From the Files of "Dumb and Dumber"

Beyond Credulity

At times peculiar things happen which leave us aghast at the folly of mankind.  Either that, or we find ourselves weakened by laughter.  We are reminded of Mr Bennet's sarcastic riposte: “'For what do we live, but to make sport for our neighbours, and laugh at them in our turn?'”  

Finland has entered into a noble experiment.  A select group of unemployed citizens was provided a basic income from the state (that is, from other citizens) to test whether it would have any good or bad effects upon them.  Some very astute gnomes have been arguing that the provision of a basic income would have no effect on the alacrity and diligence with which the recipients would look for jobs.

An experiment where unemployed Finns were given a basic income failed to encourage them to find work, researchers have found.  “The basic income experiment did not increase the employment of participants during the first trial year,” Kela, the Finnish government agency in charge of benefits, said in a statement on the project’s preliminary findings on Friday.

Kela, in conjunction with the Finnish Centre for Economic Research and other partners including the universities of Turku and Helsinki, began a two-year experiment in January 2017 where 2,000 randomly-selected unemployed people were given a monthly basic income of €560 (£490/$634) regardless of any other income they may have or if they were actively seeking employment. (Breitbart News)

You can just imagine the reaction of the 2,000 recipients of "money for jam" experiment.

The More Things Change, The More They Stay the Same

Perversely Stupid

Kiwiblog has a telling post, courtesy of The Federalist.  The article is quoting Tom Coburn, a former US Senator from Oklahoma. 

The Federalist reports Tom Coburn:

However, they are probably less inclined to concede that the constant growth of the welfare state produces inversely diminishing returns. “In 1966 when the massive means-tested entitlements to address the poor began, the overall poverty rate in the United States was 14.7 percent,” Coburn notes. “In 2013, and more than $15 trillion later, the poverty rate was measured at 14.5 percent. That could be a statistical error, rather than even this miniscule 0.2 percent decline.”

$15 trillion for 0.2% decline!

A question immediately begged is why this might be the case?  Is it something which is a perverse oddity?  Rather than a statistical aberration, we suggest that this is the perpetual reality.

Burke Vs Paine, Part V--The Triumph of Thomas Paine

How Thomas Paine Lost the Battle, but Won the War

One of the abiding failures of Thomas Paine has to do with his ardent support for the French Revolution.  This was not the first revolution he championed.  That sobriquet falls upon the American War for Independence or the American Revolution.  But being on "the right side" of history with respect to America shaking off English imperialism was due to a deep sense of mistrust of government on the American side and the the need to keep a measure of  control over those who rule.  Hence the development of the "American system" of limited government, its division of powers, and being bound to a constitution.

When it came to the French Revolution a few years later, Tom Paine was, once again, in boots'n all.  Human rights, human freedom--and the power of a just state to command both at will, justified by appealing to a "higher law", namely, "the will of the people".   But without the checks and balances of American colonial society, the whole enterprise soon turned bloody.

Tom Paine was consequently discredited.  Yet, now we find him resurrected and the ideological victor in our day.  The West has largely followed in Paine's train.  We do not mean that the West has descended into an orgy of totalitarian bloodletting, abortion notwithstanding; rather, we refer to Paine's latter day view of the state as a welfare institution.  In later life, Paine developed the idea of a state with vastly expanded powers, existing to satisfy the "demand rights" of humans.

His old debating foe, Edmund Burke had a much more cautious position.

Self Righteous Arrogance

Extraordinary Chutzpah 

Every so often folk unveil and uncloak themselves.  Green politician, Jan Logie has just done so.  The occasion was a debate over whether the State has a right to demand of single women receiving state payments for their children that they name the biological father.  Under New Zealand law sole mothers have their child support state welfare benefits docked if they refuse to name the father(s) of their children.  

Logie believes this is unjust.  It's none of the State's business to fossick around in someone's private life, requiring them to reveal the identity of the father(s) of their children.

The law requires women to name the father to apply for child support or face sanctions of up to $28 a week per child off their benefit.  [Green MP] Logie said about 15,000 women had their benefits docked for refusing to do so.  "Is it appropriate to deprive women of essential income when the reasons people don't name a father are personal, private and, frankly, none of the state's business?"

Beneficiary groups have called for the clause to be dropped altogether.  [NZ Herald]

So, let's get this right.  Logie asserts that it is the business and responsibility of the State indirectly to support the children of sole parents, by providing weekly funding to their mother.    This income is essential: taxpayers are duty bound and obligated to provide it.  Therefore, it is irrelevant (and none of the State's business) to know the identity of the father of any particular child.

To what higher law or power is Jan Logie appealing to warrant this State obligation, on the one hand, and deny the State's right to know the identity of the father, on the other?