-interest.
> 
> .


 
I doubt the founding fathers of the USA had images of Wall Street or politicians spending millions on getting elected


----------



## horusd (24 Jun 2011)

If I sound like Fintan I'll take it as a compliment, I'll pass on John. It's easy to knock people who complain about the state of the nation too, and just complain that nobody does anything about it.  None of that addresses the issues that need to be addressed. And yes I doubt too that some of the Founding Fathers would be chuffed with Wall Street. But then some of them were slave owners, so who knows.


----------



## Sunny (24 Jun 2011)

horusd said:


> If I sound like Fintan I'll take it as a compliment, I'll pass on John. It's easy to knock people who complain about the state of the nation too, and just complain that nobody does anything about it. None of that addresses the issues that need to be addressed. And yes I doubt too that some of the Founding Fathers would be chuffed with Wall Street. But then some of them were slave owners, so who knows.


 
What issues? You launched into a broad attack on the state of the Nation but I still don't know what you are looking for? Talking about values, ethics and just societies sounds great but what does it mean?
We may not be a perfect society but we are a long way from the picture that you paint.


----------



## Purple (24 Jun 2011)

Sunny said:


> And yet few people are willing to do anything to change it.
> 
> How many with views about the political system have attempted to change it from within instead of moaning on the outside. 40-50% of the population can't even be bothered to vote.
> 
> ...



That's the point I was making.


----------



## Purple (24 Jun 2011)

Sunny said:


> I doubt the founding fathers of the USA had images of Wall Street or politicians spending millions on getting elected



I agree, they didn’t. In fact they were totally opposed to capitalism and capitalists. Many of the founding fathers was capitalism as the enemy of democracy . It was the main reason that Washington and Jefferson became such bitter enemies. They came within hours of civil war on the issue around the time negotiations were taking place for the second constitutional congress in Connecticut but in the end the debt crisis which followed the war of independence meant that a strong federal government with a central bank was necessary as the debts of individual states were federalised. The similarities with what is happening now within the EU are striking.


----------



## One (24 Jun 2011)

Purple said:


> Are we a failed state?
> 
> Politics:
> Our electoral system lends itself to cronyism and parochialism, in fact it necessitates it.
> ...


 
I think this is quite a good assessment of politics and economics at the moment. 

However, I am relunctant to call Ireland a failed state if it can recover economically (albeit with a lot of help over a long period) and bring some reform to the political (and banking) structure and ensure that the same mistakes don't reoccur. There are a lot of good things about this country.


----------



## Purple (24 Jun 2011)

horusd said:


> If I sound like Fintan I'll take it as a compliment,



I'd take that as a grievous slur on my character.


----------



## horusd (24 Jun 2011)

Sunny said:


> What issues? You launched into a broad attack on the state of the Nation but I still don't know what you are looking for? Talking about values, ethics and just societies sounds great but what does it mean?
> We may not be a perfect society but we are a long way from the picture that you paint.


 
The issues are those that demonstrate the state a failure,or as near as and I've listed some others have also. The broad attack is central just because the nature of the problem is endemic and widespread.

Relative comparisons with other states or an over-focus on the economy miss the fact that this kind of malaise is ubiquitous and specifically our collective problem as citizens of this country. The question "is the nation a failed state?" invites full or partial agreement or  defence of the status quo. 

What do I want?  Firstly a debate as to what is wrong and how to fix it. "Denial is not a river in Egypt" and "Paddy likes to know". My central point is that we lack  adherence to a moral base that is central to the 1916 declaration, a set of principles we take as "self-evident" that guide our nation. All actions arise from principles. We cannot act without reasons.  Moral relativism and an eye on a quick buck and re-election is no way to run a state.


----------



## Purple (24 Jun 2011)

horusd said:


> The issues are those that demonstrate the state a failure,or as near as and I've listed some others have also. The broad attack is central just because the nature of the problem is endemic and widespread.
> 
> Relative comparisons with other states or an over-focus on the economy miss the fact that this kind of malaise is ubiquitous and specifically our collective problem as citizens of this country. The question "is the nation a failed state?" invites full or partial agreement or  defence of the status quo.
> 
> What do I want?  Firstly a debate as to what is wrong and how to fix it. "Denial is not a river in Egypt" and "Paddy likes to know". My central point is that we lack  adherence to a moral base that is central to the 1916 declaration, a set of principles we take as "self-evident" that guide our nation. All actions arise from principles. We cannot act without reasons.  Moral relativism and an eye on a quick buck and re-election is no way to run a state.


I’m not sure I want to live in a country based on what the signatories of the 1916 proclamation wanted. Connelly was a communist and Pearse was, by modern standards, nuts.   I agree that we need a set of guiding principles but I don’t think they should necessarily be the 1916 ones.


----------



## Sunny (24 Jun 2011)

Purple said:


> I’m not sure I want to live in a country based on what the signatories of the 1916 proclamation wanted. Connelly was a communist and Pearse was, by modern standards, nuts.   I agree that we need a set of guiding principles but I don’t think they should necessarily be the 1916 ones.



Exactly. Can't see those guys lining up to support civil partnership bills. I have no problem with drawing up a new constitution to reflect modern society but looking to the past is not the way to do it.


----------



## Complainer (24 Jun 2011)

Sunny said:


> I have no problem with drawing up a new constitution to reflect modern society but looking to the past is not the way to do it.



