ForumGarden

Diuretic and I were discussing laws and discovered we may not agree on the proper role of government.



I think national government should be as small and inobtrusive as possible. National defense, international relations, issues coming from conflict between governments of the next lower level of government. That's about it. No generalized eucation, welfare, health care - none of that at the national level. I think of the national government as the security guard of a posh condominium. Protect the residents against the "undesirables" outside (that's far too general an analogy but I hope you get my meaning).



As levels of government get closer to home - state, county, then city, in my area - government can be a little more intrusive, because the decision-makers are closer to home and are more accessible.



I'll leave off here in anticipation of a great conversation.

The function of a government is to protect the rights of its citizens. Those rights are abridged by various forms of physical force. The role of government is to embody the means of placing the retaliatory use of force under objective control through the means of objectively defined laws. In order for a society to be free, its government must be strictly regulated, an impersonal robot, with the law as its only motive force.

The government must hold a monopoly on the legal use of retaliatory force, and its actions must be strictly defined. A private citizen may do anything that is not expressly prohibited by law. A governmental entity must do nothing other than that which is expressly permitted.

This is what is meant by "a society of laws and not of men."

The use of retaliatory force must not be left up to the individual; this is the government's proper function.

Good split, Acc

I agree with minimum federal government. I think it should exist to protect the country from outside attack as it's main objective and from internal attack between different communities. The only other purpose being to uphold the bill of rights and ammend it as needed to reflect the values of the culture. This aspect would be in federal control to make sure that the communities within are meeting the equality and fairness standards decided on by the people.

I've always thought that the Amish knew how to live. I mention it here because I believe that real communities exist on small levels only. I think all the communities should govern themselves with directly elected councils but subject to the guidelines of the Bill of Rights.

If I lived somewhere where everyone went out to barnraisers or gathered to rebuild a house after a fire etc. I'd be the first one there making coffee and plugging in my nailgun. Who would need insurance? A supportive community is infinitely more valuable than a good insurance company.

If I use a broad brush We expect our govt to care for the welfare of the people.

One of the roles of government is to help people get out of poverty, provide social housing if needed, education access to medical care.

The welfare state came roaring in after ww2 becuse people were not prepared to go back to the way things had been. Being dependent on charity and the means tested system that was in place before was just not on. People were just not going to put up with it any more-actually it was he soldiers still abroad whose votes swung things and kicked out Churchill

Access to medical care regardless of wealth-the basic principle is that at the point of use it is free and accessible to all. In reality it is not free since we all pay for it through our taxes. But no one is refused treatment because they can't pay for it. Even visiting americans. Most here would consider it obscene that some should get better treatment because they can afford it and others die or suffer because they can't. Our system has it's problems but most in the UK do not want to see a private medical sector foisted on us and hold dearly to the basic concept. Watch the next election results TB is losing core labour support with some of his attempted reforms. It's a key area that gets govts thrown out of office.

Education is a right it is the role of govt to ensure all children have equal opportunity. (Actually in Scotland we have a centuries old tradition of free education for all at least up to secondary level. Scotland and Ebgland have different educatiob systems) ) We do have a private schooling sector not as good as the hype but gets good results because they throw out the riff raff.

Help for areas suffering from economic change beyond their control by encouraging new industry-help with retraining etc.

It's probably one of the biggest differences between the US and Europe. Many americans can't seem to grasp that people might actually prefer to have a welfare state. I get the impression they think it is imposed rather than voted for. Which is a bit bizarre since it implies we have no say in what govt actually does and are ruled oiver rather than elect the rulers. (leaving to one side the obvious flaws in that comment)

The term welfare state has different connotations in different countries. I would suggest an awareness of that might be useful.

http://www2.rgu.ac.uk/publicpolicy/intr ... wstate.htm

The idea of the "welfare state" means different things in different countries.

* An ideal model. The "welfare state" usually refers to an ideal model of provision, where the state accepts responsibility for the provision of comprehensive and universal welfare for its citizens.

* State welfare. Some commentators use it to mean "welfare provided by the state". This is the main use in the USA.

* Social protection. In many "welfare states", social protection is not delivered by the state at all, but by a combination of independent, voluntary and government services. These countries are still usually thought of as "welfare states".

