The Truth About Magufuli

I salute the one who posted an Idea to think the government has less to do with our welfare and development at large. I am completely in disagreement with this person. His Idea is wrong, people should not be fooled. My stand is complemented by very strong statements which were once spoken by a leader of a country which was once a world's super power (sun never set empire) and colonized Tanganyika before it evolved to Tanzania. Read the statements of the leader in United kingdom UK, Tony Blair

Tony Blair: Africa needs stronger governments to emerge from poverty (Tony Blair: Africa needs stronger governments to emerge from poverty)

1. Africa's problems have been caused as much by a lack of capacity to govern as a lack of aid

2. Aid is important and it works and we should be really proud of what we as a country have done in aid, but aid is one half; the other half is governance. For most of these countries, their problems are every bit as much governance, as much as the lack or availability of aid

3. Modern government is not about the traditional civil service, it is about getting things done. It is about effecting change.

4. All third world countries have got masses of reports lying on the shelf telling them what they need to do. I keeping saying the 'what' is not hard to work out. It is pretty bloody obvious most of the time. The question is the 'how'

5. In all these countries (the LDCs) we say 'if you have 100 priorities you will get nothing done, but if you have a limited number of objectives that is different'

I totally understand that and completely see why people ask why do we spend it there when other budgets are being cut at home – but, if the British people came and saw what is happening in these countries and how it is being used [they would see] it is not being wasted

descarte said:

Now, let me go through the contended arguments above, and circumnavigate them to see whether they are water tight and coherent.
To begin with, I challenged the argument from a previous comment whether the ideal free market exists, I am disappointed when you ignore that by claiming it does doesn't matter whether such a country exists in the world, you went further to stick on the validity of the argument. I never questioned the logical validity of your assertion. The issue is whether what you suggest seem pseudoclaim. It is unattainable if you agree with that then why would advice African governments to adopt the system which by itself is unattainable. It can't work!
Mind you the validity of argument does not necessarily mean desirable or practical or pragmatic. One can have a valid claim an yet the argument is unreasonable and counter intuitive.
You said
"The reality is that Governments are the end product of group-think and tribalism. They innately exist to enforce the mobs preferences over the minority. They are a result of the human nature to rely in the strength in numbers instead of thinking for themselves. The outcome is that the opportunistic humans who have an addiction for power take advantage of this flaw in human nature in order to gain control over the mob or majority"
I certainly think that you have a myopia view of what Government is, It is not true that a democratic government is the result of group or tribe thinking. There are no premises from your argument which lead you that doubtful inference. Furthermore, to equate a democratic government with rule of majority which asserts the notion that majority wins all, this too is incoherent to the principles of democratic government. Yes, in a democratic government majority vote puts someone in power but this does not mean that majority can do whatever they want to or majority can illegitimately coerce the minority. A democratic government is the government of majority but bound with the democratic principles like equality to all, liberty to all. In other words, government is limited by the idea of dignity. If that is true, then the minority cannot impose their preferences to minority to issue pertaining individual responsibility to live up their lives as they wish as long as they live consistently by honoring other's dignity.
Mind you again, government has many purpose not only ensuring economic activity but also it protects the property and lives of people. So, to downgrade the role of government is to be inconsistent with the very principle of free market you try to advocate. Free market presupposes tranquillity and harmony in the state. It is impossible in today's world to that without such an important human institution. Free market leads to monopoly capitalism.
It's simple economics and if you leave these monopoly enterprises to dominate, then the country is gonna be ruled by the greedy of capitalists in free market.

Click to expand...

"Free market presupposes tranquillity and harmony in the state?" The free market cannot presuppose anything it is not a person. You make that presupposition. The free market is made up of individuals who voluntarily interact. When Gov. intervenes in a free market interaction such as competition in a sector, the company with the most money capable of lobbying the individuals that make up the Gov. will always win over the smaller companies. Monopolies are innately the result of Gov intervention. In a purely free market without regulations to hinder competition companies will rise up to compete and there will never be a company capable of holding a whole sector because it will always loose the incentive to produce better goods and the customers will ostracize it out of business.

