|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Rusty Shackleford
Joined: 08 May 2008
|
 Posted: Mon Dec 07, 2009 4:13 pm Post subject: Government Hypocrisy |
 |
|
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10614159&ref=rss
Just a short article from small town NZ that probably won't interest most of you. It does, however, highlight the hypocrisy endemic in many govt institutions.
| Quote: |
The clean-up of a badly polluted Wellington stream has created a second clean-up operation - at the landfill where the stream's toxic sludge was dumped.
Greater Wellington Regional Council officials have apologised to Wainuiomata residents after the highly toxic sludge from Lower Hutt's Waiwhetu Stream was accidentally dumped at a landfill in their suburb.
The sludge is contaminated with twice the safe level of lead.
Officials told the Dominion Post they had not realised the material was high in lead and the dumping was the result of a mix-up.
They deny there was any "cover-up" over the dumping and now face the task of removing 15 truckloads of material from the Waiu St site.
Local MP Trevor Mallard described the council's actions as "almost unbelievable". "The idea the council could ... not understand that it was polluted when they dump it beggars belief," he said.
Residents were assured the material was not contaminated, at a public meeting on November 27.
However, after concerns were raised, sampling revealed lead levels of 400 parts per million - twice the safe limit, and high enough to harm the environment.
Officials could not be sure there was no risk to human health, said council chief executive David Benham said.
"So we are taking a precautionary approach and removing the material."
It will be taken to the Hutt Valley's Silverstream landfill which is set up to take contaminated waste.
A $6.5 million project to clean up the stream - considered one of New Zealand's most polluted waterways - began in July.
An Environment Ministry spokeswoman said the ministry could not prosecute councils. |
If a private entity did this the prosecutions and inquiries would be flying thick and fast. Unless, of course, the right officials could be bribed before it hit the news. It's unlikely anyone will even lose there job over this. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 07, 2009 9:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| While I agree this is an example of a problem that occurs in government, I think it's important to remember something. Like Rusty says, if a private entity did this, the government would probably call them to task. When government does something like this, it's the job of voters to call them to task. No group can be expected to be self-policing, it's just unrealistic. When governmental agencies get away with things like this, it's because of indifference in the voting base. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rusty Shackleford
Joined: 08 May 2008
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 07, 2009 9:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| It's easier just to have a limited govt thus preventing important and dangerous tasks from ever falling into the hands of corrupt, incompetent and in this case non-culpable bureaucrats and politicians. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 07, 2009 9:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Rusty Shackleford wrote: |
| It's easier just to have a limited govt thus preventing important and dangerous tasks from ever falling into the hands of corrupt, incompetent and in this case non-culpable bureaucrats and politicians. |
And then large corporations could just run threadbare over the gov't. I agree with you that the gov't's monopoly on power is disconcerting (and Fox is remiss to mention this), but isn't Fox basically right?
I guess I just grow weary of this debate on this board. Like anything else, a balance of power is necessary. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 08, 2009 8:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| Rusty Shackleford wrote: |
| It's easier just to have a limited govt thus preventing important and dangerous tasks from ever falling into the hands of corrupt, incompetent and in this case non-culpable bureaucrats and politicians. |
And then large corporations could just run threadbare [? What?] over the gov't. I agree with you that the gov't's monopoly on power is disconcerting (and Fox is remiss to mention this), but isn't Fox basically right?
I guess I just grow weary of this debate on this board. Like anything else, a balance of power is necessary. |
No. Fox is basically wrong and Rusty got it right.
The only legitimate role of government is to protect people and their property from foreign attackers and criminals. All other needs and services should be provided in the private sector. Only then can Government remain neutral and provide the reqired unbiased "balance of power" to resove differences and prosecute criminals.
When governments become the criminals, they almost never prosecute themselves or their own.
Likewise, the more powerful and corrupt a government becomes, the more they set up systems and controls to prevent themselves from being voted out of power, if they allow elections at all.
The US has not had free elections since before the 1930s. Ballot access laws, campaign finance laws, incumbent protection laws and subsidies all make it nearly impossible for Congressmen and Senators to be voted out. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
asylum seeker
Joined: 22 Jul 2007
Location: On your computer screen.
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 08, 2009 8:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
With libertarians it's always the same schtick. Governments are evil, corporation are good. Removing any sort of regulation of businesses will usher in a new utopia etc. I don't see it.
Why is it that countries like Norway and Sweden which have quasi-socialist governments have such a generally good quality of life?
Of course bad governments are a big problem around the world but as Fox mentioned it is incumbent on voters to maintain the quality of their governments.
Totally unfettered capitalism is not the best solution, informed and active citizens participating in democracies is. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 08, 2009 8:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| asylum seeker wrote: |
| With libertarians it's always the same schtick. Governments are evil, corporation are good. |
Completely untrue. I don't mind libertarian bashing, but at least spend 5 minutes trying to get the basics right. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 08, 2009 9:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| asylum seeker wrote: |
With libertarians it's always the same schtick. Governments are evil, corporation are good. Removing any sort of regulation of businesses will usher in a new utopia etc. I don't see it.