I don't agree that it's incumbent upon the government to feed and clothe people. It's an involuntary tax - why should I pay for someone else's sloth? Where do you think the money for such programs comes from? This is what charities are for - people contribute to them voluntarily, and those organizations should provide these functions. My tax dollars should not go to handouts to people who just don't want to exert themselves and actually earn a living.

koan wrote:

I've always thought that the Amish knew how to live. I mention it here because I believe that real communities exist on small levels only. I think all the communities should govern themselves with directly elected councils but subject to the guidelines of the Bill of Rights.


I think Open Mind agrees with you about that. He posted his opinion some time ago. Maybe I can find it, or maybe he'll be kind enough to repeat it.

Erinna1112 wrote: The function of a government is to protect the rights of its citizens. Those rights are abridged by various forms of physical force. The role of government is to embody the means of placing the retaliatory use of force under objective control through the means of objectively defined laws. In order for a society to be free, its government must be strictly regulated, an impersonal robot, with the law as its only motive force.



The government must hold a monopoly on the legal use of retaliatory force, and its actions must be strictly defined. A private citizen may do anything that is not expressly prohibited by law. A governmental entity must do nothing other than that which is expressly permitted.



This is what is meant by "a society of laws and not of men."



The use of retaliatory force must not be left up to the individual; this is the government's proper function.national or local?

gmc wrote: If I use a broad brush We expect our govt to care for the welfare of the people.



One of the roles of government is to help people get out of poverty, provide social housing if needed, education access to medical care.
Those are all functions of charity, family, and community, imo.



gmc wrote: The welfare state came roaring in after ww2 becuse people were not prepared to go back to the way things had been. Being dependent on charity and the means tested system that was in place before was just not on. People were just not going to put up with it any more-actually it was he soldiers still abroad whose votes swung things and kicked out Churchill



Access to medical care regardless of wealth-the basic principle is that at the point of use it is free and accessible to all. In reality it is not free since we all pay for it through our taxes. But no one is refused treatment because they can't pay for it. Even visiting americans. Most here would consider it obscene that some should get better treatment because they can afford it and others die or suffer because they can't. Our system has it's problems but most in the UK do not want to see a private medical sector foisted on us and hold dearly to the basic concept. Watch the next election results TB is losing core labour support with some of his attempted reforms. It's a key area that gets govts thrown out of office.'Foisted' isn't a word I would use in this case, but you already knew that.

What about the rich? Are they prohibited from finding better care than the taxpayers provide?



gmc wrote: Education is a right it is the role of govt to ensure all children have equal opportunity. (Actually in Scotland we have a centuries old tradition of free education for all at least up to secondary level. Scotland and Ebgland have different educatiob systems) ) We do have a private schooling sector not as good as the hype but gets good results because they throw out the riff raff.I agree that educated children benefit the whole society, so public education is a good idea. The system we have now, however, rewards mediocrity, both in the students and the teachers. I would rather see a more competitive system such as they have in other countries. The money is assigned to the child, not the school, so parents can send the kid to better schools. Better schools get more kids, thus more money.



gmc wrote: Help for areas suffering from economic change beyond their control by encouraging new industry-help with retraining etc.Many churches, charities, and small business owners handle this problem. Government need not apply.



Government interference in matters of charity discourage people from giving to charity. After all, they already gave, didn't they? If people knew government would not bail the poor out, I'm convinced they would be quicker to help their fellow man. That could only improve society.

Diuretic wrote: My tax dollars shouldn't go to corporate welfare, but they do. Nothing we can do about it but vote for a party that won't do what we don't like. If some other party gets into government and either uses taxes for community welfare or uses taxes for corporate welfare then all we can do is take note and record our disapproval at the ballot box.
Hear! Hear!

Diuretic wrote: My tax dollars shouldn't go to corporate welfare, but they do. Nothing we can do about it but vote for a party that won't do what we don't like. If some other party gets into government and either uses taxes for community welfare or uses taxes for corporate welfare then all we can do is take note and record our disapproval at the ballot box.
I agree. Which is why I vote my principles at every election there is. I'm of the opinion that if you don't vote, you don't get to bitch about the results.