What parts of this would you disagree with (having cut some of the warmongering stuff);


> We declare the right of the people of Ireland to the ownership of Ireland, and to the unfettered control of Irish destinies, to be sovereign and indefeasible. The long usurpation of that right by a foreign people and government has not extinguished the right, nor can it ever be extinguished except by the destruction of the Irish people. ...The Irish Republic is entitled to, and hereby claims, the allegiance of every Irishman and Irishwoman. The Republic guarantees religious and civil liberty, equal rights and equal opportunities to all its citizens, and declares its resolve to pursue the happiness and prosperity of the whole nation and of all its parts, cherishing all the children of the nation equally, and oblivious of the differences carefully fostered by an alien government, which have divided a minority from the majority in the past.


----------



## Sunny (24 Jun 2011)

Complainer said:


> What parts of this would you disagree with (having cut some of the warmongering stuff);



That's the declaration of independence, not the constitution. Our constitution is based on that declaration and we are still living under it. Anyone thinks it can't be improved or were people of the era the wisest of them all?


----------



## Complainer (24 Jun 2011)

Lots of room for improvement in the constitution all right. In fact, we should just wipe it away and start from scratch.


----------



## horusd (24 Jun 2011)

Looking to the past is essential. We may disagree with individuals like Pearse or the founding fathers or whoever, but they had a vision of something essentially good. A set of ideals that spoke to perhaps eternal notions of a just society and human relations. Some ideas just have that lasting power, and we recognise their essential truths as "self-evident"; such as all men are created equal. We may distain Communism with good reason, but is naked Capitalism with socialism for the rich so much better? Is saving a bank so much more worthwhile than a school? Is consumption the answer, as Noonan said yesterday? Or have we just been made mean-spirited, cynical, miserable and disenfranchised by a system that bled us dry socially as well as financially?

As a moral guide Christianity has failed in the main in this country. We replaced it with the property market, greed, comsumption, spin and political expediency. 

Moaners and cribbers  were told to go and commit suicide. Yet the Idealism inherent in  sometimes angry criticism is often lost in a  relativism. We're not that bad, others are the same or worse. Great so, we can all sit back. 

Apart from all other criticism that could be made or moral grounds, economically the system has failed utterly leaving us reliant on the mercy of strangers, and in their thrall too.


----------



## Purple (25 Jun 2011)

Communism is a all encompassing philosophy, close to a religion. Capitalism is an economic model. They are not comparable. 
As for a fair society well that's what we all want, the question is what's fair?

Should people be able to keep the fruits of their labour or should everyone have the same? For most people the answer is somewhere in between but where?

As for fairness and equality before the law, that requires politicians that are willing to legislate on social issues (something the FG and in particular Labour are good at but FF are useless at) and we need civil servants who are competent and willing to frame legislation that will stand up before the courts. Unfortunately over the last 10 years the Supreme Court has been the major instrument of social reform in this country. In general they've done a good job but it's not their job to do.

Here’s a question; What are our duties as citizens?


----------



## horusd (26 Jun 2011)

Very interesting points Purple. And you hit the nail on the head about a balance between duties and rights as citizens. Ultimately the state is it's citizens, and at least a partial reflection of what they want. Re-electing the likes of C.J. Haughey & Lowry have consequences. 

Apathy, igorance and indifference matter too. These traits, amongst others, allow politicians & the powerful to get away with a lot. 

As for Communism and Capitalism being apples and oranges, I'm not so sure that this is entirely correct.  Both are based on views of human nature, and justify themselves with reference to this view. Communism envisions a rational order. Man is free if he is "enlightened by reason " and has freedom *to* do what is rationally  good.  He will want to create an rational paradise and must be led by force to it, if neccessary.

Capitalism roughly centres around freedom *from *interference. To be and do what one wants. But inherent in this view, is the idea that once man is free from interference, he is really free. But this cannot be entirely true. An impoverished poor man might be free in this sense, but not have any means to exercise his freedom. Thus freedom here is an illusion. A recent award winning documentary "Inside job" points to systemic corruption within American Capitalism, and an unholy alliance between academia and finance propogating and precipatating the recent financial crisis. Details of the documentary are [broken link removed] So in a sense, this kind of Capitalism is a "doctrine".

Freedom is a hot topic in political philosophy. A very thoughtful and seminal article was published in 1958 by Professor Isaiah Berlin of Oxford. The text of it is here.  It's a bit academic, but also really interesting.


----------



## Purple (26 Jun 2011)

horusd said:


> Capitalism roughly centres around freedom *from *interference. To be and do what one wants. But inherent in this view, is the idea that once man is free from interference, he is really free. But this cannot be entirely true. An impoverished poor man might be free in this sense, but not have any means to exercise his freedom. Thus freedom here is an illusion. A recent award winning documentary "Inside job" points to systemic corruption within American Capitalism, and an unholy alliance between academia and finance propogating and precipatating the recent financial crisis. Details of the documentary are [broken link removed] So in a sense, this kind of Capitalism is a "doctrine".
> 
> Freedom is a hot topic in political philosophy. A very thoughtful and seminal article was published in 1958 by Professor Isaiah Berlin of Oxford. The text of it is here.  It's a bit academic, but also really interesting.



The American founding fathers talked about liberty a lot but they were, for the most part, opposed to Capitalism and capitalists. Jefferson said that capitalism was the enemy of liberty.  He saw it as an economic model that was incompatible with a society based on liberty and individual freedom. The capitalism he talked about was Wall Street capitalism, not individuals holding on to the fruits of their own labour. He understood (like Marx) that wealth distribution and liberty were linked. What he didn’t envision (and Marx missed completely) was the emergence of a property owning and wealth holding middle class. 