Free market does not lead to monopoly capitalism. The terms monopoly and capitalism contradict each other to begin with. In pure capitalism if a sector is lucrative there will always be competitors. The only way a sector lacks competitors is if there are barriers of entry such as the licensing of businesses, taxes and the regulations that one would have to comply with which would hinder competition because they make it more costly and less lucrative to compete in a sector. Gov does more to kill competition than it does to help it.

To answer your questions there are multiple countries that don't collect income taxes such as Bahamas, Monaco and Bermuda.

The ideal free market will never exist because that term ideal isn't specific enough. Ideal to who's standards exactly?

The only standard that will ever be ideal to everyone at all times is that individual freedoms and property should never be infringed on and that every interaction between individuals should be voluntarily.

"Pseudoclaim" is not an actual word. To claim the model I am proposing is unattainable simply based on the fact you haven't observed it happen is equivalent to a man who living in the age before fighter planes were invented saying flying in an aircraft faster than the speed of sound is unattainable.

If an ideology is practically, rationally, morally and intellectually superior then it doesn't matter whether you think its unattainable just because you've never tried to achieve it yourself. You're the equivalent of the naysayers whenever someone is trying to achieve progress. "Oh its unattainable. Oh its never been done. Oh we are used to the oppressive systems we have." Who the https://jamii.app/JFUserGuide cares? If you like Gov then keep liking its boots as it comes taking your hard earned money in the name of progress that you have yet to observe.

Government is not bound by any principles but instead bound by the greed of the parasites who peruse Gov. power.

Equality and liberty are terms Democratic parasites love using on gullible people such as you. Equality is such a broad term that sounds so virtuous but in the natural reality it doesn't exist. If you've even taken a second to observe all the environments, species, land, geography, races, groups, cultures, e.t.c you would realize that equality among individuals and their outcomes cannot exist. You will always have cultures that are morally superior, technologically more advanced, races that are physically more gifted, environments that are much better to live in than others.

You cannot have an equality of outcomes even in the same family where the children have the same parents, opportunities, and grow up in the same environment. One of the children is going to do better than the others.

What the religious followers of Gov. like you assume is that Gov. can guarantee equality of outcomes. To do that Gov. would have to fabricate a whole new reality were the laws of nature do not exist.

"In other words, government is limited by the idea of dignity. If that is true, then the minority cannot impose their preferences to minority to issue pertaining individual responsibility to live up their lives as they wish as long as they live consistently by honoring other's dignity."
This sentence has no coherence whatsoever. Government is limited by the idea of Dignity? I don't believe that even you know what that even means. The structure of Gov. that is made up of individuals with their own personal interests cannot be limited by an idea. As long as there is power humans will use it to their own interest. In this case politicians use it to get more power over the individual. Even though those in the minority that support Gov. such as you, think they are safe they don't realize that they too are being used by the parasitic political class to gain more power. I'll assume you went to a government school and you were indoctrinated to believe that government is your savior. You might be suffering from Stockholm syndrome.

Hahahaha "gov ensures economic activity and protects the property and lives of people." I guess the fact that Gov. has always been the cause of world wars and that it is Gov. that has killed the most people throughout history is part of their plan to protecting the lives of people. Oh and toppling governments, running guns to terrorist countries and cartels, enforcing slavery and communism, oh and don't forget the mass murders.
Oh wait I guess the fall of currencies and the depressions of economies and the monopolies and world poverty that gets billions of dollars in aid money and still never ends is all a part of Gov. to ensure economic activity. Hahahaha I don't know how you can hear what you're saying and still believe it.
Look at the crime rates, home invasions and corruption in Tz and Zanzibar. Is that how Gov. ensures the safety of the lives of people? Or is it by how it muzzles opposition, individual freedoms and kills sectors such as sugar production, banking, investment and imports?

rrm72 said:

I salute the one who posted an Idea to think the government has less to do with our welfare and development at large. I am completely in disagreement with this person. His Idea is wrong, people should not be fooled. My stand is complemented by very strong statements which were once spoken by a leader of a country which was once a world's super power (sun never set empire) and colonized Tanganyika before it evolved to Tanzania. Read the statements of the leader in United kingdom UK, Tony Blair

Tony Blair: Africa needs stronger governments to emerge from poverty (Tony Blair: Africa needs stronger governments to emerge from poverty)

1. Africa's problems have been caused as much by a lack of capacity to govern as a lack of aid

2. Aid is important and it works and we should be really proud of what we as a country have done in aid, but aid is one half; the other half is governance. For most of these countries, their problems are every bit as much governance, as much as the lack or availability of aid

3. Modern government is not about the traditional civil service, it is about getting things done. It is about effecting change.