Erinna1112 wrote: I don't agree that it's incumbent upon the government to feed and clothe people. It's an involuntary tax - why should I pay for someone else's sloth? Where do you think the money for such programs comes from? This is what charities are for - people contribute to them voluntarily, and those organizations should provide these functions. My tax dollars should not go to handouts to people who just don't want to exert themselves and actually earn a living.


Couldn't agree with you more and that is not what the welfare state is intended to do. If you become unemployed there are benefits there to stop you starving that's about it. The taxes are not just for others but also for you should you need that kind of help.

If you became ill long term how long would it be before you lost your home cos you can't pay the mortgage and find yourself wholly on your uppers. What would you prefer then-the charity of others or a structure in place to help you back on your feet? Would you rather be one of the impoverished deserving poor or someone who needs help to recover.

If you are ill why should a hospital turn you away becaue you can't pay the doctor

If you become ill the treatment if free at the point of use but if you lose your job through being unable to work and can't pay your mortgage then you will have to sell the house and the council has a legal obligation to house the homeless and benefits will kick in once all the money is gone so at least you won't starve to death but it's hardly going to keep you in the life of reilly.

There is always a small core of people who are long term unemployed who perefer things that way but they get little sympathy and the hostility towards layabouts is greatest amongst ordinary people who resent them bitterly-because they are depriving those in greater need.

On the other hand if youn live in an area where there are no jobs to be had then moving to another where there are when you have no money is not as easy as you think. Try getting a job with no permanent address in that area, especially an area where there is no or little unemployment, or if you are actually homeless even getting cleaned up for an interview is difficult..

I was unemployed for over two years in the late 70's, I've paid back any benefits i received by the bucketful

Not so long after I was working in London and a senior manager in the place I was working refused a job to a fellow scot-the reason- he had been unemployed for six months so couldn't have been trying very hard. This about a man who was living spending his last funds on B & b to try and get a job anywhere leaving his family to do so. The problem was in London if you were unemployed it really was because you didn't want to work not because there were no jobs and he couldn't understand what the reality of the situation in other parts of the country. After I calmed down he listened to what i had to say and ealisd i had a point and took the guy on.

Posted by accountable

Quote:

[QUOTE]Originally Posted by gmc

If I use a broad brush We expect our govt to care for the welfare of the people.

One of the roles of government is to help people get out of poverty, provide social housing if needed, education access to medical care.




Those are all functions of charity, family, and community, imo.


Forcing someone to go cap in hand begging for help if through no fault of their own they are destitute is degrading.

If the commumity decide some of their taxes should go to help people in dire straits but also be used to pool resources and provide the basics that people are entitled to such as education and health care why do you have a problem with it.

Education and health care are not things to be provided by a patronising ruling elite to make them feel better but a right that we demand govt provide and administer. We pay for it it is not charity.

I would suggest (tongue heavily in cheek of course) you have neem brainwashed in to believing that you should not make demands of your government. Just pay your taxes and not expect too much in return.

posted by accountable

Foisted' isn't a word I would use in this case, but you already knew that.

What about the rich? Are they prohibited from finding better care than the taxpayers provide?


Yes anyone can. Whether it is actually better care is rather a moot point. At least in the NHS you know the doctors are properly qualified and if something goes wrong expert help is at hand. There is a problem with the NHS being expected to sort out the nightmares caused by private cosmetic surgery and the like going wrong. Most of the proivate schemes have exclusions in the event of any long term debilitating illness (for that read costly) so you are back on the NHS anyway.

Take long term care for instance, if the money runs out you are back on the council and those whose parents have property they expected to inherit suddenly think it unfair that this is taken to pay for care of their elderly relatives. Suddenly those who didn't thnk it right their taxes be taken to pay for the care of others are faced with the reality of the alternative and are all in favour of free care for everyone.

Apart from that private hospitals are run for profit not to provide medical care to those that need it. What kind of idiot wants a system where a private company with shareholders is calling the tune and has control of the provision medical services. It's a fundamental principle of the NHS that care is provided when it is needed regardless of ability of the recipient to pay. Try imagining yourself with no money and needing medical care, which do you prefer, charity or free medical care because you are part of a society that thinks that is the way it should be and you have paid and will pay through your taxes so the free care is there if you need it.

