Oct 2015
7:31am, 16 Oct 2015
6,773 posts
|
Binks
OK for balance I'll post one of my right wing freedom loving websites. Need to restore equilibrium of posting a guardian link. This suggests that Sweden are rich due to a history of free market over the past 150 years. In fact before they enacted socialist policies they were the worlds 4th richest, now 14th. I find its often useful to look at the same place over time to try and eek out what works and what doesn't rather than compare a load of static snapshot correlations and say "this is the best one, do what they do now". You often don't know how they got there or where they are going. In the case of Sweden it seems to be back in the direction of more private enterprise. mises.org |
Oct 2015
8:19am, 16 Oct 2015
16,739 posts
|
DeeGee
Sweden being the country so keen on small government that the state monopoly liquor store is the largest wholesale purchaser of wine in the whole world?
|
|
Oct 2015
8:48am, 16 Oct 2015
6,774 posts
|
Binks
Ha ha I had no idea there was a monopoly on booze in Sweden! I just assumed it was heavily taxed for the great good. Am guessing it goes the way things usually do when you centralise personal responsibility to a central machine. Moonshining and corruption. The only winners are the bureaucrats and lawyers. |
|
Oct 2015
8:49am, 16 Oct 2015
6,775 posts
|
Binks
Yep. just-drinks.com |
Oct 2015
9:34am, 16 Oct 2015
6,933 posts
|
simbil
Dave lives in a small self-governed community village in the arctic circle. Every night through the long dark winter, he gets drunk. He's a good guy when sober but often he causes trouble when drunk and the community eventually gets pissed off with him. The community convince the local shop to sell Dave only limited amounts of booze. Dave doesn't like it and decides to make his own instead. The community confiscate his home brew believing action is justified as Dave cannot stop causing trouble for the wider community. Dave comes into some money and bribes the local shop to sell him more booze again. The community notice and so employ full time security to prevent Dave getting his booze from the shop or making it himself. It costs the community time and money to stop Dave often getting drunk. So, they could instead respect personal liberty and just let Dave do his thing and spend money to manage the problems caused by Dave. Or, they could spend money to take away some of Dave's liberty as he is being anti-social. Or something else, what does Mayor Binks do with Dave, if anything? |
|
Oct 2015
9:47am, 16 Oct 2015
6,776 posts
|
Binks
Mayor Binks would never exist. He would not take on a position where he was in political control over anyone. But he would certainly not place coercive limits on what Dave can do with his own body (and usually as a result of this what everyone else in the community can do with their own bodies). He would only consider coercion against Dave to protect against the actual damage that Dave does, not the "causes" of this in a minority report kinda way. If Dave persisted in damaging other peoples property and liberty then others would be justified in doing the same to Dave in self-protection. There is no perfect solution when conflict happens like this. However I can not believe the answer is a wholesale imposition of coercive measures against what people are allowed to put into their own bodies. |
Oct 2015
9:54am, 16 Oct 2015
8,048 posts
|
Chrisull
Well Norway was prohibitionist in the early part of the 20th century and its culture of alcohol being something a bit dirty and seedy continues to this day. The tutoring one - well what about talented kids who were talented and then tutored just in case?? I was a complete natural at primary school, tests to me were just like running races were to others (races which I inevitably came last in). One weekend, I was ill and my mother decided to test me, I put in a poor performance, she mismarked by mock paper (marking me down by another 10 marks which she had to go back and add on) and decided "I needed a private tutor" - made little difference, I was always a straight 85%-90% on any mocks and continued to be (never getting more than 90% which irked me, but not too much). I passed the 11 plus, but the tutoring (which continued) backfired, my mother got cancer and died when I was 14, my 3rd-4th year in secondary school, I then completely lost all motivation from then on, having been intensively schooled for so long, I no longer saw the point, just felt tired, worn out and in the 1980s any kind of grief counselling was non-existent. I didn't flunk my exams, coasted at O-level, A-level and degree putting in the minimum amount of work from then on. But to say "privately tutored" kids get found out - no they might already be good, but their parents are paranoid about them failing. And be warned about privately tutoring kids, doesn't always deliver what you think it might. Take a natural love for learning and rip the heart out of it? Be warned. |
|
Oct 2015
10:13am, 16 Oct 2015
16,740 posts
|
DeeGee
(BOAST mode on) My wife is a teacher graded Outstanding by Ofsted, qualified to offer German, History and English to A-Level. I am (still qualified as) a teacher grade Good by Ofsted, qualified to teach French, Geography and ICT to A-level and German to GCSE. Between us we have a decent command of seven foreign languages. Would it surprise you if I said, proud father notwithstanding, that our son is doing pretty well at school thank you very much? Believe it or not, they set them at primary now! (BOAST mode off) Now, surely, it is completely unfair on the other kids that our boy should have had such a massive advantage in academic life, both genetically and culturally, that he is able to academically outperform many children in the year above. Surely in order to address the crippling inequalities in society he should be removed from our care forthwith and bundled in with the family of the lowest-performing child for a bit, while their kid comes to stay with us to "even things up a bit". While he is with the other family, maybe he could also be subjected to a bland, breaded-and-fried diet so as to also remove the health advantages that the boy will enjoy in later life. |
Oct 2015
10:21am, 16 Oct 2015
219 posts
|
Shadowless Formless Legs
Yes he should. It's totally unfair. All children should be treated equally badly. |
|
Oct 2015
11:05am, 16 Oct 2015
6,934 posts
|
simbil
Binks, thanks for the explanation, interesting to see how you think and I appreciate a principled view point. I largely disagree though and I think I'd prefer that individuals aren't responsible for self-protection and dealing with a drunk Dave. Little old lady springs to mind as someone who might struggle there. When it is obvious that something often causes a problem, I've got no problem in some proportionate action. In this case it is obvious that Dave has a problem with drink and only Dave is suffering limitations, happy drunks are allowed to continue buying as much booze as they like. However, once a certain number of people start behaving like Dave, it becomes more practical to limit everyone - it stops the Daves from getting something that is bad and it doesn't bother everyone else too much as they don't binge. I think this compromise for practicality is probably where we see it most differently - I'm happy for liberties to be restricted in proportion with the prevalence and severity of the problems they can be clearly shown to cause. |
Useful Links
FE accepts no responsibility for external links. Or anything, really.Related Threads
-
Fantasy General Election
Jul 2024
-
EU Referendum - In or Out? Vote here
Aug 2018
-
March to Parliament Against Brexit - Sat 2nd July
Jun 2016
-
EU Referendum
Feb 2016
-
Ads on Fetch - anyone else getting Leave and Remain?!
Feb 2017
-
The Environment Thread :-)
Jan 2025
-
Economics
Aug 2023
-
Dear Scottish Fetchies
Jan 2023
-
Any economists out there - question
Oct 2022
-
Power and exploitation - please check my sanity
Oct 2018
