|
|
Post by robstokie on Mar 22, 2019 14:48:35 GMT
At this moment we have a useless government and a equally useless opposition full of career politicians who pretty much all agree on a bigger, more interfering, yet less accountable government set-up, along with more and more punitive and excessive taxation. In my opinion, we need to go the other way, scale back public spending, get the government's noses out of people's personal business, cut down beaurecracy, middle management in the public sector and levels of government and get taxation down to encourage commerce.
To that end, I have realised I'm a libertarian (life-long right wing Tory boy and hard Brexit supporter of you were wondering).
|
|
|
|
Post by estrangedsonoffaye on Mar 22, 2019 15:05:35 GMT
At this moment we have a useless government and a equally useless opposition full of career politicians who pretty much all agree on a bigger, more interfering, yet less accountable government set-up, along with more and more punitive and excessive taxation. In my opinion, we need to go the other way, scale back public spending, get the government's noses out of people's personal business, cut down beaurecracy, middle management in the public sector and levels of government and get taxation down to encourage commerce. To that end, I have realised I'm a libertarian (life-long right wing Tory boy and hard Brexit supporter of you were wondering). What are your solutions to the problems that we have regarding Police and Health funding with this stance? (not accusatory, just curious) |
|
|
|
Post by robstokie on Mar 22, 2019 15:34:53 GMT
At this moment we have a useless government and a equally useless opposition full of career politicians who pretty much all agree on a bigger, more interfering, yet less accountable government set-up, along with more and more punitive and excessive taxation. In my opinion, we need to go the other way, scale back public spending, get the government's noses out of people's personal business, cut down beaurecracy, middle management in the public sector and levels of government and get taxation down to encourage commerce. To that end, I have realised I'm a libertarian (life-long right wing Tory boy and hard Brexit supporter of you were wondering). What are your solutions to the problems that we have regarding Police and Health funding with this stance? (not accusatory, just curious) I believe that the police force has to remain under the remit of government, so as to remain as impartial as possible - privatisation would lead to investors turning the law to their own demands. Funding would say roughly the same, but would look to cut middle-management, beaurecracy and all the powder-puff equality and diversity training programmes (everyone is equal under the letter of law) and redirect funds to front-line policing. Furthermore, if a citizen is treated unfairly or outside what the law of the land says, it is their right to take legal action against the force. People will also have the right to defend themselves and their property from attack and if someone is killed/seriously injured through someone defending themself, the one who was defending themself would be cleared as soon as it is proven that it was just that. As for the health service, the NHS would remain in a capacity to treat severe or life-limiting illnesses (cancer or congenital heart diseases for example) and genuine health emergencies (eg. Strokes). Beyond that, I would look to privatise (but with legislation that protects the people) and look to create competition which drives prices down and standards up. Things that would be covered under this would be gps, dentists and opticians. |
|
|
|
Post by crapslinger on Mar 22, 2019 16:13:23 GMT
What are your solutions to the problems that we have regarding Police and Health funding with this stance? (not accusatory, just curious) I believe that the police force has to remain under the remit of government, so as to remain as impartial as possible - privatisation would lead to investors turning the law to their own demands. Funding would say roughly the same, but would look to cut middle-management, beaurecracy and all the powder-puff equality and diversity training programmes (everyone is equal under the letter of law) and redirect funds to front-line policing. Furthermore, if a citizen is treated unfairly or outside what the law of the land says, it is their right to take legal action against the force. People will also have the right to defend themselves and their property from attack and if someone is killed/seriously injured through someone defending themself, the one who was defending themself would be cleared as soon as it is proven that it was just that. As for the health service, the NHS would remain in a capacity to treat severe or life-limiting illnesses (cancer or congenital heart diseases for example) and genuine health emergencies (eg. Strokes). Beyond that, I would look to privatise (but with legislation that protects the people) and look to create competition which drives prices down and standards up. Things that would be covered under this would be gps, dentists and opticians. Stop free health tourism, no unpaid health services for immigrants to this country unless they are working and contributing to the system ala Spain. |
|
|
|
Post by robstokie on Mar 22, 2019 16:55:03 GMT
I believe that the police force has to remain under the remit of government, so as to remain as impartial as possible - privatisation would lead to investors turning the law to their own demands. Funding would say roughly the same, but would look to cut middle-management, beaurecracy and all the powder-puff equality and diversity training programmes (everyone is equal under the letter of law) and redirect funds to front-line policing. Furthermore, if a citizen is treated unfairly or outside what the law of the land says, it is their right to take legal action against the force. People will also have the right to defend themselves and their property from attack and if someone is killed/seriously injured through someone defending themself, the one who was defending themself would be cleared as soon as it is proven that it was just that. As for the health service, the NHS would remain in a capacity to treat severe or life-limiting illnesses (cancer or congenital heart diseases for example) and genuine health emergencies (eg. Strokes). Beyond that, I would look to privatise (but with legislation that protects the people) and look to create competition which drives prices down and standards up. Things that would be covered under this would be gps, dentists and opticians. Stop free health tourism, no unpaid health services for immigrants to this country unless they are working and contributing to the system ala Spain. Bang on I'd say |
|
|
|
Post by Pretty Little Boother on Mar 22, 2019 17:33:49 GMT
This country needs more freedom-lovers.