Wealth redistribution should be part of an overall package to ensure equality of opportunity, it should not overly limit the freedom of the individual. The American declaration of independence is a marvellous document. It sums up what a society should aim towards when it says “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,  that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

This was a direct attack on the authority of King George the III and his government, a government that was (to quote another American) not of the people, by the people or for the people. Communism enslaved the individual to the will of the state and any system of government that disenfranchises the citizen is to be opposed.


----------



## z107 (26 Jun 2011)

> Citizenship:
> Perhaps the biggest failing of all can be levelled at the citizens of this state.
> Many of us, perhaps most of us, behaved like spoiled children over the last 10 to 15 years. We became greedy, arrogant and shallow. We all wanted to be net recipients of the states largess and while many of us were increasingly aware of what our rights were few of us asked ourselves if we had any responsibilities as citizens. This is a democracy and we are the state; the book stops with us. We have failed, we are the failed state.


No. I just happen to live here.
Our 'democracy' consists of the choice of the following:
1. FF/FG/Labour. (The ruling eternal party)
2. Sinn fein (The token opposition)
3. Independents (probably aligned to the ruling party, but almost certainly of the parish pump variety)

If I want to be greedy, arrogant and shallow, then that's my decision. I can't see how this has anything to do with the state.

Ireland is indeed a failed state. It's being going further and further downhill since the state was formed. We are getting to the stage now where is it finally eating itself.  Nothing short of a revolution will solve it as we need to oust our dictatorship and replace it with something new and innovative. (eg, government by machine)


----------



## Bronte (27 Jun 2011)

Great post Housd.   Nothing to say as you've basically summed up Ireland quite well.


----------



## Complainer (27 Jun 2011)

umop3p!sdn said:


> No. I just happen to live here.
> Our 'democracy' consists of the choice of the following:
> 1. FF/FG/Labour. (The ruling eternal party)
> 2. Sinn fein (The token opposition)
> 3. Independents (probably aligned to the ruling party, but almost certainly of the parish pump variety)


So move away from the keyboard and create your own choice. It's an open system.


----------



## z107 (27 Jun 2011)

Complainer said:


> So move away from the keyboard and create your own choice. It's an open system.



It's not an open system.
If you want a revolution, you will get arrested and sent to prison.
'Democracy' costs too much money, and you'll never oust those that are firmly embedded.


----------



## Chris (27 Jun 2011)

horusd said:


> Orwell's_* 1984*_ envisioned a world dominated by a machine-like political system. His greatest fear was communism. But much of his fears have come true within capitalism.


Much of Orwell's fiction has come true in *cronyism*. We have absolutely nothing even remotely resembling true capitalism.



horusd said:


> Capitalism roughly centres around freedom *from *interference. To be and do what one wants. But inherent in this view, is the idea that once man is free from interference, he is really free. But this cannot be entirely true. An impoverished poor man might be free in this sense, but not have any means to exercise his freedom. Thus freedom here is an illusion. A recent award winning documentary "Inside job" points to systemic corruption within American Capitalism, and an unholy alliance between academia and finance propogating and precipatating the recent financial crisis. Details of the documentary are [broken link removed] So in a sense, this kind of Capitalism is a "doctrine".


First of all free market capitalism does not center around people being able "To be and do what one wants.". A classical liberal idea would be that people should be free to do what they want with their person and property, so long as it does not do harm to other people and their property. If this simple rule of non-aggression is adhered to and enforced, then selfish interests  become irrelevant or even beneficial to others.
More importantly though, you make a fundamental mistake in assuming that we actually had something that even remote resembles free market capitalism and freedom from interference. Western societies may well have a significant amount of freedom, but especially in the economic realm we do not enjoy freedom. I would have expected more from someone well versed in the field of logic ;-) 
Any poor man who is free to pick up a shovel and is not paid to not pick up the shovel, does enjoy freedom and will enjoy the fruits of free labour.



Purple said:


> The American founding fathers talked about liberty a lot but they were, for the most part, opposed to Capitalism and capitalists. Jefferson said that capitalism was the enemy of liberty.  He saw it as an economic model that was incompatible with a society based on liberty and individual freedom. The capitalism he talked about was Wall Street capitalism, not individuals holding on to the fruits of their own labour. He understood (like Marx) that wealth distribution and liberty were linked. What he didn’t envision (and Marx missed completely) was the emergence of a property owning and wealth holding middle class.
> 
> Wealth redistribution should be part of an overall package to ensure equality of opportunity, it should not overly limit the freedom of the individual. The American declaration of independence is a marvellous document. It sums up what a society should aim towards when it says “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,  that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
> 
> This was a direct attack on the authority of King George the III and his government, a government that was (to quote another American) not of the people, by the people or for the people. Communism enslaved the individual to the will of the state and any system of government that disenfranchises the citizen is to be opposed.



To say that Jefferson opposed capitalism entirely depends on your definition of capitalism. True free market capitalism which even Karl Marx defined as buyers being free to buy and sellers being free to sell without government intervention, is certainly something that Jefferson was in favour of. But he was very opposed to the already emerging Hamiltonian big government economic interference and federal cronyism. 
Those famous words of unalienable rights have been very much morphed into something entirely different. The pursuit of happiness simply indicates that every person should be free to pursue happiness. As you say it is equality of opportunity, but what we have is a system that tries to force an equality of outcome; rather than a freedom to pursue happiness it is now system of trying to guarantee happiness.