Why is it that countries like Norway and Sweden which have quasi-socialist governments have such a generally good quality of life?
Of course bad governments are a big problem around the world but as Fox mentioned it is incumbent on voters to maintain the quality of their governments.
Totally unfettered capitalism is not the best solution, informed and active citizens participating in democracies is. |
Libertarianism isn't a "schtick". And you will never even begin to understand reality until you figure out how fraction-reserve debt-based central banking works, and how our entire monetary system is a fraud (hence, no free markets).
| Quote: |
| corporation are good |
As mises just mentioned, this is about the most riduculous thing you could have written. Pretty well all we do on here is rail against the corruption of the corporatocracy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 08, 2009 12:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| While I agree this is an example of a problem that occurs in government, I think it's important to remember something. Like Rusty says, if a private entity did this, the government would probably call them to task. When government does something like this, it's the job of voters to call them to task. No group can be expected to be self-policing, it's just unrealistic. When governmental agencies get away with things like this, it's because of indifference in the voting base. |
For the voting public to make informed choices, they require media which indeed informs instead of merely feeding propaganda from the corporate shills who own the printing presses and who finance the politicians.
As long as media are going to be profit-making concerns, that is never going to happen.
Support viewer- and listener-sponsored non-commercial media, such as Pacifica's WBAI in New York, home of Democracy Now!, KPFK in Berkeley, KPFA in Los Angeles, and WPFW in Washington. (I forget the Houston station's call letters, but they are at pacifica.org.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 08, 2009 3:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bacasper wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| While I agree this is an example of a problem that occurs in government, I think it's important to remember something. Like Rusty says, if a private entity did this, the government would probably call them to task. When government does something like this, it's the job of voters to call them to task. No group can be expected to be self-policing, it's just unrealistic. When governmental agencies get away with things like this, it's because of indifference in the voting base. |
For the voting public to make informed choices, they require media which indeed informs instead of merely feeding propaganda from the corporate shills who own the printing presses and who finance the politicians. |
Information sufficient to call many, many sitting politicians to task is out there. Most people simply don't care. The internet has obliterated any excuse people had based on what big media does or does not report. It's not big media's responsibility to inform us about anything; they're for profit businesses after all. It's our responsibility to ensure we ourselves are informed.
| ontheway wrote: |
No. Fox is basically wrong and Rusty got it right.
The only legitimate role of government is ... |
Fortunately, back in reality you don't get to dictate what does or does not legitimately fall within the role of government. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blackjack
Joined: 04 Jan 2006
Location: anyang
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 08, 2009 3:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| The only legitimate role of government is to protect people and their property from foreign attackers and criminals. All other needs and services should be provided in the private sector. Only then can Government remain neutral and provide the reqired unbiased "balance of power" to resove differences and prosecute criminals. |
The legitmate role of the government is whatever the voters ask for, if the voters want a more socialist government that provides healthcare, education ... then that's the government's role.
| Quote: |
| If a private entity did this the prosecutions and inquiries would be flying thick and fast. Unless, of course, the right officials could be bribed before it hit the news. It's unlikely anyone will even lose there job over this. |
Nz is the least corrupt country in the world. it is highly unlikely that there will be any bribery in this case. Do you have any idea what it is like working for the government in NZ?
There is a very good chance that who ever is responsible will lose there job over this or at the very least will not get promoted any time soon |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rusty Shackleford
Joined: 08 May 2008
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 08, 2009 6:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| blackjack wrote: |
| Quote: |
| The only legitimate role of government is to protect people and their property from foreign attackers and criminals. All other needs and services should be provided in the private sector. Only then can Government remain neutral and provide the reqired unbiased "balance of power" to resove differences and prosecute criminals. |
The legitmate role of the government is whatever the voters ask for, if the voters want a more socialist government that provides healthcare, education ... then that's the government's role. |
I'm uneasy about this idea. If this were the case you would get a situation like the one we have now in California. A situation where voters continually vote in more initiatives which provide free stuff, but refuse to accept a raise in taxes.
| Quote: |
| If a private entity did this the prosecutions and inquiries would be flying thick and fast. Unless, of course, the right officials could be bribed before it hit the news. It's unlikely anyone will even lose there job over this. |
Nz is the least corrupt country in the world. it is highly unlikely that there will be any bribery in this case. Do you have any idea what it is like working for the government in NZ?[/quote]
I have a fair idea, but why don't you tell me what it's like? I agree that it's unlikely any bribes changed hands and there is no evidence in this case, but do you really think that sort of thing doesn't happen?