|
|
|
|
Post by bathstoke on Mar 22, 2019 17:55:14 GMT
At this moment we have a useless government and a equally useless opposition full of career politicians who pretty much all agree on a bigger, more interfering, yet less accountable government set-up, along with more and more punitive and excessive taxation. In my opinion, we need to go the other way, scale back public spending, get the government's noses out of people's personal business, cut down beaurecracy, middle management in the public sector and levels of government and get taxation down to encourage commerce. To that end, I have realised I'm a libertarian (life-long right wing Tory boy and hard Brexit supporter of you were wondering). Well derr, you’ve got Ronald£&#&!nMcDonald as your avatar! |
|
|
|
Post by robstokie on Mar 22, 2019 19:37:13 GMT
At this moment we have a useless government and a equally useless opposition full of career politicians who pretty much all agree on a bigger, more interfering, yet less accountable government set-up, along with more and more punitive and excessive taxation. In my opinion, we need to go the other way, scale back public spending, get the government's noses out of people's personal business, cut down beaurecracy, middle management in the public sector and levels of government and get taxation down to encourage commerce. To that end, I have realised I'm a libertarian (life-long right wing Tory boy and hard Brexit supporter of you were wondering). Well derr, you’ve got Ronald£&#&!nMcDonald as your avatar! Ok - whats your views then 😉 |
|
|
|
Post by felonious on Mar 22, 2019 20:15:08 GMT
Musical interlude anyone?
|
|
|
|
Post by bathstoke on Mar 23, 2019 7:14:08 GMT
Musical interlude anyone?
I preferred Can’t stand me now.”The world kicked back, a lot £@#&!n harder though” |
|
|
|
Post by santy on Mar 23, 2019 7:57:18 GMT
Before anyone jumps to conclusions about my political leanings, I should just point out that I completely opt out of politics and don't subscribe to any group or line of thinking, because no party offers remotely close to what I actually want - a long term plan. Which is impossible to form because the reset button can be hit every 5 years.
On one hand we need a strong government to protect us from businesses. Not that all businesses are inherently shady, but as technology advances and the demands of business change their concern isn't the long term well-being of people. So one of the big problems we have right now is that the governments tend to be far closer to businesses than the people which creates one major problem.
Another strange thing is that despite having all the information available to them, so few in government seem to point out about the fact we actually need immigrants. Massively, perhaps more now than ever.
The problem is, there needs to be the infrastructure to accommodate them. Roads, schools, hospitals, housing. There seems to be no impetus in government to actually provide the infrastructure the country needs, so it comes around to blaming immigrants. We have more jobs available than people to take them. Not enough nurses, doctors, teachers, even for the infrastructure we do have. Move into unskilled jobs and there's a gaping chasm between demand and the supply.
Look at schools in Stoke, there was an article in the sentinel about how they're all filled locally. A few years back Mitchell, Berryhill and Edensor were all closed down for a new 1000 or so student school back up at the Willfield site. I don't know the figures for the others, but a couple of long serving teachers had said in the past Mitchell alone had around 700-800 pupils. Odds are that in the local area the total capacity was halved or more.
I often tend to think the other way, that now more than ever we need a government that's actually involved and investing. How is it that 50 odd years ago in Stoke there was a railway line running through the city, which would be so ideal now left to fall by the wayside? There were plans for roads that would make the city significantly easier to get around, which still haven't been built to this day. Didn't they even unearth some tramlines in Hanley when they were doing the work up there a few years back? I don't know when they were active, but just think at one time Stoke had the options of roads, trams and trains to get around. Somehow we've got less than those times, and it's a struggle for it.
I don't see how there can be an argument to scale back public spending. The economic model of the west is built entirely upon the principle of government spending. Our economic model (seemingly forgotten in recent times) is the government builds things, things get used which increases revenue and/or produces new revenue streams. These revenue streams get taxed (and could perhaps by a smart government maybe even be set up in a way so the majority of the revenue goes to the government and not a private business by running it themselves at profit) and we have more money. Instead we're in a system now where something like over 60% of all benefits spending is on people who are in work, but are not earning enough to live without support from the government.
It is a strange thing, because it makes so many people feel better about themselves to see stuff taken away, to see others made worse than themselves but those great days of yesteryear were built upon the foundation of the government being more meddlesome in the lives of people and far more inclined to spend on public infrastructure. It's also ironic that at the peak of its power Britain welcomed people to the country, because of course, why wouldn't you want to live in Britain its better than everywhere else.
Sadly politicians of today, across the board, are not the people who ought to be leading the country. Afraid of decision making, paralysed by fear and continually kicking the can down the road its fortunate that we live in a time of peace on our own shores. Too many have fallen for the stories of the weak, self-serving politicians on the front of immigration, on the front of benefits. Because ultimately, if all the ills and problems aren't the fault of someone else, then they're the fault of politicians.