4. All third world countries have got masses of reports lying on the shelf telling them what they need to do. I keeping saying the 'what' is not hard to work out. It is pretty bloody obvious most of the time. The question is the 'how'

5. In all these countries (the LDCs) we say 'if you have 100 priorities you will get nothing done, but if you have a limited number of objectives that is different'

I totally understand that and completely see why people ask why do we spend it there when other budgets are being cut at home – but, if the British people came and saw what is happening in these countries and how it is being used [they would see] it is not being wasted

Click to expand...

First off just because Tony Blair said something doesn't mean that whatever he said is philosophically, rationally and morally sound. He is a parasitic politician. Their word is as good as used toilet paper.

His claim is that Africa needs stronger Governments to emerge from poverty but in reality African Governments exercise more executive powers against their citizens more than any other continents in the world. More power doesn't make African Governments better it makes them less accountable and much larger. This increases Gov spending which increases taxes and kills investment in business. Then when the economy fails as a result of more Gov spending the leaders will claim they need more money, more spending and more foreign aid.

The lack of capacity to govern is inevitable. No one knows how to govern 45 million people. No one even knows how to govern their neighbor. The majority of people can't even make rational decisions for themselves on a daily basis. To assume that getting a bigger government and the right people to govern is to assume that there is someone out there who knows exactly what 45 million Tanzanians need. This is obviously a fallacy.
This is why Gov fails because it assumes its one size fits all policies can work for millions of people.

Foreign aid is exactly what enables the lack of accountability. It allows government to ignore the failures of their policies and to keep spending money because there's money available from foreign aid.

Tony Blair is another political parasite forcing his people to pay for the expenses of other countries failed economic policies. If foreign aid is working then why does the majority of African infrastructure suck?

The stylistic banal oversimplification and crystal ball cocksure know it all tone presented in the original post is detrimental to any pretense of scholarly analysis and the credibility of any part of the supposed analysis that is actually true.

That there is a part of this writing that is actually true (minus much needed caveats), but this part is shortchanged by what Raphael Patai in his book "The Arab Mind" calls Arabic exaggeration, is the sad thing.

It is a sad thing because normally this would be a post that I, a social liberal and fiscal conservative with a strong libertarian bent, would rally around. It is sad because I believe in the core ideas posed in the original post, but the presentation has been bungled in a shambolic way that is most unappealing to the extent that I cannot rally around such nauseating sweeping statements presented. The first paragraph alone exposes the ignorance of painting the entirety of humanity with one brush, without so much as a mildly mitigating caveat.

One does not need to exaggerate and embellish much to tell the truth. Once one exaggerates so, one puts one's credibility and motive on the line, making everything else suspect. Including one's intelligence and veracity.

Take the first paragraph to close inspection as sample space. The author claims to know all Tanzanians, indeed all humans, and their nature, so summarily and without any justification or sourcing that it would have been funny had it not been so serious. Not even the most vague mitigating caveat that anyone remotely sensible would consider -something like "most Tanzanians" instead of "Tanzanians"- is given.

How tacky, juvenile and unmeasured.

This sophomoric writing would do better to acknowledge some important caveats, include some statistics and quote some credible sources.

Kiranga said:

The stylistic banal oversimplification and crystal ball cocksure know it all tone presented in the original post is detrimental to any pretense of scholarly analysis and the credibility of any part of the supposed analysis that is actually true.

That there is a part of this writing that is actually true (minus much needed caveats), but this part is shortchanged by what Raphael Patai in his book "The Arab Mind" calls Arabic exaggeration, is the sad thing.

It is a sad thing because normally this would be a post that I, a social liberal and fiscal conservative with a strong libertarian bent, would rally around. It is sad because I believe in the core ideas posed in the original post, but the presentation has been bungled in a shambolic way that is most unappealing to the extent that I cannot rally around such nauseating sweeping statements presented. The first paragraph alone exposes the ignorance of painting the entirety of humanity with one brush, without so much as a mildly mitigating caveat.

One does not need to exaggerate and embellish much to tell the truth. Once one exaggerates so, one puts one's credibility and motive on the line, making everything else suspect. Including one's intelligence and veracity.

Take the first paragraph to close inspection as sample space. The author claims to know all Tanzanians, indeed all humans, and their nature, so summarily and without any justification or sourcing that it would have been funny had it not been so serious. Not even the most vague mitigating caveat that anyone remotely sensible would consider -something like "most Tanzanians" instead of "Tanzanians"- is given.

How tacky, juvenile and unmeasured.

This sophomoric writing would do better to acknowledge some important caveats, include some statistics and quote some credible sources.

Click to expand...

If you're not here to support the movement against Government, group think, collectivism and the faulty ideologies that encompass a large number of Tanzanians and humans in general, then get out of the way.

Your pompous self, and your wanna-be intellectual tone is useless if you're not going to aid in the movement. I don't have to specify anything when a group disproportionately thinks a certain way. If you can't use common sense and understand that even though I don't specify I still recognize the few that don't subscribe to collectivism, then that is not my problem.

"Nauseating sweeping statements?" Ok. Then don't rally around them. Don't even think you're adding to them either. If you think its "tacky, juvenile and unmeasured" but yet it compels you to write 295 words in response just in order for you to show how much more articulate and poised you are then who here is really juvenile.

Kessy Wa Kilimanjaro said:

If you're not here to support the movement against Government, group think, collectivism and the faulty ideologies that encompass a large number of Tanzanians and humans in general, then get out of the way.

Your pompous self, and your wanna-be intellectual tone is useless if you're not going to aid in the movement. I don't have to specify anything when a group disproportionately thinks a certain way. If you can't use common sense and understand that even though I don't specify I still recognize the few that don't subscribe to collectivism, then that is not my problem.

"Nauseating sweeping statements?" Ok. Then don't rally around them. Don't even think you're adding to them either. If you think its "tacky, juvenile and unmeasured" but yet it compels you to write 295 words in response just in order for you to show how much more articulate and poised you are then who here is really juvenile.

Click to expand...

Supporting any movement without critical analysis is prone to groupthink.

One cannot support the movement against groupthink by using groupthink.

That would be a huge contradiction.

I mentioned that I primarily do not have a problem with the core ideas against government overreaches, group think, collectivism etc.

But when you begin by lumping all Tanzanians - indeed all humans- in one basket, you are showing yourself to be an ideologue.

Writing 295 words (damn, you counted? you really have time to waste) exposing shortcomings in your thinking and writing will help a lot of people to recognize the wheat from the chaff.

Writing to expose ignorance can never be juvenile. Insisting that that is juvenile even when the faults are clearly exposed is not only juvenile, but also lazy and egotistic.

You can't lump all Tanzanians and humans in the same basket and expect sane people to ignore that.

That's why I always emphasize that a true savior is the one who will free Tanzanians from their ignorance, Education is the only thing that will change us, nothing less. The number of ignorant Tanzanians is overwhelming, its really sad.
Most always try to find someone they can depend on to provide them with everything, starts with the President, MPs, Pastors, goes all the way down to relatives hence many extended families, too many lazy species flying around. We have a long way to go, even our so called leaders don't have any idea of what they are doing.

Kessy Wa Kilimanjaro said:

...Innovation has never ever came from a Government leader...

Click to expand...

Yaani unafikiri ukiandika mada yako kwa Kiingereza cha kuunga unga ndio inakuwa na mantiki sio? Hebu jaribu kutafsiri ulichoandika kwa Kiswahili uone utumbo uliouandika.