Logically if someone wants to opt out of the NHS they should also be expected to pay should they use any of the emergency services, then it would be fair.

It's unfair that somone should be able to jump waiting lists just because they can afford to pay for it. I have one relative that refused to go privately for a heart bypass operation even though he could have paid for it easily. To him it was a matter of principle, he didn't see why wealth should get priority over need.

posted by accountable

Many churches, charities, and small business owners handle this problem. Government need not apply.

Government interference in matters of charity discourage people from giving to charity. After all, they already gave, didn't they? If people knew government would not bail the poor out, I'm convinced they would be quicker to help their fellow man. That could only improve society.


No offence but the church should be keep out of politics and not try and tell people how they should live.

In the UK heath and education are major political issues.

I agree that educated children benefit the whole society, so public education is a good idea. The system we have now, however, rewards mediocrity, both in the students and the teachers. I would rather see a more competitive system such as they have in other countries. The money is assigned to the child, not the school, so parents can send the kid to better schools. Better schools get more kids, thus more money.


What should education set out to achieve? now there is a whole other thread.

It's a given IMO if you have a well educated population society and the economy benefit as a whole. If you look at most of the innovation of the last two hundred years and where most of the innovation came from it was countries that put a high value on education per se. not just as a means to an end. Countries where the ruling classes didn't want an educated populace because it made them stroppy and more likely to rebel lost out in the industrial revolution.

Why do you accept your kids (if you have any) are not entitled to a good education regardless of the monetary benifit your contributiuon to society is judged to be worth. Paris Hilton went to a good school, is she somehow more deserving than the daughter of say a taxi driver?

posted by diuretic

My tax dollars shouldn't go to corporate welfare, but they do. Nothing we can do about it but vote for a party that won't do what we don't like. If some other party gets into government and either uses taxes for community welfare or uses taxes for corporate welfare then all we can do is take note and record our disapproval at the ballot box.


We are just the same. If a party gets in that doesn't take care of what matters to the voters we take note and record our disapproval at the ballot box and kick the sods out.

We start out with different expectations of what we expect govt to do for us, those expectations are ignored at their peril. letting churches and corporations get control of education or anything else is a big mistake and you must be daft to allow

gmc wrote: If you became ill long term how long would it be before you lost your home cos you can't pay the mortgage and find yourself wholly on your uppers.Years. I'm quite proud of our money management - living well within our means and setting aside whatever we could. aside: I say 'we' but my beloved deserves far more credit than I.

gmc wrote: What would you prefer then-the charity of others or a structure in place to help you back on your feet? Would you rather be one of the impoverished deserving poor or someone who needs help to recover.I don't see the difference.



[...]



gmc wrote: Forcing someone to go cap in hand begging for help if through no fault of their own they are destitute is degrading. I find it far more degrading having to depend on a godfather (gov't) to forcibly extract money from my neighbors on my behalf.

In an effort to prevent those few (who have hit hard times through no fault of their own) from feeling degraded, we have sent the incorrect message to the deadbeats that they deserve to be taken care of by us, the taxpayers.



gmc wrote: If the commumity decide some of their taxes should go to help people in dire straits but also be used to pool resources and provide the basics that people are entitled to such as education and health care why do you have a problem with it.Because I'm of the minority, silly! :wah:



gmc wrote: Education and health care are not things to be provided by a patronising ruling elite to make them feel better but a right that we demand govt provide and administer. We pay for it it is not charity.I've addressed education. Clearly we are on different pages concerning healthcare.



gmc wrote: I would suggest (tongue heavily in cheek of course) you have neem brainwashed in to believing that you should not make demands of your government. Just pay your taxes and not expect too much in return. I don't want such demands made of my government, and I don't want my wages to pay such demands. I've been brainwashed into believing I should accomplish what I can by my own sweat and talent, and expect the same of my fellow man.



gmc wrote: Yes anyone can [pay for their own healthcare]. Whether it is actually better care is rather a moot point. At least in the NHS you know the doctors are properly qualified and if something goes wrong expert help is at hand. There is a problem with the NHS being expected to sort out the nightmares caused by private cosmetic surgery and the like going wrong. Most of the proivate schemes have exclusions in the event of any long term debilitating illness (for that read costly) so you are back on the NHS anyway.In the NHS you know the doctors are minimally qualified to meet the NHS standard. Is there incentive for them to do more? Does the doctor that barely meets the standard make the same as the one who exceeds it by a wide margin? If so, then the best doctors have incentive to flee that system in favor of the private hospitals; leaving the mediocre to take care of you.