After almost 400 years we are starting to come to the end game of democracy. It's becoming ever increasingly short-sighted, ever increasingly less coherent. It's weakening at the seams, and the one side of the spectrum that tends to have the will and power to overthrow it democratically, authoritarian figures on the right are coming to prominence. The left tends to be more blood-fuelled revolution than winning elections but the likes of Putin in Russia, Erdogan in Turkey. You can get the people to vote against democracy and to vote in favour of disassembling it.
Ultimately it will be interesting to see what form government takes after democracy, you have to hope it avoids going back to something akin to a monarchy or the seemingly more likely hereditary dictatorship - hopefully something that's competency based.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pretty Little Boother on Mar 23, 2019 11:27:13 GMT
Before anyone jumps to conclusions about my political leanings, I should just point out that I completely opt out of politics and don't subscribe to any group or line of thinking, because no party offers remotely close to what I actually want - a long term plan. Which is impossible to form because the reset button can be hit every 5 years. On one hand we need a strong government to protect us from businesses. Not that all businesses are inherently shady, but as technology advances and the demands of business change their concern isn't the long term well-being of people. So one of the big problems we have right now is that the governments tend to be far closer to businesses than the people which creates one major problem. Another strange thing is that despite having all the information available to them, so few in government seem to point out about the fact we actually need immigrants. Massively, perhaps more now than ever. The problem is, there needs to be the infrastructure to accommodate them. Roads, schools, hospitals, housing. There seems to be no impetus in government to actually provide the infrastructure the country needs, so it comes around to blaming immigrants. We have more jobs available than people to take them. Not enough nurses, doctors, teachers, even for the infrastructure we do have. Move into unskilled jobs and there's a gaping chasm between demand and the supply. Look at schools in Stoke, there was an article in the sentinel about how they're all filled locally. A few years back Mitchell, Berryhill and Edensor were all closed down for a new 1000 or so student school back up at the Willfield site. I don't know the figures for the others, but a couple of long serving teachers had said in the past Mitchell alone had around 700-800 pupils. Odds are that in the local area the total capacity was halved or more. I often tend to think the other way, that now more than ever we need a government that's actually involved and investing. How is it that 50 odd years ago in Stoke there was a railway line running through the city, which would be so ideal now left to fall by the wayside? There were plans for roads that would make the city significantly easier to get around, which still haven't been built to this day. Didn't they even unearth some tramlines in Hanley when they were doing the work up there a few years back? I don't know when they were active, but just think at one time Stoke had the options of roads, trams and trains to get around. Somehow we've got less than those times, and it's a struggle for it. I don't see how there can be an argument to scale back public spending. The economic model of the west is built entirely upon the principle of government spending. Our economic model (seemingly forgotten in recent times) is the government builds things, things get used which increases revenue and/or produces new revenue streams. These revenue streams get taxed (and could perhaps by a smart government maybe even be set up in a way so the majority of the revenue goes to the government and not a private business by running it themselves at profit) and we have more money. Instead we're in a system now where something like over 60% of all benefits spending is on people who are in work, but are not earning enough to live without support from the government. It is a strange thing, because it makes so many people feel better about themselves to see stuff taken away, to see others made worse than themselves but those great days of yesteryear were built upon the foundation of the government being more meddlesome in the lives of people and far more inclined to spend on public infrastructure. It's also ironic that at the peak of its power Britain welcomed people to the country, because of course, why wouldn't you want to live in Britain its better than everywhere else. Sadly politicians of today, across the board, are not the people who ought to be leading the country. Afraid of decision making, paralysed by fear and continually kicking the can down the road its fortunate that we live in a time of peace on our own shores. Too many have fallen for the stories of the weak, self-serving politicians on the front of immigration, on the front of benefits. Because ultimately, if all the ills and problems aren't the fault of someone else, then they're the fault of politicians. After almost 400 years we are starting to come to the end game of democracy. It's becoming ever increasingly short-sighted, ever increasingly less coherent. It's weakening at the seams, and the one side of the spectrum that tends to have the will and power to overthrow it democratically, authoritarian figures on the right are coming to prominence. The left tends to be more blood-fuelled revolution than winning elections but the likes of Putin in Russia, Erdogan in Turkey. You can get the people to vote against democracy and to vote in favour of disassembling it. Ultimately it will be interesting to see what form government takes after democracy, you have to hope it avoids going back to something akin to a monarchy or the seemingly more likely hereditary dictatorship - hopefully something that's competency based. Reasonable post, but the idea that Western society is built upon government spending is exactly the idea that libertarianism (small L) wants to combat. Governments and political thinkers throughout the 20th Century seem to have manufactured this idea purposefully, to make people so reliant on the government (whomever sits in power) that they can't possibly conceive of life with a drastically slashed back one. To make them so scared of not having their hand held through life that they will always back the party that promises to mollycoddle them. Start with making people reliant on the government for healthcare and you've basically got a soft and compliant populace in the first place, but then capitalise on acts of violence to disarm them and they rely on the government for policing and protection, and chuck in manufactured poverty through various stealth taxes and you have a totally docile society that will basically accept any shit you serve them. The answer to the failures of democracy aren't to just replace democracy, it's simply to scale back interference in every conceivable aspect of people's lives and to let people stand on their own two feet. Encourage them to take risks, but also to allow them to fail. The free market is one of the most wonderful things in existence for dragging people out of poverty. Capitalism has done more than anything else in history for dragging people out of poverty. The free market could and would be responsible for putting those infrastructures in place, if there was a demand for it and investors could be reasonably assured that it would work. The fact that it's only the government who you could look to to build tramlines in SoT suggests that it's not really worth doing, and that it's only the false economies of socialism that would make it work because the govt would be free to extort as much money as they like from people to plough into it. Taxation is ultimately theft however you look at it, but they've done such a good job of indoctrinating people into not only defending it, but actively welcoming the threats of violence against them that it genuinely saddens me. I often have this argument with people and a common theme is "I gladly pay my taxes!". Well, good on you, why do you then need to be threatened into doing it then? Why do you need the intimidation factor of a group of armed men potentially dragging you away and locking you in a cage if you refuse to pay? If you're happy to pay taxes then do it voluntarily, like a grown-up, and let's stop the shit that is Socialism threatening to incarcerate you if you don't pay them their tribute. |
|
|
|
Post by bathstoke on Mar 23, 2019 11:33:53 GMT
What are your solutions to the problems that we have regarding Police and Health funding with this stance? (not accusatory, just curious) As for the health service, the NHS would remain in a capacity to treat severe or life-limiting illnesses (cancer or congenital heart diseases for example) and genuine health emergencies (eg. Strokes). Beyond that, I would look to privatise (but with legislation that protects the people) and look to create competition which drives prices down and standards up. . Well that’s worked in Yanksville! |
|
|
|
Post by bathstoke on Mar 23, 2019 11:42:28 GMT
Before anyone jumps to conclusions about my political leanings, I should just point out that I completely opt out of politics and don't subscribe to any group or line of thinking, because no party offers remotely close to what I actually want - a long term plan. Which is impossible to form because the reset button can be hit every 5 years. On one hand we need a strong government to protect us from businesses. Not that all businesses are inherently shady, but as technology advances and the demands of business change their concern isn't the long term well-being of people. So one of the big problems we have right now is that the governments tend to be far closer to businesses than the people which creates one major problem. Another strange thing is that despite having all the information available to them, so few in government seem to point out about the fact we actually need immigrants. Massively, perhaps more now than ever. The problem is, there needs to be the infrastructure to accommodate them. Roads, schools, hospitals, housing. There seems to be no impetus in government to actually provide the infrastructure the country needs, so it comes around to blaming immigrants. We have more jobs available than people to take them. Not enough nurses, doctors, teachers, even for the infrastructure we do have. Move into unskilled jobs and there's a gaping chasm between demand and the supply. Look at schools in Stoke, there was an article in the sentinel about how they're all filled locally. A few years back Mitchell, Berryhill and Edensor were all closed down for a new 1000 or so student school back up at the Willfield site. I don't know the figures for the others, but a couple of long serving teachers had said in the past Mitchell alone had around 700-800 pupils. Odds are that in the local area the total capacity was halved or more. I often tend to think the other way, that now more than ever we need a government that's actually involved and investing. How is it that 50 odd years ago in Stoke there was a railway line running through the city, which would be so ideal now left to fall by the wayside? There were plans for roads that would make the city significantly easier to get around, which still haven't been built to this day. Didn't they even unearth some tramlines in Hanley when they were doing the work up there a few years back? I don't know when they were active, but just think at one time Stoke had the options of roads, trams and trains to get around. Somehow we've got less than those times, and it's a struggle for it. I don't see how there can be an argument to scale back public spending. The economic model of the west is built entirely upon the principle of government spending. Our economic model (seemingly forgotten in recent times) is the government builds things, things get used which increases revenue and/or produces new revenue streams. These revenue streams get taxed (and could perhaps by a smart government maybe even be set up in a way so the majority of the revenue goes to the government and not a private business by running it themselves at profit) and we have more money. Instead we're in a system now where something like over 60% of all benefits spending is on people who are in work, but are not earning enough to live without support from the government. It is a strange thing, because it makes so many people feel better about themselves to see stuff taken away, to see others made worse than themselves but those great days of yesteryear were built upon the foundation of the government being more meddlesome in the lives of people and far more inclined to spend on public infrastructure. It's also ironic that at the peak of its power Britain welcomed people to the country, because of course, why wouldn't you want to live in Britain its better than everywhere else. Sadly politicians of today, across the board, are not the people who ought to be leading the country. Afraid of decision making, paralysed by fear and continually kicking the can down the