----------



## Complainer (27 Jun 2011)

umop3p!sdn said:


> It's not an open system.
> If you want a revolution, you will get arrested and sent to prison.
> 'Democracy' costs too much money, and you'll never oust those that are firmly embedded.


Excuses, excuses. The reason that you'll never oust those that are firmly embedded is nothing to do with money. It is because your views are held by a tiny minority.


----------



## Mpsox (27 Jun 2011)

umop3p!sdn said:


> It's not an open system.
> If you want a revolution, you will get arrested and sent to prison.
> 'Democracy' costs too much money, and you'll never oust those that are firmly embedded.


 
you wouldn't go to prison if you won your revolution, but is that likely to happen since the majority of people in Ireland currently don't hold your views?

The challenge for you, is to get off your tush and convince us that you're correct. All revolutions start small, they start with some little spark that ignites a flame that builds from there, some quickly like in Egypt recently, some slowly like in this country in the early part of the 1900s and take years to come to pass, but they all started somewhere.

So convince me !!

Or are you just another one of the "down with that sort of thing" brigade?


----------



## Bronte (27 Jun 2011)

To add to your list of examples of a failed state.  The disgraceful conduct of the DAA board.  Each and every one of them should be ashamed of themselves.


----------



## Purple (27 Jun 2011)

Chris said:


> To say that Jefferson opposed capitalism entirely depends on your definition of capitalism. True free market capitalism which even Karl Marx defined as buyers being free to buy and sellers being free to sell without government intervention, is certainly something that Jefferson was in favour of. But he was very opposed to the already emerging Hamiltonian big government economic interference and federal cronyism.
> Those famous words of unalienable rights have been very much morphed into something entirely different. The pursuit of happiness simply indicates that every person should be free to pursue happiness. As you say it is equality of opportunity, but what we have is a system that tries to force an equality of outcome; rather than a freedom to pursue happiness it is now system of trying to guarantee happiness.



Yep, I agree with that.


----------



## horusd (27 Jun 2011)

Chris said:


> ...
> 
> First of all free market capitalism does not center around people being able "To be and do what one wants.". A classical liberal idea would be that people should be free to do what they want with their person and property, so long as it does not do harm to other people and their property. If this simple rule of non-aggression is adhered to and enforced, then selfish interests become irrelevant or even beneficial to others.
> More importantly though, you make a fundamental mistake in assuming that we actually had something that even remote resembles free market capitalism and freedom from interference. Western societies may well have a significant amount of freedom, but especially in the economic realm we do not enjoy freedom. I would have expected more from someone well versed in the field of logic ;-)
> ...


 
Chris yer a cheeky wan with your logic jibe . If you carefully (tut,tut) read my post you would note the "roughly" conditional -get ye to specsavers. There is a classical academic distinction between" freedom from interference" and "freedom to be what one wants" as markers of the essential difference between capitalist-like liberal systems and rational systems like Communism. As this isn't an academic forum I stuck with broad relevant notions. I also didn't say we had Capitalism. We have a kind of hybrid. 

My central point is that we often assume that freedom from interference is best. That people should be entitled to the fruits of their labour etc. Intuitively this seems attractive, (as Purple has pointed out with some proviso's). However, given that much wealth & property is inherited; land etc, and this was at one time the property of all, re-distribution is neccessary. Mere (lawful )freedom from interference is a neccessary but not a sufficient condition for true freedom. Even if we cannot say exactly what that consists of. Purple rightly points this out in his post.

"_Any poor man who is free to pick up a shovel and is not paid to not pick up the shovel, does enjoy freedom and will enjoy the fruits of free labour_."

This, I'm afraid is overly simplistic. For example, a large part of human life concerns caring and being cared for. Childhood, old age, maternity etc. We would not say that carers who choose to voluntarily care for others, their children, parents etc can go and pick up a shovel. I don't want to stray too far off-topic, but I suggest you look up Elizabeth Anderson's "What is the Point of Equality?" available here. Her critique is insightful.


----------



## horusd (28 Jun 2011)

Chris said:


> ...
> 
> ...Those famous words of unalienable rights have been very much morphed into something entirely different. The pursuit of happiness simply indicates that every person should be free to pursue happiness. As you say it is equality of opportunity, but what we have is a system that tries to force an equality of outcome; rather than a freedom to pursue happiness it is now system of trying to guarantee happiness.


 
The pursuit of happiness is also a view of human nature which, whilst _*perhaps*_ broadly true, is not entirely so. It is quite legitimate & logical to forgo happiness for other ends. A life dedicated to service is a case in point. 

Regardless, there is no agreement of what happiness even is, and the idea of pursuing it, whilst superficially attractive is  likely illusory. Viktor Frankel (survivor of the Nazi death camps) suggests that man's real need is not happiness but meaning*. If this is true (and I think it is) it is a game-changer. 

What has morphed in America (and much of the West) is that this pursuit of happiness has been morphed into consumerism and aquisition. A fact utilised by business to achieve their ends.  Beneath it lies the belief, and the empty promise, that the more you have, the happier you are. 

