Comments on: Voter Conflict of Interest

By: Brendan Halfweeg

Brendan Halfweeg — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 08:21:33 +0000

Nick,

Do you have health insurance? Do you, or would you, send you children to private school? Do you rely on the state for funding your retirement? The wealthier you are, the less direct interaction you have with the state for many things.

I don’t doubt that going down the path of the welfare state was wrong, and that Australia would be richer and more free if we hadn’t, but we can’t undo the past. People have come to rely on the state for many services, and only when they have the wealth to opt out of the welfare state will they act to minimimise the state in other ways.

By: nick gray

nick gray — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 04:52:09 +0000

Mark-
True, but irrelevant. All governments expand. Even Thatcher’s government ended up bigger, despite privatisation.
Brendan’s comments about the rich not falling for pork-barrelling is not provable. We are, in fact, immensely rich compared to 100 years ago, and the pork is still being believed, after all! Any change would be too long-term for us now.

By: Mark Hill

Mark Hill — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 09:20:07 +0000

Come off it pommy, Howard bullied the RBA too.

By: Brendan Halfweeg

Brendan Halfweeg — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 08:18:29 +0000

The nanny state is primarily what motivated me to investigate libertarian ideals. If we can fight stupid laws and fight for civil liberties for all, while at the same time promoting liberalisation of the economy, then life will get better.

The state consumes 30-40% of the GDP not because of regulation and nanny statism, but because of the provision of services and social security. 60% of the state’s spending is on social security, welfare and healthcare services.

Wealthy people don’t shop at public healthcare providers, nor do they educate their children at public schools. They’re also not satisfied to rely on the dole, so they get employment insurance, mortgage insurance, they provide for their own welfare. Lets get rich so that private providers of “public” services can out compete the state and thus whither away half.

Neither fighting the nanny state or promoting liberal economic policies require changes to the fundamental voting system in Australia. Beating ourselves up that people are selfish and will vote themselves pork is counter-productive. Let’s get them so rich that the pork the state has to sell looks like second class offcuts.

By: pommygranate

pommygranate — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 06:13:01 +0000

Shem – the State is indeed trying to watch over our behaviour more and more – fingerprinting, CCTV and biometric identity cards for starters. Yes – tariffs have come down and industry privatised – great news for all. But the trend is for more interference (e.g. Swan’s bullying of the RBA), more nannying (pokie bans, ciggy bans, binge drinking bans, junk food bans etc etc), less personal responsibility (did you see the demands for those who leave employment of their own accord to still be entitled to the Newstart Allowance !!), and more regulation.

By: Shem Bennett

Shem Bennett — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 06:08:18 +0000

Nicholas- a government can either regulate or tax.

A high taxing (ie big) government can be a low regulating government. A high regulating government can be low tax.

By: nicholas gray

nicholas gray — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 03:48:17 +0000

Shem, how can there be less regulation, and we have a bigger state? And are you aware that the Scandinavian countries are moving away from the Scandinavian direction- Sweden is trying to reform its’ welfare system, because it’s getting too cumbersome?
The world not only could be better, it should be! Who first said, “Plenty of philosophers have tried to describe the world. The point, however, is to change it!” (He has a grave in London)

By: Shem Bennett

Shem Bennett — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 01:56:40 +0000

Huh? what evidence exists for this? The State is getting bigger in every country you care to name – and the rich ones are no exception.

Kind of, yet not. It seems to me more like the state is trying to watch over more of our behaviour and engineer it- yet is allowing us to do more. Tariffs have been removed a lot of things have been privatised, there’s a lot of stupid old laws regarding sex and race that have been abolished- marijuana and gay marriage are likely to be legal in my life time. Overall I’d say people have more rights now and there is less regulation- despite a bigger state. If anything I see the world heading more towards a Scandinavian direction. It could be worse than that (could be better, too).

By: pommygranate

pommygranate — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 22:28:09 +0000

Our wealth will make the state irrelevent…Once this tipping point is reached, the state will naturally recede.

Huh? what evidence exists for this? The State is getting bigger in every country you care to name – and the rich ones are no exception.

By: Brendan Halfweeg

Brendan Halfweeg — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 11:49:52 +0000

Of course we don’t Fleeced, but denying our opponents the vote is not the way forward either. Even given the status quo of big government, we are getting richer, if at a slower rate than we potentially could. If we steadily get richer, government steadily becomes less of an issue for us. We send our children to private schools. We buy private health insurance. We employ private security services. We drive on private roads and live in private estates.

At some point enough citizens will be rich enough such that the state will be struggling to come up with consumers who will be willing to use their services, even if a vast majorit think that the state has a role to play in providing them.

Our wealth will make the state irrelevent, and promoting policy that encourages wealth creation is much easier than trying to convince the electorate to vote for freedom. Once this tipping point is reached, the state will naturally recede. We should promote policies that

1. maximise growth
2. minimise state interference in civil liberties
3. minimise damage of the welfare state

All this can be done in the current framework, even if libertopia is never acheived.