Hello Callum,

Sounds good. Looking forward to a response to my earlier question about whether you would be morally or socially responsible towards elderly parents.

Hello Elijah,

Soup Kitchens as well for a start. If managed well, all soup kitchens will be phased out within 2 years.

Getting to know one another over shared meals gives all a sense of community.

Hello Luke H,

In other words, privatise the Welfare System. Cool The method by which Libs do this sounds good.

Good luck with the Taxation System.

Perhaps IRD employees can be offered to buy the buildings and set up business ventures.

What would Libs do with the Education System? From infants/toddlers to Year 13.

The welfare system wouldn't be sold. It would be given away, bit by bit, to different charities and organisations, who would overlook their beneficiaries properly.

"Socialism may be dead, but its corpse is still rotting up the place." -Ayn Rand

"I am not sure who would "buy" the welfare system."

One would behave as an adult and not an infantilised subhuman and simply purchase income protection insurance or similar. The products available in a free market would be eye-popping.

The cash provided by philanthropy for Eli's workhouses.

People would be falling over themselves to donate with all that extra money the bureaucrats would not be thieving.

Ha ha...I was meaning the former - private workhouses with voluntary entry.

Were they to be Government funded and run it would simply create a new bureaucracy within a short period.

The important point about workhouses are that it would mean welfare under a Libz government could be phased out much more quickly; and the 'fear of the workhouse' would be a splendid incentive for the underclass to obtain some diligence and work skills rather quickly...and I hope this splendid suggestion of mine does not make me seem altruistic, but yes, it would help vast numbers of people. 

On election day...tick the LIBERTARIANZ box...

If workhouses are set up by private individuals and poor people are free to come and go, and there are no human rights abuses ... go for it.

If you mean government-funded and mandated workhouses as in 19th century Britain, with deplorable conditions, run by drunkards, taking children away from parents, feeding people bread, cheese and porridge (and not much else) and requiring them to break rocks, with conditions and rules similar to prisons ... well, you can jump off a bridge, old chap.

 "..and I think welfare benefits should be abolished and replaced by workhouses for the poor..."

Yes, just my personal opinion...("I think", and all that)...not Libz policy, alas...and whenever I raise the subject it seems to lead to a lot of ummmm-ing and ahhhh-ing and "that sounds rather Dickensian and extreme" and "not sure I would feel comfortable saying that to people"..and, yes..gosh.

On election day...tick the LIBERTARIANZ box...

1 - Privatise NZ's Welfare System;

I am not sure who would "buy" the welfare system.  We would dismantle it over 1-3 years and I presume that the functions it fulfills would be taken over by private charity like churches, Red Cross and so on.

2 - Get rid of the Taxation System and replace it with Charitable Organisations.

 The taxation system would be replaced by a system of voluntary contributions.  In a sense, I suppose you could say that the remaining government becomes a charity, dependent on donations to continue.

 Elijah's preference for the workhouses of old are his personal opinion, and do not represent Libertarianz policy.

 Where will IRD employees go?

They can 'go' or do whatever they like!  Get new jobs, retire, move to another country - it does not matter.  We do not need an "IRD employees" policy. 

What will the buildings be used for? 

The buildings will be sold; the money (from the sale of these and other assets) will be used to pay ongoing obligations (pensions, welfare for the permanently disabled) and a bit of military spending for capital equipment.

An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who posts controversial and irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum or chat room, with the intention of provoking other users into an emotional response[1] or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion.

Not sure if I like the word "Troll" to be associated with my name.

Controversial? Irrelevant? Off Topic?

I cannot be held accountable nor responsible for the emotions or otherwise my postings may or may not elicit.

It appears me hath been too hasty in stating my earlier comment.

Yes; one learns.

Troll Definition

This Cue Card Libertarianism post answered most of the questions I had about Libertarians.

webhost101.net - Websites made easy.

Ah. Someone I can learn from. Excellent.

Pray tell. What is a 'Troll?'

My dictionary informs me there are 15 meanings. So many choices. What's a lady to do?

Shari; "Where will IRD employees go? What will the buildings be used for?"

The Beehive/IRD as gas chamber? I hadn't thought of that.

Tried to slip than in, ha ha. Nothing could be further from the truth. That almost qualifies you for an honorary "Troll" denotation.