gmc wrote: Take long term care for instance, if the money runs out you are back on the council and those whose parents have property they expected to inherit suddenly think it unfair that this is taken to pay for care of their elderly relatives. Suddenly those who didn't thnk it right their taxes be taken to pay for the care of others are faced with the reality of the alternative and are all in favour of free care for everyone.



Apart from that private hospitals are run for profit not to provide medical care to those that need it. What kind of idiot wants a system where a private company with shareholders is calling the tune and has control of the provision medical services. It's a fundamental principle of the NHS that care is provided when it is needed regardless of ability of the recipient to pay. Try imagining yourself with no money and needing medical care, which do you prefer, charity or free medical care because you are part of a society that thinks that is the way it should be and you have paid and will pay through your taxes so the free care is there if you need it.



Logically if someone wants to opt out of the NHS they should also be expected to pay should they use any of the emergency services, then it would be fair. Our system requires emergency and life-saving care to those that need it. Those who can pay are billed later. Those who can't pay ... can't pay. Our system seems more fair, to me.



gmc wrote: It's unfair that somone should be able to jump waiting lists just because they can afford to pay for it. I have one relative that refused to go privately for a heart bypass operation even though he could have paid for it easily. To him it was a matter of principle, he didn't see why wealth should get priority over need.Life's unfair. Life is even cruel sometimes.



gmc wrote: No offence but the church should be keep out of politics and not try and tell people how they should live.



In the UK heath and education are major political issues.I agree with the first statement. While they may be issues in politics here, they are not political issues, they are humanitarian issues. I'd rather keep politics clear and wide of humanitarian issues.

posted by accountable

Life's unfair. Life is even cruel sometimes


Very true but you don't have to accept social injustice. The welfare state came in to massive popular support to address a whole lot opf social issues. Having fought two world wars people were just not going to accept business as usual and going back to the way things were. Govt was going to have to do something for its people or else.

posted by accountable

I agree with the first statement. While they may be issues in politics here, they are not political issues, they are humanitarian issues. I'd rather keep politics clear and wide of humanitarian issues.


It's an area where agreeing to disagree is I think the only option. Social issues imo are political issues.

humanitarian

adj 1: marked by humanistic values and devotion to human welfare; "a humane physician"; "released the prisoner for humanitarian reasons"; "respect and humanistic regard for all members of our species" [syn: human-centered, human-centred, humanist, humanistic] 2: of or relating to or characteristic of humanitarianism; "humanitarian aid" n : someone devoted to the promotion of human welfare and to social reforms [syn: do-gooder, improver]




Tough **** you're on your own you poor uneducated person you is not terribly humane. Same problem different solutions.

posted by accountable

I don't want such demands made of my government, and I don't want my wages to pay such demands. I've been brainwashed into believing I should accomplish what I can by my own sweat and talent, and expect the same of my fellow man.


The latter part is a sentiment most would agree with but if someone is starting out from a disadvantaged position through an accident of birth then helping them on their way surely helps everybody. Tough **** you're on your own you poor, ill, uneducated person is hardly humanitarian. Perhaps you have also been brainwashed in to believing you are not entitled to make demands but only to kiss the flag, not argue too much believe what you are told and thank god you are american (tongue very firmly in cheek)

posted by accountable

I find it far more degrading having to depend on a godfather (gov't) to forcibly extract money from my neighbors on my behalf.

In an effort to prevent those few (who have hit hard times through no fault of their own) from feeling degraded, we have sent the incorrect message to the deadbeats that they deserve to be taken care of by us, the taxpayers.


