The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > The rise of the 'precariat' and the decline of living standards > Comments

The rise of the 'precariat' and the decline of living standards : Comments

By John Tomlinson, published 20/8/2014

A moral reason for a basic income is that the wealth of anyone is much more the result of our forebears' endeavours than our own.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. All
“a progressive starts from a sentiment of compassion. “

The author simply ignores the fact that everything ‘progressives’ advocate is based on threatening to shoot, cage and rape people. Completely fake compassion.

Perhaps the reader should go back over the article, and every time you see the author using the word compassion, say to yourself “Liar”.

*If* the author were proposing a voluntary basic income - funded with voluntary donations - THAT would be compassion, that would be morality.

“Guy Standing opts for an approach based on rights, entitlement and universalism”

There is no such thing as a “right” to bash people’s heads in, to shoot and rape and taser people, to lock them in cages; or threaten to do so.

This entirely disposes of the author’s kindergarten-level moral gibberish, unless he’s going to explain how his confiscations are going to be enforced without using force or threats. At whatever level he renounces the use of aggressive violence, at that level his scheme becomes voluntary, and fails according to his own lights.

“…citizenship…”

Since the original problem as given is poverty, then why should the nation-state be the relevant collective?

There are lots of people in the world who are much poorer than Australia’s poorest. Why shouldn’t the property of all Australians be redistributed to the poor of Africa and Asia, until everyone is equal with the poorest? John? Answer?

“based on equality”
Or even within Australia, why not confiscate all wealth and redistribute it until everyone has equal income, equal capital, equal debt, equal clothing and equal everything? As soon as John admits his logical conclusion, he advocates full socialism, total social collapse and mass starvation.

But as soon as he resiles from his logical conclusion and admits the necessity of private property, he has no rational criterion for his own argument; no way of knowing whether there is too much, too little or just enough capitalism in any given case.

This is just the same old left-wing economic illiteracy stupidly trying to achieve economic ends by anti-economic means.

John: you lost the argument in 1920: http://mises.org/pdf/econcalc.pdf

Understand it.
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Wednesday, 20 August 2014 10:53:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jardine I cannot understand what you are talking about. Your rave has nothing to do with the article.
Posted by fancynancy, Wednesday, 20 August 2014 1:18:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Good essay.
All of the various people and outfits listed on this site are on the left/progressive side of politics - http://www.dabase.org/GCF.htm

As far as a know none of them are even remotely into the dreadful kind of applied politics that Jardine hysterically describes - perhaps he needs a hysterectomy!
Posted by Daffy Duck, Wednesday, 20 August 2014 2:51:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
fancynancy

So how much of your income have you voluntarily given to the basic income?

The fact you don't understand what you're talking about doesn't make it right.

Daffy
So they all advocate voluntary policies do they?

Liar.

So have you given your property to the poor of Africa and Asia til you have no more than their poorest?

Liar.

To the poorest of Australia?

Liar and hypocrite.

Got that refutation of the economic calculation argument there yet fellahs?

Or you just don't care that what you're saying is untrue as usual?
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Wednesday, 20 August 2014 3:01:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Back away guys he's going to star throwing his own poo soon.
Posted by Cobber the hound, Wednesday, 20 August 2014 5:33:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yeah, but.
The article approaches its summation/conclusion from the wrong direction?
We don't need higher incomes, just a return to affordable prices.
We might just achieve most of that, by requiring all politicians to divest themselves of their real estate investment portfolios!
And add to the available savings by eliminating cronyism and all other corrupt practices!
And we could virtually halve living costs by mandating the disappearance of the profit demanding middle man, in favor of direct sales!
And easily achieved with the continuing roll-out of the NBN!
And then living and business operating costs could be further reduced, by vast simplification, that then also eliminates the currently intractable elements of profit demanding and completely unproductive, so called service providing/tax practice middle man!
The penultimate piece of the puzzle, is eliminated, by a return to public essential service provision; or, limiting privatization, to just family firms and co-ops, which is the only free market business models, that largely survived the Great Depression; mostly intact, and the only free market private Business models, able to actually undercut, public supply paradigms!
All while returning a more than reasonable profit, simply because of the inimical inherent production improvements; and or, cost reduction parameters!
And we can achieve multiple objectives, population reduction, and ongoing economic growth, by the ultra-simple expediency, of removing poverty in all its forms or derivatives, when and wherever we find it!
Nothing could be simpler, and easily achieved just by removing all the Dr no's who currently create the conditions that perpetuate it!
Finally, we have no choice but to remove those pollies from both sides of the aisle, who actively prevent/place road blocks in the path of real progress!
None more so, than entirely unnecessary, self serving, extremely costly, Kindy for crooks?
Namely, all our tax wasting state parliaments!
Lastly, we need huge cost reducing tax reform, and a return to the public service/energy production/distribution model, and for the very obvious, cost reduction parameters, that then flow through as further cost reductions/higher living standards!
Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Wednesday, 20 August 2014 5:45:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy