Tom Palmer on welfarism

Tom Palmer on ABC radio talking about the welfare state being unsustainable.

This entry was posted in Economics and economy. Bookmark the permalink.

18 Responses to Tom Palmer on welfarism

  1. tgs

    I never fail to be astonished at the level of hostility by supposedly balanced ABC presenters to those on the opposite of the political divide. That presenter was constantly interrupting, making strawman arguments and generally being impolite.

    It’s disgusting.

  2. TerjeP

    tgs – I agree. However Tom showed he was very capable of handling it.

    Tom Palmer also spoke over the weekend at the Australian Libertarian Society Friedman Conference in Sydney and he was absolutely fantastic. In fact the entire conference was fantastic and those that missed it should put it on their calendar for next year. Tim Andrews and John Humphreys are to be congratulated for doing a stellar job in organising this event.

  3. It’s the ALPBC, tgs. Don’t expect anything else.

  4. Ant

    Good God, that guy made so much sense, and I don’t mean the numbskull interviewer.

    Like the great Mark Levin repeatedly says on US talk radio, Statism is the philosophy for the stupid.

    And the contrast between these two just screamed that out.

  5. manalive

    I think the interviewer, probably unwittingly, did a good job.
    The main point for me: governments should stop making promises they cannot keep.

  6. Tom

    It was comical that the (utterly hostile) ABC talking head was telling the foreigner to fuck off with his ideas about fiscal responsibility and that fascism possibly couldn’t take root in Australia, while the foreigner explained that fascist groups targeting foreigners had sprung up in Greece and Hungary where welfarism is rampant and Australia was heading in that direction. I repeat: the ABC has become a tax-funded political organisation that needs to be castrated and turned back into an organisation that serves the public.

  7. eb

    Tom is speaking in Canberra at 5.30 tonight at Rydge’s Capital Hill. Looking forward to it. Hearing this interview has really whet the appetite.

  8. JamesK

    I don’t know who Tom Palmer is but he was magnificent.

    And in the face of a committed leftist grilling who was reduced to describing Palmer as a “committed libertarian” on multiple occasions by way of resistance.

    thanks for putting this up

  9. Anne

    He’s speaking at the Sofitel on Collins tomorrow night.
    I think I’ll have to go…

  10. Nanuestalker

    eb-

    OFF TOPIC
    whet the appetite … I’ve been using wet and never realised my error. I guess you can learn something new everyday

  11. I guess you can learn something new everyday [sic]

    Here’s another, Nanuestalker: “everyday” (as one word) is an adjective meaning “daily” or “mundane”; what you need above is the adverbial phrase “every day”.

  12. Tintarella di Luna

    Those who visit the Cat will ALWAYS learn something.

  13. Megan

    Those who visit the Cat will ALWAYS learn something.

    One of the reasons I hang around here. Another is for the laughs.

  14. Nanuestalker

    Deadman –
    Duly noted 🙂

  15. Ubique

    Those who visit the Cat will ALWAYS learn something.

    One of the reasons I hang around here. Another is for the laughs.

    Another is for any comment by IT.

  16. Big Nana

    Have to agree. Love the comedy. A bit of fiscal education doesn’t hurt either.

  17. Julie Novak

    Two noticeable characteristics of the interviewer’s approach, which is emblematic of how all socialists conduct themselves in discourse when wishing to conservatively defend their treasured government programs:

    (a) A desire to use uncommon, and sometimes extreme or even nonsensical, cases, whether based upon reality or on hypothesis, to question the veracity of smaller-government reform. In essence, the strategy goes something like this: “What happens to x? What would be the fate of y if individuals, families and communities were let free to cater for their own arrangements?”

    (b) The use, and indeed, abuse of presumptions when defending the status quo of large government. “Abolishing government program x must lead to adverse consequence y.”

    Facing these rhetorical strategies, Tom Palmer handled himself very well indeed, illustrating that he understands the argumentative, but deeply flawed, tricks used to unconscionably defend large government.

  18. johno

    Tom showed the ABC the respect it deserves.

    I liked his retort about focusing on the actual median recipient of a welfare benefit, not the hypothetical extreme case. We would all like to help the extreme case and we can have a sensible discussion about how that might be achieved. But, the extreme cases are not the people typically being paid welfare and it is usually a lot harder for the ABC to justify paying the more typical welfare recipient than their hypothetical extreme cases.

    That is the dirty little secret the ABC wants to hide.

Comments are closed.