Godfather implies that they are unelected. I kind of get the impresssion that many americans feel they have little or no say in what government actually does for them or don't consider they are in a position to make demands of it. Why do you think people on hard times are automatically deadbeats? We obviously have those who play the system, generally speaking they get little sympathy, you usiually find those most hostile to their behaviour are their neighbours who see them as depriving those in genuine need. We have a problem here with travelling people, they never set up near the council estates just the nioce law abiding middle class areas.

posted by accountable

In the NHS you know the doctors are minimally qualified to meet the NHS standard. Is there incentive for them to do more? Does the doctor that barely meets the standard make the same as the one who exceeds it by a wide margin? If so, then the best doctors have incentive to flee that system in favor of the private hospitals; leaving the mediocre to take care of you.




What makes you say minimally qualified? They are hardly second rate doctors. Many consultants also do private work which is actually a bone of contention if a NHS patient has to wait but if they go privately the same doctor carries out the operation. That is not something that goes down well. If something goes wrong post surgery then they are usually rushed to an NHS hospital. If it's a doctor or surgery that is wholly private then you are taking a big risk as to how good the doctor actually is, often they are the greedy or the incompetent, particulary with cosmetic surgery there are a lot of nightmares out there. If you want to be cutting edge you work in the NHS teaching hospitals where all the research is going on. very few here would actually want a private medical system like you have in the states, what we have where the basic aim is to provide medical care is too good to lose. Even those who decry it the most still expect it to be there if they need it. If given a choice of opting out altogether and having to pay for emergency treatment should they call on it they would be the first to cry foul.

posted by accountable



Quote:

Originally Posted by gmc

If you became ill long term how long would it be before you lost your home cos you can't pay the mortgage and find yourself wholly on your uppers.

Years. I'm quite proud of our money management - living well within our means and setting aside whatever we could. aside: I say 'we' but my beloved deserves far more credit than I.




Here most people are within three months of not being able to meet mortgage payments. Don't answer-cos it's none of my business- but how long did it take you to get to that point and what if something had happened in the early years before you got there?

posted by accountable

Quote:

Originally Posted by gmc

What would you prefer then-the charity of others or a structure in place to help you back on your feet? Would you rather be one of the impoverished deserving poor or someone who needs help to recover.

I don't see the difference.


One is a hand out given by the wealthy to those they think deserve it more to salve their coscience than anything else The other is a structure to help you out as someone of value in society that all are entitled to whether they are judged deserving or not.

How many in society, for instance, will help the children of a single parent family but be unable to help themselves from letting them know they are charity cases? Most social reformers in the past start out wanting to elminate the need for charity in the first place and give dignity to those with no choice in the matter.

I'm cool with us agreeing to disagree. There are some points where your preconceptions have fogged your reading glasses, though:



gmc wrote: Tough **** you're on your own you poor uneducated person you is not terribly humane. Same problem different solutions.
You seem to think I'm against public education. In this same thread I wrote:

Accountable wrote: I agree that educated children benefit the whole society, so public education is a good idea. The system we have now, however, rewards mediocrity, both in the students and the teachers. I would rather see a more competitive system such as they have in other countries. The money is assigned to the child, not the school, so parents can send the kid to better schools. Better schools get more kids, thus more money.


gmc wrote: Godfather implies that they are unelected.That's your own inferrence. My implication was that when a fellow human is down and out, it is human nature to help. This help should be voluntary, thus, charity. When the gov't takes our money that's to be used for roads, schools, and/or defense, and uses it to grant charity, it undermines our society's propensity to give. I've tried explaining it before so I won't waste my energy.



gmc wrote: Why do you think people on hard times are automatically deadbeats?Never said it. Never implied it.



gmc wrote: [What makes you say minimally qualified?My apologies, it reads harsher than I meant it. Any standard, no matter how high, is still the minimum acceptable criterion. Huge bureaucracies such as governments tend to pay everyone the same, with little or no incentive for exemplary performance. The best of even a very good lot wants recognition for being best.



gmc wrote: Here most people are within three months of not being able to meet mortgage payments.Here as well. I think it's shameful that people don't have the self discipline to wait until they can truly afford what they want. It's so short-sighted.

posted by accountable

That's your own inferrence. My implication was that when a fellow human is down and out, it is human nature to help. This help should be voluntary, thus, charity. When the gov't takes our money that's to be used for roads, schools, and/or defense, and uses it to grant charity, it undermines our society's propensity to give. I've tried explaining it before so I won't waste my energy.