road its fortunate that we live in a time of peace on our own shores. Too many have fallen for the stories of the weak, self-serving politicians on the front of immigration, on the front of benefits. Because ultimately, if all the ills and problems aren't the fault of someone else, then they're the fault of politicians. After almost 400 years we are starting to come to the end game of democracy. It's becoming ever increasingly short-sighted, ever increasingly less coherent. It's weakening at the seams, and the one side of the spectrum that tends to have the will and power to overthrow it democratically, authoritarian figures on the right are coming to prominence. The left tends to be more blood-fuelled revolution than winning elections but the likes of Putin in Russia, Erdogan in Turkey. You can get the people to vote against democracy and to vote in favour of disassembling it. Ultimately it will be interesting to see what form government takes after democracy, you have to hope it avoids going back to something akin to a monarchy or the seemingly more likely hereditary dictatorship - hopefully something that's competency based. The free market is one of the most wonderful things in existence for dragging people out of poverty. Capitalism has done more than anything else in history for dragging people out of poverty. The free market could and would be responsible for putting those infrastructures in place, if there was a demand for it and investors could be reasonably assured that it would work. The fact that it's only the government who you could look to to build tramlines in SoT suggests that it's not really worth doing, and that it's only the false economies of socialism that would make it work because the govt would be free to extort as much money as they like from people to plough into it. Capitalism puts more people in poverty than takes them out. FFS, We’re still getting over when it put people in slavery(which cost the nation a fortune to free them, cause capitalist wouldn’t give them up otherwise) Not even serious economic thinkers believe that capitalism is working. Talk about progressive thinking. Folk want a race to the bottom & back into the dark ages. They’re as bad as ISIS |
|
|
|
Post by Pretty Little Boother on Mar 23, 2019 11:45:26 GMT
As for the health service, the NHS would remain in a capacity to treat severe or life-limiting illnesses (cancer or congenital heart diseases for example) and genuine health emergencies (eg. Strokes). Beyond that, I would look to privatise (but with legislation that protects the people) and look to create competition which drives prices down and standards up. . Well that’s worked in Yanksville! Well it has, to be fair, insofar as the quality and standard of care is far better than that which our NHS provides, and the research and development of medicines and treatment far surpasses any other country. If you want the best you have to pay for it, that's just reality, no matter how much you might not want to. I'd support a "Default" NHS system in which everyone is enrolled automatically as long as you have the option to opt-out, but obviously we don't. I think you'd be pretty stupid to if you didn't have any other kind of insurance but it's still a choice that people should be allowed to make. |
|
|
|
Post by Pretty Little Boother on Mar 23, 2019 11:58:47 GMT
The free market is one of the most wonderful things in existence for dragging people out of poverty. Capitalism has done more than anything else in history for dragging people out of poverty. The free market could and would be responsible for putting those infrastructures in place, if there was a demand for it and investors could be reasonably assured that it would work. The fact that it's only the government who you could look to to build tramlines in SoT suggests that it's not really worth doing, and that it's only the false economies of socialism that would make it work because the govt would be free to extort as much money as they like from people to plough into it. Capitalism puts more people in poverty than takes them out. FFS, We’re still getting over when it put people in slavery(which cost the nation a fortune to free them, cause capitalist wouldn’t give them up otherwise) Not even serious economic thinkers believe that capitalism is working. Talk about progressive thinking. Folk want a race to the bottom & back into the dark ages. They’re as bad as ISIS No, the natural state of man is chaos and poverty, and capitalism has provided the means to largely eradicate that. It created the wealth that Socialism seeks to redistribute in the first place. Technology, medicine, every tradable commodity you can think of is a product of a market, which is itself the organic product of people being afforded the freedom to trade as they see fit. Socialism has never worked, despite countless attempts to make it work. Its end game of Communism is invariably brutal and evil. The USSR saw innumerable people risking their lives to defect to the West, how many people did you see risking their lives to escape the terrors of the West to get into the USSR? And as for the slavery issue, in the grand scheme of capitalism it's only a minor side story, and the bulk of the Industrial Revolution's inventions and innovations occurred after its abolition in this country (and fun fact, it was actually a capitalist society that abolished slavery here, and the Republican party that did it in the USA), so as unpleasant and evil as that particular chapter was, it's not only moot but reductivist to tar all capitalism with the same brush, and irrelevant since slavery is not an exvlusive product of capitalism anyway. Slavery predates capitalism by quite a few thousand years actually, and has also existed in socialist / communist societies too. In fact, there's an argument to be made that says if one is not entitled to the fruits of one's labour in full, that is itself a version of slavery, and one actively promoted by the economic left. |
|
|
|
Post by Pretty Little Boother on Mar 23, 2019 12:11:21 GMT
Also, to the left, why is "progression" and moving forward always invariably synonymous with authoritarianism and control?
It's like there's a mental block that won't allow them to consider a future which can benefit everyone without the looming spectre of big government breathing down their necks at every turn.
If you want people to freely and voluntarily trade for mutual benefit, be in control of your own life and exercise free will to help people not because you're made to but because you want to, and to take more responsibity for yourself and your loved ones you're some sort of evil, backwards monster?
