| Submit your comments on this article |
| Europe |
| Grey Socialism |
| 2005-10-31 |
| A couple of weeks old, but still relevant. From the desk of Paul Belien The Belgian trade unions are going on strike next week against the plan of the government to raise the minimum retirement age to 58 (at present one can retire at 55). In Belgium fewer than 30% of the population between 55 and 64 years of age are in work. The EU average (2003) is 40.2%, with only Sweden, Denmark, the United Kingdom, Estonia and Portugal above 50%. Last month the German voters made a center-right coalition of the Christian-Democrats and the free-market Liberals impossible, thereby thwarting plans to reform the welfare system and make it less generous. In France Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin, a dandy without convictions who has never been elected to public office, is becoming popular by depicting his rival, Nicolas Sarkozy, as a dangerous reformer who wants to cut back the welfare state. Like the Belgians and the Germans, the French do not want to give up the âsocial rightsâ to which they feel they are entitled. One and a half centuries ago, John Stuart Mill warned that in a democracy everyone receiving government benefits ought to be disenfranchised, because otherwise people would start abusing their franchise to vote for prolonging and expanding these benefits. It is easy for governments, Mill said, to start distributing free milk in periods of prosperity, but nearly impossible to abolish this free milk distribution when economic circumstances no longer allow it. When Margaret Thatcher did exactly this as Secretary of Education in the early 1970s she was called âThatcher the milk snatcherâ and became highly unpopular. The British electoral system, however, allowed her to come to power a few years later and break the trade unions. With a system of proportional representation as in Belgium, Germany and France it would probably not have been possible. Today Western European politicians are confronted with a generation that has been the most prosperous in history. At the same time they have been the most selfish generation in history. They have consumed the wealth that the previous generation left them, but they have also consumed the resources of the future generation, leaving it a burden of debt. Today the welfare systems are on the brink of collapse, but the selfish generation flatly refuses to give up any of its âsocial rightsâ and wants to continue milking the welfare state, forcing those who come after them to foot the bill. The situation would not have been so bad if the selfish generation had at least replaced itself, but these people have also refused to procreate. The result is an ever growing electorate of elderly men and women versus an ever smaller electorate of young people. Some German and Austrian conservatives have proposed to give parents with young children multiple voting rights, where parents get an additional vote for each child, in order to restore the electoral balance. These proposals have been rejected by the selfish generation. The red socialists of yesteryear have been replaced by the grey socialists of today. |
| Posted by:anonymous5089 |
| #7 One need not travel to Europe to see the results of population decline of the west. Do you think those folks slipping across the Mexican border are coming here because we've already got too many able bodied laborers? Do you also believe our gov't is looking the other way because we enjoy a budget surplus and the national debt is headed downward? Big gov't is a huge ponzi scheme. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2005-10-31 20:41 |
| #6 Reminds me of the ol' joke: You lose $1.00 on every sale, how do you make any profit? Volume. That was an Lucy Ricardo joke, lucy and Ethel sold "Homemade Salad Dressing" that they bought at the store for 69 cents, and sold for 49 cents, and planned to make up the difference in volume. |
| Posted by: Redneck Jim 2005-10-31 20:12 |
| #5 Both are relevant reasons for representation. That's part of why we have a bi-cameral legislature. |
| Posted by: Phereling Elmeath7503 2005-10-31 17:31 |
| #4 Everyone ought to be enfranchised according to the amount of tax they pay, not for merely existing. |
| Posted by: Bright Pebbles 2005-10-31 16:35 |
| #3 One and a half centuries ago, John Stuart Mill warned that in a democracy everyone receiving government benefits ought to be disenfranchised JSM was a smart cookie. We may yet discover he was right. |
| Posted by: phil_b 2005-10-31 09:35 |
| #2 Socialism is a pyramid scheme and you need lots of new members to ensure the early adopters are paid off. Its as simple as that. Europe has been replacing the lower levels of the pyramid with immigrants from North Africa and it doesn't seem to be working out as well as planned (see the post on Riots in Paris above) for details. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2005-10-31 09:34 |
| #1 I don't buy the argument that by not procreating you are hurting the next generation. There are so many flaws in this logic that it should be called Swiss logic. I don't buy it for lots of reasons, mostly because it always seems to be peddled by the idiot loons of the right, like Buchanan [do they have kids?], the KKK and others who are attempting to increase the numbers of their own followers... but I digress. So you are telling me...that in an article saying that the biggest problem Europe faces is that the people consume too many benefits that solution is to create more "workers" to satisfy their needs. Ok. You call them workers if you like, but the reality is that they are just more consumers. Do you see the flaw? Is it really that hard to see? Reminds me of the ol' joke: You lose $1.00 on every sale, how do you make any profit? Volume. |
| Posted by: 2b 2005-10-31 08:41 |