Comments on: We don’t want your money

By: Joe Black

Joe Black — Mon, 18 Jan 2010 08:41:09 +0000

Let’s not pretend the judiciary and the legislature take their lead from the executive … indeed, in Zimbabwe, they are extensions of the executive.

By: Buffdaddy

Buffdaddy — Mon, 18 Jan 2010 07:20:50 +0000

where did I say Zim was a democracy?

we have just been focused on the executive part of government. so do we do away with the judiciary and the legislature. what about the popo?

By: anti-capitalist mantra

anti-capitalist mantra — Fri, 15 Jan 2010 16:44:31 +0000

Emphasis on D. people choice to become soccer players. Maybe a little cajoling, but never force marched

By: anti-capitalist mantra

anti-capitalist mantra — Fri, 15 Jan 2010 16:41:40 +0000

The question is not whether or not we should have a government- this is neither here nor there, since the propensity to dominate over others will always be there.
The question is if you have agreed that government is a referee then you must agree that:
a) They must be competent to referee the game. But how is this possible in a democracy when only the most popular is allowed to referee?
b) We must never make the mistake of believing that the multitude of soccer fans and even more watching the game through the telly pay TO DO SO to watch the referee. Yet turn on CNN or ZBC and see how our referees believe it was them that scored the winning goal!
c)If indeed we have laws of the game- beforehand, do not make your own laws as the game plays along. if YOU must, at least tell the players at hand. e.g new law to tax 90% of bonus?
d)When someone chooses to become a soccer player, there is no benevolence in it, they do so to make money! What is benevolent is them continuing to play soccer knowing that 60% of their weekly takings is going to a Zimbabwean asylum seeker in a council flat full on board.
e) If a team is relegated there is a perfectly logical reason for this…other teams are simply way better. Infact this is better for the game.

By: Joe Black

Joe Black — Fri, 15 Jan 2010 12:41:57 +0000

LOL, you’re out of your damn mind.

1) It’s done nothing substantial for me, but I wouldn’t expect it to … I wanted it to make it conducive for me to do shit for myself.

2) There’s a lot I could have done were it not for this gov’t. But, and here’s the important point … a BETTER gov’t would have helped.

By: Mos_Native

Mos_Native — Fri, 15 Jan 2010 11:24:15 +0000

@ACM,
“… China’s political misgivings are masked by the taxes collected from the economic agents. Whereas Zanu killed the goose that lays the golden egg.” – yes, that does sum up my ramblings on that issue

@BD ,
Zimbabwe is not a democracy, flawed or otherwise. It is, like most post-colonial African governments, a loony despotic caricature of the previous colonial administration.
It also is this “Im on the ground, Im realistic, Im living the situation” mantra which keeps you mired within a system and endlessly turning over the details of a GNU, who has what position, who is governor of which central bank, who gets the Mazda BT50, who gets the E-class merc, who gets a farm; instead of stepping back and realising that it is not the particulars of the system but the system itself which is flawed. The overly pragmatic stance you take does not allow you to take a while to step out of the situation and look in and see it in its totality.
The solution to Zimbabwe’s political and socieconomic swamp is from without not from within.

Mentioning freedom on the plantation was also a ‘theory’ for the average slaves.
Ideas of the white colonial hegemony being toppled were also ‘theory’ for the average black Rhodesian.
You are condemning your freedom from that loony caricature of a government to ‘theoretical’

Zimbabwe has been a military dictatorship masquerading as a democracy since its inception.

What power does anyone other than Bob and his JOMIC have in the Zimbabwean state?

@JB – You have the answers already JB. Ask yourself,

What has this government done for you personally in the past 10 years?

What could you have done, in the past 10 years, if it wasnt for this government?

By: Joe Black

Joe Black — Fri, 15 Jan 2010 09:52:53 +0000

Government’s value is in creating a conducive environment, not just for business to thrive, but to provide utility services, rule of law and also to provide a social safety net for the “the lazy”.

If we abolished all ‘government”, where would we be Mos Native?