Wanting people to live life exactly as they see fit with no infringement somehow equates me to ISIS? Loopy!
|
|
|
|
Post by santy on Mar 23, 2019 21:36:20 GMT
Reasonable post, but the idea that Western society is built upon government spending is exactly the idea that libertarianism (small L) wants to combat. Governments and political thinkers throughout the 20th Century seem to have manufactured this idea purposefully, to make people so reliant on the government (whomever sits in power) that they can't possibly conceive of life with a drastically slashed back one. To make them so scared of not having their hand held through life that they will always back the party that promises to mollycoddle them. Start with making people reliant on the government for healthcare and you've basically got a soft and compliant populace in the first place, but then capitalise on acts of violence to disarm them and they rely on the government for policing and protection, and chuck in manufactured poverty through various stealth taxes and you have a totally docile society that will basically accept any shit you serve them. The answer to the failures of democracy aren't to just replace democracy, it's simply to scale back interference in every conceivable aspect of people's lives and to let people stand on their own two feet. Encourage them to take risks, but also to allow them to fail. The free market is one of the most wonderful things in existence for dragging people out of poverty. Capitalism has done more than anything else in history for dragging people out of poverty. The free market could and would be responsible for putting those infrastructures in place, if there was a demand for it and investors could be reasonably assured that it would work. The fact that it's only the government who you could look to to build tramlines in SoT suggests that it's not really worth doing, and that it's only the false economies of socialism that would make it work because the govt would be free to extort as much money as they like from people to plough into it. Taxation is ultimately theft however you look at it, but they've done such a good job of indoctrinating people into not only defending it, but actively welcoming the threats of violence against them that it genuinely saddens me. I often have this argument with people and a common theme is "I gladly pay my taxes!". Well, good on you, why do you then need to be threatened into doing it then? Why do you need the intimidation factor of a group of armed men potentially dragging you away and locking you in a cage if you refuse to pay? If you're happy to pay taxes then do it voluntarily, like a grown-up, and let's stop the shit that is Socialism threatening to incarcerate you if you don't pay them their tribute. I can definitely see merit in what you're saying culminating towards the end of the 4th paragraph. I think there's one major counterpoint to that, shareholders. Shareholders do not care if an investment today will yield enormous dividends for 50 years to come in 25 years times. Shareholders do care about what the dividend will be this year. Furthermore, when the majority of these companies are outside of the UK, and their shareholders are too, what benefit is there to the country? They want to extract the wealth and largely ignore any of the capitalist principles that reinvest it for further gains in the future. The most successful companies long-term tend to be those who can overpower shareholder desires for dividends (Amazon) or companies with an incredibly strong figurehead (such as Bill Gates in the early Microsoft years) the problem with chasing short term profits at any cost is there will be a long term cost. Perhaps there could be a re-balancing on this in time were businesses left to sink or swim on these merits but if all these private companies weren't getting the subsidies they already get a lot of them would struggle to be viable or would penalise the countries who wouldn't play ball. We've seen the problems of shareholders in recent times, Enron were paying good dividends... right up until that moment they weren't. Banks the world over suddenly realised their great profits and dividends were built on quicksand and were paying great dividends and bonuses, right up until the moment they weren't. While it is very much a true point that the individuals have grown up in an era of being accustomed to being provided for by the state, so too is private enterprise. By adopting a libertarian approach, the biggest risk is that you simply aren't playing the same game as everyone else anymore. Deregulate enormously and it may well attract some new businesses, but if you stop the handouts how many businesses will go to a country that does give better handouts? Ireland has made a killing in the last 15-20 years based on this approach, they've undercut various UK laws, garnered various deals that give them preferential treatment in exchange for bringing jobs to utilise infrastructure the government builds to increase tax revenue. Meanwhile, they could sell themselves as on the door-step of the UK and we could do nothing about it from a regulatory perspective. Of course there is no disputing that taxation is enforced upon the population. But remember, there is one true underlining fact of human life. You have what you can hold. The deck is stacked against individuals nowadays to such a point it would be nigh on impossible, but if you can forcibly hold out against something then no one can take it from you. The biggest reason isn't that taxes are a good thing, it's main pitch is more meant to be a mutual promise that on the whole we won't try and take what each other have, that we will work together and achieve greater things than we can individually. Doesn't really work out that way, even within our own city and of course within our own country we live in servitude of the greater benefit of London. Yet there is a modicum of civility to it all. There's also a degree of greater weight to the bargaining. When you deal with a business you can't be sure they'll be there in 50 years time. With a country, it tends to be pretty solid that there will still be something there in 50 years time and well if there isn't, there's probably bigger concerns. If a country wants to borrow 30 billion to build a new rail line, it tends to be a much easier sell than if Kev the guy who's done the math and realised it can turn a profit in 15 years time asks. In addition to this how many private businesses exist because they are able to thrive in the rules that open up the infrastructure of others to let them compete? How well would bet365 have done for example, if BT could strangle their business with internet access tariffs? Who but a government could ever fund a nationwide communicative infrastructure because without that there's no BT anyway? How well would technology have done if the US government had not forced Microsoft to open up their code in the 90's? Businesses can't always see a long term angle, sometimes there is no long term angle for them but there is for everyone else. Digression aside, and coming back to taxation, I actually believe there is no reason why the government could not have nationalised industries across the board that are run for profit to remove the need for taxation. I personally would endorse a government being run as a capitalist institute, with checks and balances to prevent it being egregious. Run gas, electricity, water, internet at profit to subsidise health, policing and emergency services. Legalise all drugs and run it for profit. I don't think there's much impetus for change either way, politicians are becoming ever meeker and non-committal. That is the death knell for the whole system and approach in my mind. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2019 21:59:40 GMT
As for the health service, the NHS would remain in a capacity to treat severe or life-limiting illnesses (cancer or congenital heart diseases for example) and genuine health emergencies (eg. Strokes). Beyond that, I would look to privatise (but with legislation that protects the people) and look to create competition which drives prices down and standards up. . Well that’s worked in Yanksville! Has it? Or is their extreme inequality between what people can afford. I spent two years in a country which only had a private healthcare system and all I ever felt what that every time you went to the doctors they wanted you to be ill and they wanted to prescribe as much as they could. This ended up with me in intensive care having been given medicines which made me worse and was one of the reason I left. Private healthcare makes money from people being ill. I don’t think the nhs is perfect and of course mistakes are made but there’s something which unnerves me about a full private healthcare system... |
|
|
|
Post by bathstoke on Mar 23, 2019 23:20:33 GMT
Well that’s worked in Yanksville! Has it? Or is their extreme inequality between what people can afford. I spent two years in a country which only had a private healthcare system and all I ever felt what that every time you went to the doctors they wanted you to be ill and they wanted to prescribe as much as they could. This ended up with me in intensive care having been given medicines which made me worse and was one of the reason I left. Private healthcare makes money from people being ill. I don’t think the nhs is perfect and of course mistakes are made but there’s something which unnerves me about a full private healthcare system... You’re preaching to the converted mate. I was being ironic in my postXx |
|
|
|
Post by trentvale68 on Mar 24, 2019 0:31:37 GMT
Where does libertarianism tackle the problems of social care, homelessness, poverty, food bank dependence and sanctioning the disabled?