Try http://www.pc.blogspot.com

Hello Elijah,

From what I can gather thus far, would it be fair to suggest that the Libertarian Party would?:

1 - Privatise NZ's Welfare System;

2 - Get rid of the Taxation System and replace it with Charitable Organisations.

Kindly confirm.

 "..which other organisation do you hate?.."

Oh all sorts of socialist organisations...trades unions, socialist newspapers like the Dominion Post, state schools, churches (etc)

In answer to your other questions, no, I do not think there are any benefits to receiving welfare; and I think welfare benefits should be abolished and replaced by workhouses for the poor.

There would be no greater incentive for poor people to seek employment, solo mothers to marry 'the Fathers', sickness beneficiaries to stage a dramatic increase in health than 'fear' of the workhouse.

For 300 years workhouses kept certain types of people in line and I am at a loss as to why they were done away with.

On election day...tick the LIBERTARIANZ box...

Hello Callum,

No, a taxpayer does not have any social obligations towards any man, woman, or child.

You have obviously been raised well by your parents. Congratulations to your Mum & Dad.

When your parents are aged and can no longer care for themselves, will you feel morally or socially obligated to ensure all their needs are met?

Yes, Savage does not rest well in his grave.

Kind regards,

Shari Hyder

Hello Gregster,

Thank you for the link. I have looked through the site; though not in great detail. There is much information to digest.

Could you kindly provide me with the link to the Libertarian Party's Forum/Recent Posts?

Kind regards,

Shari Hyder

Hello Luke H,

It is heartening to learn that the Libertarian Party will not be persecuting IRD employees nor will buildings be burned down.

How many years will it take for the Libertarian Party to bat the IRD into a black hole?

Where will IRD employees go? What will the buildings be used for?

Kind regards,

Shari Hyder

Hello Elijah,

Apart from IRD, which other Organisation do you hate?

Thank you for hoping I may enjoy SOLO.

Kind regards,

Shari Hyder

Greetings Elijah

From the perspective of a person receiving welfare in NZ, what does it do to his psyche when he is receiving a 'benefit' from the government?

Is there benefit to being on Welfare?

If the Libertarian Party gets over the 5% threshold, will they consider changing the name 'benefit' to something else?

What is your definition of a cripple? In mind or body?

Kind regards,

Shari Hyder

Hello Reed,

What is a Just government? At this point in time, which country could possibly suggest their government acts justly? Or at the very least, to be seen to be acting in a just manner.

Taking money forcibly from any person is robbery. We seem to concur on that point.

So if it is robbery, who will bring the robbers to justice? Will the Libertarian Party take the IRD to Court? If not, why not?

Yes, generosity is a virtue. Requiring others to be 'generous' goes against the meaning of the word. Generosity cannot be forced upon another.

A person who is truly generous is unaware he is acting generously.

Generosity by proxy? That's a new one to me. Kindly explain with an example, please.

Kind regards,

Shari Hyder

"Would you say that taxpayers have a greater social obligation towards Mrs B? Would taxpayers cringe at the prospect of being 'more charitable' towards Mrs B?"

Does the taxpayer have any social obligation toward any woman?

"Need" does not determine moral superiority.

"Socialism may be dead, but its corpse is still rotting up the place." -Ayn Rand

to the Libertarianz door and put the poor lady out of her misery .

Is the Libertarian Party planning on wiping out the entire IRD?

It depends what you mean by "wiping out".  When we are done it will no longer exist.  We wouldn't persecute IRD employees or burn down IRD buildings though (but don't ask objectivists about this topic if they have had a few to drink!)

Yes, hate is too strong a word.  The IRD and the people who work there are the product of a system of government, and a philosophy of statism and socialism which we vehemently disagree with.  They are not themselves evil or disagreeable (as a generality), they are just 'doing their job'.

I hate the IRD...(although my dealings with them have been "fleeting and theoretical" as Sir Robert Jones amusingly put it in one of his books)...because it is communism in action.

They seek to steal money from people and use force to do so...it is just communist gangster-ism at work.

All tax dollars are wasted, all taxes are unnecessary yet the IRD seeks to enforce this unnecessary nonsense.

Many chaps on here are Libz members and a lot of Libz debates take place (more or less)...so hope you enjoy the site. 

On election day...tick the LIBERTARIANZ box...