I'm not sure that equality of opportunity cuts the mustard either. Not all people are born equal in the sense of resources.The disabled, the poor are examples. The aim of equality is (arguably) to equalise the starting positions not the outcomes, as you suggest. This is a complex academic issue which Anderson addresses in her article, and it's far from a simple and uncontenious idea of everyone can  pursue happiness period. As Berlin points out in his article, the aims of men are many, and it's not obvious that all egalitarian values, such as freedom, equality etc are compatible.






* Man's Search for Meaning. (1946)


----------



## Chris (28 Jun 2011)

horusd said:


> I also didn't say we had Capitalism. We have a kind of hybrid.


Well, you did say that Orwell's fears have come true with capitalism, but I agree with you that we have a hybrid system. I generally tend to correct people on this misconception that especially the current crisis proves that capitalism has failed, because it is very misleading. People have too often tried to ridicule my free market capitalism beliefs with Michael Moore style comments like "stupid, capitalism has failed and socialism is now the only answer". 
NB: I'm not saying that you are one of them ;-)



horusd said:


> My central point is that we often assume that freedom from interference is best. That people should be entitled to the fruits of their labour etc. Intuitively this seems attractive, (as Purple has pointed out with some proviso's). However, given that much wealth & property is inherited; land etc, and this was at one time the property of all, re-distribution is neccessary. Mere (lawful )freedom from interference is a neccessary but not a sufficient condition for true freedom. Even if we cannot say exactly what that consists of. Purple rightly points this out in his post.


I understand your point, but as long as inherited assets were originally legally acquired, then taking those assets away is a serious infringement of freedom and property rights. If you start off with a situation where everyone owns the same and 50 years later some people own more than others, then it is either because they acquired them through coercion, fraud or theft (in which case there is an important role for government) or they bought assets from people that were free to sell and chose to do so.
While I can see how the idea of forced redistribution seems appealing, and in the short run even a logical solution to solve the problem, I believe that it has much more detrimental affects on the wealth and well-being of less well off people in society. Let me explain.
There is a commonly stated anecdote that says that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. This is simply not true. As the rich get richer the poor get richer too. Rich people invest their money in businesses and ventures that overall lead to increased productivity and provide jobs to people. Rich people get richer when businesses become more successful and productive, and wages have a direct correlation to productivity. Poor people in Ireland are infinitely better off than poor people Egypt because the total level of wealth is higher and it is acquired in a relatively free system.
Now, when you take from one small group of people, the rich, in order to give to another group of people then you reduce the incentive on the rich to create more wealth. In addition you create a situation where the poor become dependent on the hand outs and are discouraged to figure out a way to better their lot. So while in the short term their is a benefit of wealth redistribution, the long term effects are extremely damaging.



horusd said:


> "_Any poor man who is free to pick up a shovel and is not paid to not pick up the shovel, does enjoy freedom and will enjoy the fruits of free labour_."
> 
> This, I'm afraid is overly simplistic. For example, a large part of human life concerns caring and being cared for. Childhood, old age, maternity etc. We would not say that carers who choose to voluntarily care for others, their children, parents etc can go and pick up a shovel. I don't want to stray too far off-topic, but I suggest you look up Elizabeth Anderson's "What is the Point of Equality?" available here. Her critique is insightful.


My argument was more down the line that in a free society people are free to pursue what ever goals and objectives they set themselves. I agree that a lot of our lives involves caring for others, and in my opinion this has greatly diminished in western societies. But these activities of caring for family, friends and neighbours are not a new phenomenon, they are ingrained in humans. And this caring side was not a problem before the introduction of wide spread welfare systems.
I'll take a look at that article.



horusd said:


> The pursuit of happiness is also a view of human nature which, whilst _*perhaps*_ broadly true, is not entirely so. It is quite legitimate & logical to forgo happiness for other ends. A life dedicated to service is a case in point.
> 
> Regardless, there is no agreement of what happiness even is, and the idea of pursuing it, whilst superficially attractive is  likely illusory. Viktor Frankel (survivor of the Nazi death camps) suggests that man's real need is not happiness but meaning*. If this is true (and I think it is) it is a game-changer.


You are absolutely right that there is no definition of happiness, it is entirely subjective. But someone that dedicates themselves to lets say a charitable service is doing so out of the "self interest" of having the satisfaction of having helped other people. Every human action is driven by the pursuit to be in a subjectively better situation than before. For some people it is the accumulation of consumer goods, and for other people it is helping others.



horusd said:


> What has morphed in America (and much of the West) is that this pursuit of happiness has been morphed into consumerism and aquisition. A fact utilised by business to achieve their ends.  Beneath it lies the belief, and the empty promise, that the more you have, the happier you are.


100% agree, happiness has become synonymous with consumption and materialism. 



horusd said:


> I'm not sure that equality of opportunity cuts the mustard either. Not all people are born equal in the sense of resources.The disabled, the poor are examples. The aim of equality is (arguably) to equalise the starting positions not the outcomes, as you suggest. This is a complex academic issue which Anderson addresses in her article, and it's far from a simple and uncontenious idea of everyone can  pursue happiness period. As Berlin points out in his article, the aims of men are many, and it's not obvious that all egalitarian values, such as freedom, equality etc are compatible.
> 
> * Man's Search for Meaning. (1946)


I wouldn't include the poor in lacking "resources". I believe that people are far more resourceful than is made to be, especially when they have to pull themselves out of a bad situation. But you raise an important point about the equality of opportunity.
There are countless examples, where especially the poor are at a disadvantage because of government intervention. Rich people and large businesses have the resources to overcome government rules and regulations. Poor people and small business do not have the same resources, which means that there is not a level playing field. Freedom to utilise your person and property without doing damage to others, and without the intervention by government levels the playing field for everyone.