For me, its just a fancy word for fuck you, Jack I'm alright.
|
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Mar 24, 2019 0:51:19 GMT
Well that’s worked in Yanksville! Has it? Or is their extreme inequality between what people can afford. I spent two years in a country which only had a private healthcare system and all I ever felt what that every time you went to the doctors they wanted you to be ill and they wanted to prescribe as much as they could. This ended up with me in intensive care having been given medicines which made me worse and was one of the reason I left. Private healthcare makes money from people being ill. I don’t think the nhs is perfect and of course mistakes are made but there’s something which unnerves me about a full private healthcare system... Ditto. I’ve posted this before but here are three things I’ve experienced in the private system I live under: * Having to sign an obligatory blank IOU contract before getting emergency treatment for a baby with breathing difficulties in the middle of the night * Sorting out payment, after the event, of a bill for several hundred pounds for a 15-minute non-emergency ambulance ride from one hospital (where there were no beds) to another * Seeing a guy break down in tears 20 minutes after snapping his Achilles’ tendon, not because of the pain or anything like that, but because of the financial impact he knew the cost of the operation was going to have on his family All things that would surely horrify anyone brought up in the uk... I have a lot more sympathy for free market principles than I used to but I still think a universal free health service should just be a given in a developed democracy. |
|
|
|
Post by Pretty Little Boother on Mar 24, 2019 2:21:55 GMT
I bloody love an argument and I'll treat this post with the respect it deserves by waiting until I'm sober. No chance am I going to give you a sloshed response to a clearly well-considered and carefully crafted post, no matter how much I disagree with it. Reasonable post, but the idea that Western society is built upon government spending is exactly the idea that libertarianism (small L) wants to combat. Governments and political thinkers throughout the 20th Century seem to have manufactured this idea purposefully, to make people so reliant on the government (whomever sits in power) that they can't possibly conceive of life with a drastically slashed back one. To make them so scared of not having their hand held through life that they will always back the party that promises to mollycoddle them. Start with making people reliant on the government for healthcare and you've basically got a soft and compliant populace in the first place, but then capitalise on acts of violence to disarm them and they rely on the government for policing and protection, and chuck in manufactured poverty through various stealth taxes and you have a totally docile society that will basically accept any shit you serve them. The answer to the failures of democracy aren't to just replace democracy, it's simply to scale back interference in every conceivable aspect of people's lives and to let people stand on their own two feet. Encourage them to take risks, but also to allow them to fail. The free market is one of the most wonderful things in existence for dragging people out of poverty. Capitalism has done more than anything else in history for dragging people out of poverty. The free market could and would be responsible for putting those infrastructures in place, if there was a demand for it and investors could be reasonably assured that it would work. The fact that it's only the government who you could look to to build tramlines in SoT suggests that it's not really worth doing, and that it's only the false economies of socialism that would make it work because the govt would be free to extort as much money as they like from people to plough into it. Taxation is ultimately theft however you look at it, but they've done such a good job of indoctrinating people into not only defending it, but actively welcoming the threats of violence against them that it genuinely saddens me. I often have this argument with people and a common theme is "I gladly pay my taxes!". Well, good on you, why do you then need to be threatened into doing it then? Why do you need the intimidation factor of a group of armed men potentially dragging you away and locking you in a cage if you refuse to pay? If you're happy to pay taxes then do it voluntarily, like a grown-up, and let's stop the shit that is Socialism threatening to incarcerate you if you don't pay them their tribute. I can definitely see merit in what you're saying culminating towards the end of the 4th paragraph. I think there's one major counterpoint to that, shareholders. Shareholders do not care if an investment today will yield enormous dividends for 50 years to come in 25 years times. Shareholders do care about what the dividend will be this year. Furthermore, when the majority of these companies are outside of the UK, and their shareholders are too, what benefit is there to the country? They want to extract the wealth and largely ignore any of the capitalist principles that reinvest it for further gains in the future. The most successful companies long-term tend to be those who can overpower shareholder desires for dividends (Amazon) or companies with an incredibly strong figurehead (such as Bill Gates in the early Microsoft years) the problem with chasing short term profits at any cost is there will be a long term cost. Perhaps there could be a re-balancing on this in time were businesses left to sink or swim on these merits but if all these private companies weren't getting the subsidies they already get a lot of them would struggle to be viable or would penalise the countries who wouldn't play ball. We've seen the problems of shareholders in recent