Hello Luke H,

So I am not on a Libz Forum? Looks like I am in the wrong place then. Yes, I did wonder at the words (bs) used by Mr Hubbard. It did seem odd that thinking persons would use such language off the bat.

Ranting, I can take. No need for using language not commonly used in the presence of ladies. It gives the impression one is not in full command of one's faculties.

Is the Libertarian Party planning on wiping out the entire IRD? Or am I asking in the wrong Forum?

Is the IRD the major target of your bias? Why do you hate them so? Or is hate too strong a word?

Kind regards,

Shari Hyder

Yes, unsub, Luke has summed things up rather well....reduce Government considerably and make it voluntary and lets chaps chip in if they want to.

Personally I consider welfare and the payment of benefits to be a cancer on our Nation and would abolish all that nonsense immediately, with the exception of payments to cripples paid for by annuities from selling off state assets. 

On election day...tick the LIBERTARIANZ box...

Hi Shari,

A Government should act justly.

When do you think it is just to take money from one person (against their will) and give it to another?

I consider generosity a virtue but my observation of people requiring others to be charitable (generosity by proxy) is that they have a resentment of what they consider to be their own moral duty or are motivated by jealousy.

Cheers,

Reed.

webhost101.net - Websites made easy.

I was under the impression Libertarians welcome dialogue, and debate amongst thinking people.

Libertarianz does welcome dialogue and debate.  However, we are not on a Libz site; we are on SOLO, which is a pretty rough-and-tumble forum, and there is a lot of name-calling and ranting.  Don't worry, you will develop a thick skin quickly!

 Perhaps what Libertarians can possibly aim for is to privatise the Welfare System. The taxpayer can then be assured his taxed portion of his hard earned income be distributed towards hospitals, schools, public transport & roads, etc.

We aim to completely dismantle the welfare system, privatise healthcare, education and roading, and reduce the government to core functions (judiciary, police force, military, border control).

On such a strict diet, government spending would be between 1-4% of GDP, and we aim to replace compulsory taxation with a mix of user-pays and voluntary taxation (donations to the government, telethons, pledges, etc).

As for my picture demonstrating my bias against the IRD, you are right.  However I consider it an honest reflection of my beliefs.  If I tried to hide them, that would hardly be honest, would it?

Dear Mark Hubbard,

Well, no; you don't have to travel to other countries in order to establish or confirm the state of your mind to be 'fair.'

I note you reside in NZ. So do I. Do you think we are governed by a tyrant? Maybe 2?

As to the murdered son's age, you opened the door to the scenario.

In countries ruled by tyrants, some as young as 8 are armed. So was the son murdered by rebels or the army of the government?

Yes, my name is Shari. Mork was fun to watch. I am sorry you view this as a pointless discussion. I was under the impression Libertarians welcome dialogue, and debate amongst thinking people.

What do you think Libertarians stand for?

Kind regards,

Shari Hyder

A fair minded opinion of Pol Pot or Mugabe requires one to be residing in those countries. If the peoples of those countries think either is not fair minded, then it is up to the peoples to do something about it.

And again, bullshit. Apparently, to be able to offer a fair minded opinion on a tyrant, I have to travel to his country and be killed by him. I don't think so. And surely you don't seriously either?

And:

 
As to the son in the photograph, how young is the boy?

Huh?

And what has the murdered boys age got to do with anything?

Shari, or is it Mindy(?), I'm forced to conclude you may well be crazy, sorry. This is a pointless discussion.

Dear Mark Hubbard,

Thank you for preempting a response from Luke H.

Would you consider yourself to be simply right on all the facts garnered up to the point when you voice your opinions?

Yes, you would; as would any other thinking person.

A fair minded opinion of Pol Pot or Mugabe requires one to be residing in those countries. If the peoples of those countries think either is not fair minded, then it is up to the peoples to do something about it. Will they risk death in doing so?

The question then becomes: "Is one willing to die for one's principles?"

As to the son in the photograph, how young is the boy?

Kind regards,

Shari Hyder

Thank you for your considered response. However, your photo displays a particular bias against the Inland Revenue Department which immediately colours your opinions. One has to be seen to be fair minded when expressing one's opinions.

No, that's bullshit Unsub: it's far, far, far, far more important that one is simply right, on all the facts, when voicing their opinions.