----------



## shnaek (28 Jun 2011)

horusd said:


> it's not obvious that all egalitarian values, such as freedom, equality etc are compatible.


Indeed I would go further and say that the egalitarian values of freedom and equality are completely incompatible - and in general one must choose to prioritise one or the other.


----------



## csirl (28 Jun 2011)

The big problem with communism is that it is unnatural - it goes against the laws of nature. Competition is encoded in all our genes. 'Survival of the fitest' applies to us as much as any other animal on the planet. We cannot ignore it. 

An interesting thing about inheritance is that, generally speaking, wealth follows the genetic line. It follows successful genes from generation to generation - while individuals may die, their genes survive.

While not perfect, capitalism is a lot closer to the natural order of things than communism. 

The best society is one with equal opportunity, not equal wealth. Where everyone is allowed to realise their potential. Where everyone has the chance to get educated/skilled, work hard and earn a good living and those who work hard get to keep the fruits of their labour and pass them onto future generations.


----------



## horusd (28 Jun 2011)

One of these fine days I'll get the hang of multi-quote but in the interim!
BTW we are _*way *_off topic, so I'll restrict the answers down.




Chris said:


> _I understand your point, but as long as inherited assets were originally legally acquired, then taking those assets away is a serious infringement of freedom and property rights. If you start off with a situation where everyone owns the same and 50 years later some people own more than others, then it is either because they acquired them through coercion, fraud or theft (in which case there is an important role for government) or they bought assets from people that were free to sell and chose to do so._
> _While I can see how the idea of forced redistribution seems appealing, and in the short run even a logical solution to solve the problem, I believe that it has much more detrimental affects on the wealth and well-being of less well off people in society. Let me explain._
> _There is a commonly stated anecdote that says that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. This is simply not true. As the rich get richer the poor get richer too. Rich people invest their money in businesses and ventures that overall lead to increased productivity and provide jobs to people. Rich people get richer when businesses become more successful and productive, and wages have a direct correlation to productivity. Poor people in Ireland are infinitely better off than poor people Egypt because the total level of wealth is higher and it is acquired in a relatively free system._
> _Now, when you take from one small group of people, the rich, in order to give to another group of people then you reduce the incentive on the rich to create more wealth. In addition you create a situation where the poor become dependent on the hand outs and are discouraged to figure out a way to better their lot. So while in the short term their is a benefit of wealth redistribution, the long term effects are extremely damaging._
> ...


 

* This idea cannot be sumised in a line or two. See Christine Korsgaard's "The Sources of Normativity"(2004) Cambridge University Press which aims to explain the origins of human morality.


----------



## Chris (29 Jun 2011)

horusd said:


> The ultra liberal view is that gov't should merely regulate property. But we care rightly for society, and rich people, whilst utilising their initiative etc avail of various social capitals which are owned communally. Wealth after all, has no meanig without society. So, trickle down economics where a rising sea lifts all boats is not in my view a correct one. Sure, people should be able to keep most of what they make, and the tricky thing to decide is what is appropriate. This will be a reflection of what society will want to be, and this is essentially a moral view, not an economic one.


We'll just have to remain in disagreement there. I believe there is plenty of evidence in the world to suggest that the wealthier rich people are in a free society the wealthier the poor are too.



horusd said:


> Historically I cannot see how this could be true. A family member who cannot earn money as a carer, a parent who cannot earn as a child-rearer, cannot be considered to be equal. Women are inordinately carers, and this would condemn 50% of the population to a permenant disadvantage.


But are you not assuming that a family with a couple of kids is better off today with both parents working than a family 60 years ago with only one parent working? Both of my grandfathers raised their families with only one income, and neither of the families were left wanting. Today you have families with pretty much the same standard of living that are entirely dependent on two incomes.
I would also say that child carers are temporarily "disadvantaged" by not being able to work. But there are also very significant advantages to caring for others especially your own children. I would happily sacrifice part of my wages to be able to spend more time at home with my family as I value that part of my life more.



horusd said:


> This cannot be correct. What motivates people to act are many, and may indeed be hidden from themselves/others. A human being uniquely can sacrifice themselves for a principle or a loved one. Self-interest cannot be the be all and end all. We just cannot say definitively. But what defines human nature uniquely is they can reflect and choose one action over another. How they do this is contentious. But a credible view is that we act on reasons provided to us by our identities. These identities are normative. A man who identifies himself as a Doctor respects confidentiality just because he so identifies himself, and thisacting from a normative identity forms the basis for human morality.


Let me clarify. I put the term "self-interest" in quotations and the term is very easily misunderstood in this context. Basically, every human action is performed by the actor to improve their physical or psychological well-being. If I buy a sandwich and eat it I do so because I want the satisfaction of having eaten something. If I volunteer at a charity once a week, I do so for the feeling of satisfaction of having helped someone. In both cases I act with the "self-interest" of satisfying a physical or psychological need, as long as my actions are made out of free choice and not coercion.



horusd said:


> Some people are "victims" of brute luck. The disabled etc are perhaps short-changed in the lottery of life. Without a notion of equality they may not be able to pull themselves out of a bad situation.