It's one area we disagree on . I don't think it should just he left to charity-although that still has an important role. Also people are often down and out due to circumstances beyond their control.

If an area needs ecomnomic regeneration that takes govt intervention to do it. Thje EEC has had extensive regional development programmes that do make a difference. I happen to live in an area that has a great deal from such a programme without such aid the regional economy might eventually have recovered but nothing like the same time scale-it's a region where mining and steel manufacture were the roinciple employers. ( a fact that many opponents of eec membership like to forget about or don't grasp the significance of) Now we have a booming ecomomy and the aid is starting to go to eastern europe instead. If eastern european economies start growing we have more markets for our exports one feeds off the othert it's enlightened self interest not charity.

I don't actuallly know very much of what you do in the states, but areas like michigan (detroit) that are losing jobs due to economic change and heavy industry moving out do the govt geve any help in regenerating the area or just keep out of it? In this country and most of europe the givt would be expected to get involved and help.

As to public education-we are probably on the same wavelength but I was referring to such cases as above where in some areas such as above govt will help fund retraining programmes to get people back on their feet.

posted by accountable

My apologies, it reads harsher than I meant it. Any standard, no matter how high, is still the minimum acceptable criterion. Huge bureaucracies such as governments tend to pay everyone the same, with little or no incentive for exemplary performance. The best of even a very good lot wants recognition for being best.


Not sure how to answer that. depends what you mean by recognition Hospital consultants are very highly paid-so are GP's but it's not all about money is it.

I think we use the same words with slightly different connotations-welfare state, to use my earlier example-means different things on each side of the atlantic. Public schools here are private ones sometimes it takes a mental flip to realise what you mean.

gmc wrote: If an area needs ecomnomic regeneration that takes govt intervention to do it. Thje EEC has had extensive regional development programmes that do make a difference. I happen to live in an area that has a great deal from such a programme without such aid the regional economy might eventually have recovered but nothing like the same time scale-it's a region where mining and steel manufacture were the roinciple employers. ( a fact that many opponents of eec membership like to forget about or don't grasp the significance of) Now we have a booming ecomomy and the aid is starting to go to eastern europe instead. If eastern european economies start growing we have more markets for our exports one feeds off the othert it's enlightened self interest not charity.Good for you! True, charity is not for regions or nations. It only works at the individual level.



Maybe due to physical size of the country, or more likely cultural paradigms, we don't do nationalized programs well. Our politicians like to point at problems and fiddle around at fixing them, but seem to balk at really fixing them, lest they run out of problems and become redundant. :p



What works far better here is local gov't offering tax breaks and other incentives to lure private enterprise into the area. For instance, San Antonio has become a mecca for financial corporations and customer service call centers - both need large numbers of unskilled to skilled employees. Also, Toyota is opening a new Tundra assembly plant here. Their business model requires that their suppliers also move into the area, for "just in time" inventory. So several other manufacturers are moving in and hiring. Thousands of entry-level to highly skilled jobs.



Similar problem, different solution, different governmental roles.

Our politicians like to point at problems and fiddle around at fixing them, but seem to balk at really fixing them, lest they run out of problems and become redundant.


Our politicians like to control hand-out programs because it empowers them and ensures their reelection. He who controls the purse strings....

posted by accountable

Good for you! True, charity is not for regions or nations. It only works at the individual level.

Maybe due to physical size of the country, or more likely cultural paradigms, we don't do nationalized programs well. Our politicians like to point at problems and fiddle around at fixing them, but seem to balk at really fixing them, lest they run out of problems and become redundant.


You tend to forget the size of things. The whole of the UK with 60 million people in it is smaller than texas. You should see out traffic jams!

Vastly different political attitudes and expectations as well-a lot more demanding of govt. That's maybe one of the main differences we expect govt to do things and judge and elect them accordingly. TB plans to privatise the NHS by the back door have generated a tremendous amount of hostility to new labour as have iraq and him being a smarmy git that seems to think he has a right to continue in power.

Was looking up san antonio on the internet out of curiosity to see of you still lived in log cabins and the like. Interesting contrast.

gmc wrote:

Was looking up san antonio on the internet out of curiosity to see of you still lived in log cabins and the like. Interesting contrast.adobe huts.