By: Buffdaddy

Buffdaddy — Fri, 15 Jan 2010 09:18:59 +0000

@Mos your argument is theoretical and intellectual. It’s nice to rage against the machine but we have settled on this flawed thing called democracy, much like we have this flawed thing called capitalism.

In various places we have modified it and panel beaten it to our “best needs” while others have done the same to THEIR “best needs”. Is the system flawed – yes. Do I want to enter into a theoretical debate on what is better – not really. Why is that? Well I don’t think absolute monarchies in any form will work today. I think dictatorships are even worse. So this flawed animal is what we have. I would prefer to engage in discourse that enables us to shape it to the best needs of Zimbabwe. The bath is dirty but let’s not throw out the baby with the bath water.

@ACM – One of the first points that I raised was that the role of government is to create a conducive environment for business. Government has no role being in business. That should be left to the private sector. Governments role is about public programmes and enabling environments. As for your football analogy. Who creates the laws of the game – sorry football unlike rugby has rules – the FA or Fifa through their statutes. It’s about creating the enabling environment and a set of rules. That’s what laws in a country are about. Government creates laws. Secondly the referee administers the game – so does government, that’s why we have cops and anti competition commissions.

Here’s a little article for you that’s indicative of Chinese government policies that cause economic growth

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2808826/Far-East-to-be-No1-for-wine.html

By: anti-capitalist mantra

anti-capitalist mantra — Fri, 15 Jan 2010 08:46:43 +0000

1. You claim “This economic boom was achieved not but for the government but because of it” with reference to China. In the past my satirical comments have been misconstrued, so i will say this in the most polite and dignified way and only for the purpose of enhancing our debate. Please Google GDP and tell me how a government in its many constructs adds to production and ultimately economic growth. From an elementary perspective government is like the FA from which the referee’s in the game of soccer come from. The game of soccer will ultimately rest on the players of the game and not the referee. The referee is needed not as some sort of demagogue or pretension but as a neutral to arbitrage in disputes.
2: If government does not add to production, it only takes from production for the obama-que inspired hope of looting the rich and giving to the lazy. Since, the argument goes “those with more contribute more and those with less consume more – what’s the problem with that?”
3: China is a marvel, but if one is blind then it’s easier to parrot than be “far-sighted” and see China for one’s self. My argument is that in 1974, immediately after Mao’s death China made the decision to be a market economy. Capitalism is about production and the economic system and less so how the politician rules. They let economic agents produce and gave them enough room by e.g reducing the tax rates, cost of starting business and enforcing the rule of law. However, do not be fooled, it was American and European companies that made the investment and that ultimately produced…not the Chinese government. But the economic success of china does not imply the politician stops being a politician….The point Mos Native was trying to make, China’s political misgivings are masked by the taxes collected from the economic agents. Whereas Zanu killed the goose that lays the golden egg.
4:as for the irony with my name, there is no irony. i am a full blooded capitalist.

By: Mos_Native

Mos_Native — Fri, 15 Jan 2010 08:32:51 +0000

lol@ ‘enlightened ones’

Points made and understood all round. Not to argue that line for arguments sake.

As to your question. The world will not descend into anarchy from abolition of governments any less than it did from aristocracies and monarchies before them.
The notion of government being necessary for sanity to prevail is similar to that by organised religion that immorality and anarchy will ensue in the absence of religion – that fallacy obviously serves them well.
Removal of that abomination we call government in Zimbabwe is the expectorant that will bring sanity to this country. And with it should be the removal of the nonsense which is party politics.

Critical thinking is a requirement for that to happen of course; to question and hence know, then question that knowledge and on and on … its a process which unfortunately people are conditioned to not do. Like the looks of ridicule one gets for questioning the existence of the party system.
Indeed most people do not even know that other systems exist and can be devised outside what we have.
A critical discussion on the political system here in SA for instance is narrowed down to which party to vote for instead of asking why vote, why THIS system, why a system at all?
Lack of that critical thinking is what enables silly organised institutions to control people and inform them that they only have choices within those existing systems – from which any option within that system leaves them screwed.