Yes, disability is entirely different matter, and I have no problem with there being help for disabled. But I would rather see private charities doing the helping, as they are far better at making the most out of scarce resources. But as I said, I do not believe that an able bodied poor person needs special consideration and handouts appr9opriated by force.



horusd said:


> I accept this may be somewhat true. But wealth is power, and power can corrupt as we well know. Undue influence of business and the rich (tax breaks etc) on the political system is a world-wide issue. The gov't duty and I would argue societies moral duty, is to regulate business such that it serves society, not engineer society to serve business & the rich.


Very true, but the fact that big business uses the power of its money to influence public policy is a problem of our government system. As a classical liberal I would like to see government's only roles being in protecting the country and its citizens from foreign and domestic harm. In such a situation a big business could throw as much money at politicians as it liked, but government would not be able to influence a positive outcome for the business. Hayek once suggested a simple constitutional law that required that every legislation that is passed be applied to all members and organisations of society equally. Financial industry lobbies for a tax break, give everyone the exact same tax break; this avoids favouritism to the loudest and most powerful lobby group.


----------



## horusd (30 Jun 2011)

Again I need to look up multi-quote... note to self!



Chris said:


> *We'll just have to remain in disagreement there. I believe there is plenty of evidence in the world to suggest that the wealthier rich people are in a free society the wealthier the poor are too*.
> 
> Chris I realise you aren't defending the status quo but the gaps between rich and poor is actually growing in the US and world-wide. Denmark, one of the most heavily taxed countries, rates as one of the happiest. It appears the lower the income gap the greater social cohesion. A fact reflected in the Nordic countries.
> 
> ...


----------



## Purple (30 Jun 2011)

horusd said:


> Again I need to look up multi-quote... note to self!



Copy and paste into MS Word and edit;
Copy the "





horusd said:


> " bit and paste it accordingly and then copy the other bit and do the same.


----------



## Chris (30 Jun 2011)

horusd said:


> Chris I realise you aren't defending the status quo but the gaps between rich and poor is actually growing in the US and world-wide. Denmark, one of the most heavily taxed countries, rates as one of the happiest. It appears the lower the income gap the greater social cohesion. A fact reflected in the Nordic countries.
> 
> “Income inequality is rising, and if we took into account tax data, it would be even more,” said Timothy Smeeding, a University of Wisconsin-Madison professor who specializes in poverty. “More than other countries, we have a very unequal income distribution where compensation goes to the top in a winner-takes-all economy.” See here for US census data, and full article. The world-wide gap is described as the eighth wonder of the world by the satirical magazine the Onion. here.


While there certainly may be a correlation between unequal income and "happiness" that doesn't mean that government intervention can solve the problem. As I already outlined the poor are more disadvantaged by government regulations and barriers to entry into many industries which exacerbates the level of unequal income. The monetary system and government policies towards large corporations also exacerbates it. But these are all characteristics of increased interventionism and less freedom. Income inequality was not a problem during the industrial revolution where government intervention and welfare was at a minimum.



horusd said:


> As women are almost exclusively the carers, what they do iseffectively unpaid "work". Work that is neccessary for human life. A single earner (usually male) would control the family income, and the carer left at their mercy whilst society only acknowledges outside the home work as actual work. This cannot be a true reflection of human life as it fails to acknowledge the contribution women make to society.
> 
> Why should they be disadvantaged at all? Nurturing & caring is essential to society and should be treated as work. All of society needs this work to be done, including markets and businesse's. You giving up part of your work-time would be a voluntary choice, but no choice exists for most women who must care for kids, or carers who care for the disabled or elderly. They forgo income because they have to. Who would choose to live on 200 euro or so a week except that it is neccessary?


But society should not be forced to pay for someone to care for a relative. Pretty much everyone in society will at one stage or another care for a relative. By forcing society to pay for carers you are robbing to Peter to pay Paul, only to take the money off Paul again to pay Peter. As I said there are rewards that go far beyond monetary ones when it comes to caring for others.



horusd said:


> Not all human actions are done for self-interest. Addiction is a case in point, where no real "choice" exists. But even voluntary choices are a minefield. To try and differentiate between voluntary choices and brute luck turns society into moral judges who must decide which is which. I "choose" to care for a dying relative, thus society owes me nothing as I exercised choice, I could have chosen differently and wasn't coerced. I chose to drink & drive, and as a result am injured in a crash. Should society not treat me? But maybe I'm alcoholic? Maybe I'm psychologically damaged by child abuse or a war veteran. Deciding between voluntary choices & brute luck is next to impossible. Also there is a basic unfairness if the rich do not have to explain how they got rich, but the poor must explain their poverty to get societies help.


Of course there are outside influences in human choice, but at the very basic level human actions are done because the person believes, rightly or wrongly, that they will be better off by performing the action. 



horusd said:


> Disability takes many forms. A person may be bodily healthy but psychologically disabled. Again, society is forced into becoming moral judges. And why should caring be left to charities? Surely society means we owe each other care, respect and nurturing? Or are we saying that only the economically productive matter to society. What a terrible place that would be. Much of what matters to people isn't economic. Literature, art, love, human development etc aren't economically measurable. And those who make money in society also owe it something. How this is done is debatable, but that they owe society something surely cannot be argued against.


Let me clarify the reason why private charities should do the helping. Firstly I think that helping others should be voluntary and not by force through government, but that is an entirely different matter. But given the situation where government collects a certain amount of taxes to help others, I would rather see that money being given to private charities to do the helping. I think it was the guy running the Jack and Jill foundation that I heard the other day in an interview saying that the foundation, given the same amount of money, could help more people the the respective government service. All resources are scarce, so we should be giving them to those that can make best use of them.



horusd said:


> Tax breaks designed specifically for business's cannot be extended to individuals easily. One of the problems in the US specifically is that corporations have been able to nominate themselves as "persons" whilst not obviously being persons.