I mean, what, in your mind, would a 'fair minded' opinion of Pol Pot, or Robert Mugabe be; and in the latter, could I still give a 'fair minded' opinon if I was holding a photograph of, say, a son who had been murdered by his thugs, or would the murder and the thuggery be 'colouring my opinion'?

Hello Luke H,

Thank you for your considered response. However, your photo displays a particular bias against the Inland Revenue Department which immediately colours your opinions. One has to be seen to be fair minded when expressing one's opinions.

Regardless, your argument per se has its merits. Tax is inevitable; as is Death. I think your argument centres itself on the distribution of tax.

Let us look at the cases of Mrs A and Mrs B. Both have 2 children under the age of 5. Both their husbands have died under tragic circumstances. Mrs A has wide family support; while Mrs B has none. Both qualify for the government's Widow's Benefit.

Would you say that taxpayers have a greater social obligation towards Mrs B? Would taxpayers cringe at the prospect of being 'more charitable' towards Mrs B?

What is charity? In simple terms, I think it means the ability of a person to give freely whether in goods, services, or money to any other person or organisation of his own choosing.

In other words, charity cannot be imposed upon any person. Perhaps what Libertarians can possibly aim for is to privatise the Welfare System. The taxpayer can then be assured his taxed portion of his hard earned income be distributed towards hospitals, schools, public transport & roads, etc.

With regard to Kant, I think he reckoned that the only acceptable motive for moral action was a sense of duty.

What do you think?

Kind regards,

Shari Hyder

Hi Unsub,

I am not sure what you mean by a distinction between welfare and benefits.  Generally speaking, a government welfare system consists of various types of benefits (unemployment, single-mother, disability, etc) given to qualifying individuals.

Libertarians usually talk about the opposing natures of private charity versus government welfare. 

• Private charity is funded voluntarily; goverment welfare is funded from involuntary (compulsory) taxes.
• Private charity is given to those who request it, with permission from the relevant controlling organisation (for instance, a church or a soup kitchen) whereas government welfare is offered to those who qualify for it (by being unemployed for a certain length of time, for instance) and citizens may have a legally-enshrined 'right' to receive it if they quality for it (ie, the government may not be able to legally refuse to provide the benefits requested).
• Private charity may be short-term in the form of a single meal, or long-term in the form of, for instance, several years of education at a religious school, under a scholarship.  Government welfare is much more likely to be long-term, with benefits being paid weekly (in New Zealand), as long as the individual continues to meet the qualifying criteria.  Short-term benefits such as food coupons are sometimes provided.

The incentive system set up by the qualifying criteria of each benefit leads to what is called the welfare trap, where persons are financially rewarded by doing various things to stay on the benefit (eg, single mothers may get more money by having more children, unemployed people may get more money if they 'develop' a disease, or may need to get fired from offered jobs to continue recieving the benefit). 

From an economic perspective, individuals may face an effective marginal tax rate which is extremely high (over 100%, in some cases).  This stems, again, from the rules.  For example, if an unemployment recipient recieves more than a certain amount per week, their benefit will be reduced by a related amount.  Perhaps a person gets $400 per week from a benefit.  They get a part-time job earning $200 a week and their benefit is reduced by $150 a week.  This results in an effective 'tax rate' of 75%, a huge disincentive to get paid work (at least, legal, taxed, paid work).

Poor social outcomes from the incentives caused by the welfare trap and high effective marginal tax rates are the source of pragmatic objections to government welfare systems.  Libertarians tend to focus on the moral objection that forcing people to provide money to the goverment (tax systems always have a threat of forced incarceration to back them) is completely immoral, exactly equivalent to robbery (ie, Tax is Theft).  Providing money to the poor does not provide a moral excuse; in fact the creation of the negative incentives of the welfare trap is a further injustice perpetuated using the stolen money.

Kantians may be persuaded by the observation that government tax and welfare systems use individuals and their money as a means to an end; which is arguably immoral.

In a wider sense, stolen government money is also used to provide hospitals, schools, roads, etc for use by everyone, including the poor; as such the provision of these things can be considered a type of welfare.  Libertarians point out similar problems with incentives and distortions of markets in each of these areas (healthcare, education, roading), but those are outside the scope of my post here.

Whew!  This turned out a lot longer than I had anticipated.  I hope this answers your question.

Luke H

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by benefits?

---Landon

Never mistake contempt for compassion, or power lust for ambition.

http://www.myspace.com/wickedlakes

Super Hero Babylon