| Quote: |
| There is a very good chance that who ever is responsible will lose there job over this or at the very least will not get promoted any time soon |
This is my point. At most some flunky will get the sack. If it were the private sector, we would be hearing about how only the govt should be allowed to handle toxic waste and that the CEO of the company should be sent to prison. Even though he was probably 10 degrees detached form the decision making process that caused the accident. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blackjack
Joined: 04 Jan 2006
Location: anyang
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 08, 2009 7:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Rusty Shackleford wrote: |
| Quote: |
| If a private entity did this the prosecutions and inquiries would be flying thick and fast. Unless, of course, the right officials could be bribed before it hit the news. It's unlikely anyone will even lose there job over this. |
Nz is the least corrupt country in the world. it is highly unlikely that there will be any bribery in this case. Do you have any idea what it is like working for the government in NZ? |
I have a fair idea, but why don't you tell me what it's like? I agree that it's unlikely any bribes changed hands and there is no evidence in this case, but do you really think that sort of thing doesn't happen?
| Quote: |
| There is a very good chance that who ever is responsible will lose there job over this or at the very least will not get promoted any time soon |
This is my point. At most some flunky will get the sack. If it were the private sector, we would be hearing about how only the govt should be allowed to handle toxic waste and that the CEO of the company should be sent to prison. Even though he was probably 10 degrees detached form the decision making process that caused the accident.[/quote]
I have worked in a few different government departments as well as SOEs
There are so many checks and balances, every decision has to follow a standard operating procedure. Every decision you make has to be justified on paper and they do get reviewed.
What i felt was the biggest pain working in government was all those little perks that you get working in private (company dinners, extra training, company cars, nice offices, hell even good coffee and soft drinks in the staff room) had to be audited to ensure that the public wouldn't think that you taking advantage of the public. After all they pay your wages. May be true but it is still your job and being told you have to supply your own coffee due to cut backs..
have to go to lunch finish this later |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 08, 2009 8:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ontheway wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| Rusty Shackleford wrote: |
| It's easier just to have a limited govt thus preventing important and dangerous tasks from ever falling into the hands of corrupt, incompetent and in this case non-culpable bureaucrats and politicians. |
And then large corporations could just run threadbare [? What?] over the gov't. I agree with you that the gov't's monopoly on power is disconcerting (and Fox is remiss to mention this), but isn't Fox basically right?
I guess I just grow weary of this debate on this board. Like anything else, a balance of power is necessary. |
No. Fox is basically wrong and Rusty got it right.
The only legitimate role of government is to protect people and their property from foreign attackers and criminals. All other needs and services should be provided in the private sector. Only then can Government remain neutral and provide the reqired unbiased "balance of power" to resove differences and prosecute criminals.
When governments become the criminals, they almost never prosecute themselves or their own.
Likewise, the more powerful and corrupt a government becomes, the more they set up systems and controls to prevent themselves from being voted out of power, if they allow elections at all.
The US has not had free elections since before the 1930s. Ballot access laws, campaign finance laws, incumbent protection laws and subsidies all make it nearly impossible for Congressmen and Senators to be voted out. |
Okay. I read your post. Don't know what much else to say.
| asylum seeker wrote: |
| Why is it that countries like Norway and Sweden which have quasi-socialist governments have such a generally good quality of life? |
Because Norway and Sweden are a myth.
Seriously. They are not the paradises we like to make them out to be. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
asylum seeker
Joined: 22 Jul 2007
Location: On your computer screen.
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 7:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| ontheway wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| Rusty Shackleford wrote: |
| It's easier just to have a limited govt thus preventing important and dangerous tasks from ever falling into the hands of corrupt, incompetent and in this case non-culpable bureaucrats and politicians. |
And then large corporations could just run threadbare [? What?] over the gov't. I agree with you that the gov't's monopoly on power is disconcerting (and Fox is remiss to mention this), but isn't Fox basically right?
I guess I just grow weary of this debate on this board. Like anything else, a balance of power is necessary. |
No. Fox is basically wrong and Rusty got it right.
The only legitimate role of government is to protect people and their property from foreign attackers and criminals. All other needs and services should be provided in the private sector. Only then can Government remain neutral and provide the reqired unbiased "balance of power" to resove differences and prosecute criminals.
When governments become the criminals, they almost never prosecute themselves or their own.
Likewise, the more powerful and corrupt a government becomes, the more they set up systems and controls to prevent themselves from being voted out of power, if they allow elections at all.
The US has not had free elections since before the 1930s. Ballot access laws, campaign finance laws, incumbent protection laws and subsidies all make it nearly impossible for Congressmen and Senators to be voted out. |
Okay. I read your post. Don't know what much else to say.
| asylum seeker wrote: |
| Why is it that countries like Norway and Sweden which have quasi-socialist governments have such a generally good quality of life? |
Because Norway and Sweden are a myth.
Seriously. They are not the paradises we like to make them out to be. |
I never said they were paradises, I said they 'have such a generally good quality of life'. Please learn to read before making further comments.
The point was that according to libertarian dogma countries with socialist or near-socialist governments should be failures but these countries, on the contrary, consistently rank highly on quality of life surveys. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