Actually not so difficult at all. If big business lobbies for a reduction in taxation from lets say 10% to 9%, then reduce all other taxes by the relatively same 10%.


----------



## horusd (30 Jun 2011)

Purple said:


> Copy and paste into MS Word and edit;
> Copy the "
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## horusd (30 Jun 2011)

Chris I think we are at an impasse and must declare an honourable truce here, as clearly we aren't convincing each other, and only cyber space will be taken up with a kind of theoretical game of ping, pong!

At the heart of what I am saying I suppose is that no system or theory provides all answers. We can agree on some points and must diverge on others. However, I don't accept that either Capitalism, Socialism/Communism, our hybrid or anything else provides a one stop shop of answers to our problems and would lead to an Utopia, or anything like it. And this is why all theoretical approaches are flawed if they aren't contextualised. Counter-examples to all theories abound. We cannot escape the need to choose sometimes even when no one choice seems better than any other. 

The search for certainty is an ancient one, Descartes himself faltered at it. To return to the question " are we a failed state?" I don't think this elicts a simple answer. I might say it's true and explain why I think so, but my opinion cannot be absolute. Plato asked the question what is justice thousands of years ago and nobody has yet answered it ! Our natures, and perhaps the nature of reality means we cannot isolate pure answers to what appear straight-forward questions. When the founding fathers say everyone can pursue happiness, we are left with a false impression that this is straightforward, but it's really anything but.


----------



## Chris (1 Jul 2011)

horusd, truce accepted and I agree that there is no utopia, not even in a totally free market system.
The only thing I would add is the following historical observations:
1) Socialism/communism has failed everywhere tried
2) Our current hybrid system of cronyism has spectacularly failed, albeit not as bad as communism
3) Small government and low levels of intervention proved very successful during the industrial revolution.

One other thing that I forgot to comment on was your statement about "And those who make money in society also owe it something. "
Those that make money, even the richest, do so because they serve their customers who are relatively free to spend their money or not. It is not a case that rich people take money of the table without providing something. Now there are certain government protected industries like banking and energy where huge profits are made because of government intervention and protection. But by and large rich people find a way to best serve their customers who voluntarily part with their money while at the same time creating employment. Society has already benefited from their products and job creation, so these people do not owe society anything more.


----------



## oldnick (1 Jul 2011)

And,finally, don't forget that  at least a million Irish people in the six counties feel that it is better to belong to UK and the Republic -not only from the Protestant community but ,according to the latest survey ,half of the Catholic community.

That's besides many many 9head-down-and-say-nothing) southern unionists like me that have always known that the Republic is ,well if not a failed state , pretty much of a failure.

(and for the so-called "Irish patriots" amongst you , let me explain that one can be happy and often proud to have an Irish passport, love this land and one's fellow-citizens and, indeed, feel more comfortable here than in the U.K. -but strongly feel that so-called Irish independence was a mistake and that it makes far more sense to have a united British-Irish government with autonomy for each area -even with rotating capital cities. )


----------



## horusd (2 Jul 2011)

Chris said:


> horusd, truce accepted and I agree that there is no utopia, not even in a totally free market system.
> The only thing I would add is the following historical observations:
> 1) Socialism/communism has failed everywhere tried
> 2) Our current hybrid system of cronyism has spectacularly failed, albeit not as bad as communism
> ...


 
Chris I'll (mostly) let you away with the last word! I have to say that Berlin's article, (particularly the last few pages), I referred to above, was one of the most eye-opening I've read. Whilst on balance endorsing a liberal agenda, he acknowledges that the problems we face in trying to address the multiplicity of human wants and values may be insolvable. This dilemma confronts us daily, with no obvious answer, where no choice is pain-free and without a cost. It's fascinating to me that we seek certainty & firm ground, yet never find it. We can argue the toss, but can never achieve an outright win. This doesn't mean we shouldn't try, but it's humbling to know that know that success is. at best, subjective. 

In Milton's _Paradise Lost_ Adam & Eve are chucked out of Eden (perfection)for eating the forbidden fruit from the tree of knowledge of good & evil. 
They are left with imperfection yet knowledge/awareness. Their sin was to want to be god-like and leave behind their ignorance, even at the price of their bliss. Milton captures the essential human dilemma in this exchange between Adam and the angel Raphael about reaching beyond man's limits:

(Raphael) :"...be lowly wise; think only what concerns thee and thy being...

(Adam): " How fully hast thou satisfied me, pure
Intelligence of heaven...And, freed from intricacies, taught to
live the easiest way, nor with perplexing thoughts to interrupt 
the sweet of life, from which God hath bid dwell far off all anxious cares,
and not molest us, unless we ourselves, seek them with wandering
thoughts, and notions vain." VIII ( 174-187)

We still seek perfection, believing it possible, a point where all things are harmonious, where all human values meet. Yet, as Adam & Eve discovered, even Paradise didn't provide this, and hence they ate the fruit, wanting more. So it seems harmony & order are incompatible with us, and no social/economic  model;  pure Capitalism, Socialism, or Communism, will ever bring us to this illusory state, at best, we hit an unstable compromise.


----------

