Yes, self reliance does seem to be beyond the grasp of some people who post here.

Some people believe that they are entirely self-reliant. They seem to think that where they are today is entirely the result of their own “effort”.

For this to be true, such a person would have to have given birth to him/herself, raised him/herself, educated him/herself, produced all of his/her own food, clothing, shelter, tools etc.

Such a person, being so self reliant, wouldn’t need to drive on roads built by others, use technology built by others, read books written by others etc.

A person who considers him/herself completely self reliant must be deluded.

Such a person, who then feels the need to tell others (who he/she doesn’t need in his/her self reliant world) of his/her self-reliance, and insist that they engage in the same deluded belief, makes a mockery of him/herself.

With the exception of Col Rouge the rest of us are simply human and are a mixture of altruism and selfishness. Except for psychopaths who only help themselves. Not that I am suggesting Col is a self centred psychopath; that is the extreme end of obsession with self.

With the exception of Col Rouge, many of us need support from the government at some point in our lives. Be it Family payments, sickness, unemployment benefits or pensions.

With the exception of Col Rouge, we need infrastructure such as roads, rail, hospitals, schools, utilities and so on Either from direct government control or regulation that provides these services.


Like Col Rouge, it is very easy to blame those who hold the least power in our society – such as low level workers and those on welfare.

However, Minister Vaile said himself:

"It's very easy to make outrageous claims about security and fraud crackdown, but [we have] only 1 to 2 per cent welfare fraud - lower than credit card fraud. It's beyond [the Government's] return on investment to avoid it," Vaile says.”

From: http://www.smh.com.au/news/technology/public-security-v-privacy/2006/05/17/1147545390480.html

Or one can look for evidence of tax fraud compared to welfare fraud, why is there less effort put into eliminating tax fraud?:

From: http://www.alp.org.au/media/0506/mshspa310.php

“376 cases from the ATO totalling $42,552,008 in reported cost of fraud; and
• 26,188 cases from Centrelink totalling $41,910,587 in reported cost of fraud.

We have $282m funnelled into catching welfare cheats, but only $81m on catching tax cheats, even though the tax avoidance measures provide a much greater return.

According to the 2006/07 Budget Papers:

• Each new dollar spent by the Australian Tax Office on tax avoidance will return $7.53 in increased revenue.
o ($81.6m budgeted for gross savings of $615m on ‘High Wealth Individuals Taskforce’ – see pg 32 of Budget Paper No.2 06-07)

• Each new dollar spent by the Department of Human services on welfare fraud will return $1.94 in increased revenue.
o ($282.3m budgeted for gross savings of $548.3m on ‘Fraud and Compliance Measures’ – see pg 283 of Budget Paper No.2 06-07)”

Negative Gearing. Cause and effect. –ve Gearing is nothing more than a scam on the tax system. It enables people to purchase homes purely for profit and results in price increases, this forces up rents and also squeezes out the home buyer who cannot afford to compete with property investors.

I had the opportunity to offset my mortgage in this manner. I declined - my ethics alarm sounded. It may be legal but it is wrong. It is simply a means to offset losses in one area against income from another to reduce tax. For this reason some countries limit amount that can be claimed as a loss or disallow property depreciation.

Andrew Murray put the case against –ve Gearing far more eloquently than I:

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=767

Low Incomes: logic simply states that the more money a consumer has available to spend on commodities the more profitable the market. I certainly restrict my purchases according to income and need. I am hardly unique in this. Also low incomes further restrict people from purchasing their own homes – hardly a positive for the economy.

The economy continues to serve the high end of town – any complaint against this is seen as some kind of communist plot – absurd as it is anachronistic. Or simply jealously on the part of the complainant. It is not jealously to want a roof over one's head, food on the table, clothes on one's back, schooling for one's children - is it in fact a desire for a reasonable standard of living.

Robert thank you – my view, unlike Tristan, I do not seek to impose my “balance” upon you. You are free to find and follow your own “balance” for yourself.

GT eloquently put.

Tao “self-reliance” is part of the process of developing into a complete person and individual.
An antithesis is co-dependence. Co-dependence is a recognised mental disease. I suggest you would do better to acquire some level of self-reliance than spending your time knocking it in other people.

Scout three paragraphs starting with “With the exception of Col Rouge”

Now, what does that say about your strategy, attitudes and values?

Isolate me from everyone else, engender the “pack” mentality against one person?

I would like to see where I have ever suggested we “blame those who hold the least power in our society”.

Whilst you’re at it, you can also point out where I have ever suggested people would be better off without altruistic values.

I would point out the whole idea of altruism and compassion are values which are uniquely human. They do not exist in lower animals and they certainly cannot be adopted by government.

I would further remind you that “government” is their to serve the people, it is not, as Tristan would have it, there to enslave them to a regime of “punitive taxation to deprive them of the benefit of their individual success”.

As for your dissertation on negative gearing. Complete and utter prejudice and bunkum.
Wedge politics at its worst.

Rouse the dogs of jealously and envy in the “have not’s” (without the wit or commitment to buy property) against those who have forgone immediate indulgence and gratification to save for their own future through negative geared investment.

Again it has nothing to do with fraud, be it domestic or corporate.

That is just another “wedge” of dissent and division which any cheap skate politician can pick up and chant to justify their lack of real policy (as we see every day from the federal opposition).

Scout, I think you need to look at this topic in terms of degrees.
Nobody questions that people can get into trouble and that society
should assist them to get their lives back on track. You have clearly done your bit over the years. Once we hit 50, yup its harder to find another job.

The bone that I have to pick is with young ones who think that the world owes them a living. They demand all sorts of things, yet upon
investigation, its often clear that they have never done anything
to help themselves and have no intention of doing so.

You might have heard that the economy in WA is booming. Huge salaries are being offered in the mining industry, in the North
West of WA. Yet when a whole lot of Perth unemployed were questioned if they would take a job there, all bar one said no.
They were not prepared to leave their friends and family to earn
1500$ plus a week, even fly in fly out.

I'm sorry but I think that these kids are getting life far too easy.
If they are not even remotely prepared to get off their little arses to help themselves, why should hard working taxpayers get out of bed every morning to provide for them?

Nice try Col

In your earlier posts your concept of “self-reliance” was that of relying completely on our own resources, as opposed to those people who know that “the state will look after our every need” - by which, obviously, you meant material needs. By this we can also infer that you consider that you, being a “self-reliant” person, do not rely on the state, or anyone, to look after your every need.

Obviously, there is no-one who is completely self-reliant when it comes to meeting their material needs – unless of course you are some Kalahari Bushman, and even they hunt in groups, and rely on information and skills passed down to them over generations.

So then you try to change (your own) meaning of self-reliance to “part of the process of developing into a complete person and individual”; which you imply is a psychological process that is removed from all external social and material influences.

And what does co-dependence have to do with anything? Co-dependency is an emotional dependency on caring or supporting other people. You seem to imply that those who, naturally and inevitably depend on others, and significantly, recognize that dependence (or inter-dependence), are mentally diseased.

All of this mental gymnastics appears to be designed to paper over the truth which is that you – the self-reliant one- actually rely on the work of others to meet your every material need.

When you actually recognize and acknowledge this fact, you may find that you are indeed well on the way to “developing into a complete person and individual”