What has the state done for us?

[shnaek]

What has the Irish state done for us? Seems like they've dragged us kicking and screaming through a century of absolute chicanery and nonsense. Perhaps we are no different to other countries in that regard, but surely it's time to realise that more interference from the State in our lives is hardly the answer we need.
So we can't really blame the State for the civil war. But it was in cahoots with the church for decades and we all know how that worked out. It censored our greatest artists. It forced our people to move abroad. It managed to keep us poor back in the early part of the last century even at times when the rest of the world was booming. It has made a mess of running the economy.
Our education system has been failing even when the state had money. The State doubled the health budget in the space of a few years, but still most of us are terrified to go near a hospital in case we come out worse than we went in. The State incentives us not to work, and punishes those who set up a business.
Isn't it time we asserted our supremacy over this cabal of chancers and thieves? We need to limit the power of government. It is the only solution, as they run around the place like a bunch of startled monkeys, not knowing what to do. Does anyone have confidence that they can turn the country around?

 

[callybags]

The State is us.

 

[shnaek]

The State is us.

If that is true, then the Irish people are responsible for the failure of the State, and thus should not be concerned about handing over control to someone else.

 

[callybags]

I would agree with that.

We, collectively have to take responsibility for our collective actions.

 

[shnaek]

I would agree with that.

We, collectively have to take responsibility for our collective actions.

Well that is democracy for you. And I agree on taking responsibility - that characteristic isn't an Irish one, and we need it to be.

 

[Mpsox]

We need to limit the power of government. It is the only solution, as they run around the place like a bunch of startled monkeys, not knowing what to do. Does anyone have confidence that they can turn the country around?

Reality is that the Govt needs powers to run the country. If you limit those powers, who do you hand it over to instead?.

 

[Chris]

Well that is democracy for you.

I think mobocracy is a better term. Democracy is a deeply flawed system when the elected government is not restrained by very strict rules. Majority rule without restrictions is no different than an autocratic system.
I agree with you fully that what is needed is either a new constitution that clearly states what government is allowed to do, with everything else not being allowed, or we need a system whereby citizens can put a stop to government actions through a more direct control from the bottom up.
This endless call for governments to sort out problems that are the result of prior interferences just doesn't make sense and fits Einstein's definition of insanity very well.

 

[Chris]

Reality is that the Govt needs powers to run the country. If you limit those powers, who do you hand it over to instead?.

It needs certain powers but not unlimited power. Every poll I saw suggested that the public would not have voted for a bank bailout or for NAMA. Irrespective of whether these were good or bad decisions, government used its unlimited power to just go ahead anyway.
In answer to your question though, the power should remain in the hands of individuals.

 

[Purple]

The state should serve the people. In Ireland the people serve the state.
I agree with Chris on this whole area.

 

[Mpsox]

It needs certain powers but not unlimited power. Every poll I saw suggested that the public would not have voted for a bank bailout or for NAMA. Irrespective of whether these were good or bad decisions, government used its unlimited power to just go ahead anyway.
In answer to your question though, the power should remain in the hands of individuals.

Whilst I agree in principle, look at the mess light touch regulation got us into with the banks, the Catholic church, premium rate calls from the Dail etc etc.
As for NAMA, I don't think the public actually understood the issue well enough to make an informed decision and the Govt didn't provide the information.

 

[shnaek]

Whilst I agree in principle, look at the mess light touch regulation got us into with the banks, the Catholic church, premium rate calls from the Dail etc etc.

Light touch? Or incompetent? After all, we had a central bank, Department of Finanace, and a regulator with a big staff (people, not a large rod) - and what were they all doing at the taxpayers expense?
If it was incompetence, then it is all the more reason to get rid of these clowns.

 

[Sunny]

The majority of people would probably vote for huge tax cuts and would probably not vote for any austerity budget despite us not really having any choice. Governing sometimes means making unpopular decisions. That's not the same as abusing your power.

 

[T McGibney]

look at the mess light touch regulation got us into

Ireland hasn't seen light touch regulation since Victorian times.

 

[Chris]

Whilst I agree in principle, look at the mess light touch regulation got us into with the banks, the Catholic church, premium rate calls from the Dail etc etc.
As for NAMA, I don't think the public actually understood the issue well enough to make an informed decision and the Govt didn't provide the information.

I think it is one of the biggest myths to say that there was light touch regulation or deregulation. The financial industry is one of the most heavily regulated industries in the world. It is so heavily regulated that it is pretty much impossible to set up small bank as a new business. If there actually was significant deregulation then all we would have to do is reintroduce those old regulation and all will be fine again. If there was light touch regulation then why would we trust the same organisation to suddenly be able to come up with heavy touch regulation?
The problem with the church was that existing law was not enforced enough or at all, essentially a failure of government's role as law enforcer.
I agree that government did not inform the public enough, but if there had been a vote they would have been forced to inform the public as there would have been campaigns for and against.

The majority of people would probably vote for huge tax cuts and would probably not vote for any austerity budget despite us not really having any choice. Governing sometimes means making unpopular decisions. That's not the same as abusing your power.

Very good point Sunny, but that only reinforces the need to restrict government actions.