The losers of the social services of the children's aid

The losers of the social services of the children's aid



The logic of the market

It is often slandering of the logic of the market in denouncing the unbridled race for the benefit of capitalist entrepreneurs.

No altruism, no solidarity on the part of entrepreneurs if it is to display good feelings sellers to trim more still in market share.

The most abject selfishness which replaces the heart by the cash drawer you shocked, but it will answer you: "be well live", and who are we to blame other Travers if humans? As so goes the world, and pure disinterestedness does not exist on this earth.

Indeed what a drama so appalling that our behaviour is mu mainly by the care that our interests? Are we that Bill Gates has become multi-milliardaire? We complain we that inventors a little toqués have allowed unscrupulous us phones, disk drives, TVs, lava-linens and other also unnecessary object whose humanity is provided for millennia?

The answer is obviously no, each fortune would not have been possible without the satisfaction of our needs by making available more or less onerous for their manufactured products

EH Yes, blissful in the altercomprenants, the logic of the market is more often in the presence both the offeror and the applicant agree on a transaction as long as it allows them to satisfy their interest. It lies there in what is called a positive sum game that is a win-win sharing. This is obvious because who would accept to freely conclude a transaction that would not in its interests?

The logic of the State

The case gets more complicated when, for good feelings, social services, justice, public or other pretexts more or less barmy State mixes to our happiness, finally more exactly some happiness. The first beneficiaries of the intervention of the State first are those representing: policies, and then those who live: officials. The things are then paid by the population to make increasingly public services which the indispensability uncertain cannot doubt for public opinion, which is the sine qua non-continuation and development of public services.

However we we there come in a market logic, no additional value is created. We are not dealing with a positive-sum game, but at best to a situation where that one can gain others lose, in other words a sum game it zero. Taxation is necessary so that the population can be forced to deal with services which it would be diverted on a free market.

The conditions for the development of public services

The game of the State and its class of officials is to legitimize public services. Why should exaggerate the success seen by the population and to reduce the cost in public opinion. Any State superstructure is mobilized in this goal, national education, falsely independent media, the judiciary, political parties, trade unions condition quite roughly the population to the acceptance of imposed public abuse, but especially in their development by an indictment of the alternative logic of market.

An iconic public service: help the children

An example, almost caricature of this public harm is the children's aid. There are four parties that are the taxpayer population that forms little or no public opinion, policies, social workers and families.

Who wins this game? Certainly social workers, families elles, for false abuse are broken as many parents as children; taxpayers they provide more resources and privileges to workers whose powers extend to the splitformsize individual freedoms and contrary to the principle of subsidiarity. What is lost there is is calculated not only financially but in terms of fundamental freedoms, which is gaining is not only a budget but illegitimate powers granting privileges to a class of officials support the regime of the nanny state.

We think we in public a sum game logic zero, what some gain others lose. For this game is not denounced by one of the parties lose, he must give everyone the impression to take advantage of this maltreatment. Realities must be hidden and in propaganda social workers play at bottom the image of generosity on the one hand against the institution of the family suspected source of abuse, on the other hand for social cases really abusive but victims of a society not yet totally degenerated.

Left policies benefit from the development of the social sector the children where they find their strongest support.

Right policies play a similar game for the same reason of extension of public prerogatives, with still a desire to promote other services that are less hostile, such as those related to the maintenance of order. In the social sector, they do not have free rein to close unions of the extreme left that they do not want to get too far back. Therefore, they do not hesitate to paint in the direction of the hair and sometimes by a willingness to change of image, right promotes the sector in seeking to build an image of sensitivity in the opinion.

The game stops it must be that public opinion is informed on the smearing of social services to children, but also aware of the true cost in not only financial terms but also in terms of freedom. Put in his place these services therefore encrypt their true cost, the privileges of their agents and also loss of powers of the institution of the family as well as under subjection of the population resulting extension in the public domain in a sector of the intimate