times, Enron were paying good dividends... right up until that moment they weren't. Banks the world over suddenly realised their great profits and dividends were built on quicksand and were paying great dividends and bonuses, right up until the moment they weren't. While it is very much a true point that the individuals have grown up in an era of being accustomed to being provided for by the state, so too is private enterprise. By adopting a libertarian approach, the biggest risk is that you simply aren't playing the same game as everyone else anymore. Deregulate enormously and it may well attract some new businesses, but if you stop the handouts how many businesses will go to a country that does give better handouts? Ireland has made a killing in the last 15-20 years based on this approach, they've undercut various UK laws, garnered various deals that give them preferential treatment in exchange for bringing jobs to utilise infrastructure the government builds to increase tax revenue. Meanwhile, they could sell themselves as on the door-step of the UK and we could do nothing about it from a regulatory perspective. Of course there is no disputing that taxation is enforced upon the population. But remember, there is one true underlining fact of human life. You have what you can hold. The deck is stacked against individuals nowadays to such a point it would be nigh on impossible, but if you can forcibly hold out against something then no one can take it from you. The biggest reason isn't that taxes are a good thing, it's main pitch is more meant to be a mutual promise that on the whole we won't try and take what each other have, that we will work together and achieve greater things than we can individually. Doesn't really work out that way, even within our own city and of course within our own country we live in servitude of the greater benefit of London. Yet there is a modicum of civility to it all. There's also a degree of greater weight to the bargaining. When you deal with a business you can't be sure they'll be there in 50 years time. With a country, it tends to be pretty solid that there will still be something there in 50 years time and well if there isn't, there's probably bigger concerns. If a country wants to borrow 30 billion to build a new rail line, it tends to be a much easier sell than if Kev the guy who's done the math and realised it can turn a profit in 15 years time asks. In addition to this how many private businesses exist because they are able to thrive in the rules that open up the infrastructure of others to let them compete? How well would bet365 have done for example, if BT could strangle their business with internet access tariffs? Who but a government could ever fund a nationwide communicative infrastructure because without that there's no BT anyway? How well would technology have done if the US government had not forced Microsoft to open up their code in the 90's? Businesses can't always see a long term angle, sometimes there is no long term angle for them but there is for everyone else. Digression aside, and coming back to taxation, I actually believe there is no reason why the government could not have nationalised industries across the board that are run for profit to remove the need for taxation. I personally would endorse a government being run as a capitalist institute, with checks and balances to prevent it being egregious. Run gas, electricity, water, internet at profit to subsidise health, policing and emergency services. Legalise all drugs and run it for profit. I don't think there's much impetus for change either way, politicians are becoming ever meeker and non-committal. That is the death knell for the whole system and approach in my mind. |
|
|
|
Post by Pretty Little Boother on Mar 24, 2019 2:30:29 GMT
Where does libertarianism tackle the problems of social care, homelessness, poverty, food bank dependence and sanctioning the disabled? For me, its just a fancy word for fuck you, Jack I'm alright. Unlike the post above, I'm not too pissed to treat this post with the contempt it deserves. People naturally want to help each other. There is absolutely no virtue in giving money because you're threatened with prison if you don't. The whole socialist wank-off is based on "Well if I get taxed, I've done my bit without actually doing anything". It's lazy, self-indulgent shit based on making people feel good without them actually doing anything. You call us "alright-Jacks" but when the fuck have you ever been out on the street giving your time because you want to, rather than having your salary skimmed and sitting back like some smug cunt, knowing that it's being done for you? Socialism is shorthand for laziness. "Can't someone else do it for me? Oh they've taken my money off me, how charitable am I?". Pure shit. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 24, 2019 7:04:28 GMT
Where does libertarianism tackle the problems of social care, homelessness, poverty, food bank dependence and sanctioning the disabled? For me, its just a fancy word for fuck you, Jack I'm alright. Unlike the post above, I'm not too pissed to treat this post with the contempt it deserves. People naturally want to help each other. There is absolutely no virtue in giving money because you're threatened with prison if you don't. The whole socialist wank-off is based on "Well if I get taxed, I've done my bit without actually doing anything". It's lazy, self-indulgent shit based on making people feel good without them actually doing anything. You call us "alright-Jacks" but when the fuck have you ever been out on the street giving your time because you want to, rather than having your salary skimmed and sitting back like some smug cunt, knowing that it's being done for you? Socialism is shorthand for laziness. "Can't someone else do it for me? Oh they've taken my money off me, how charitable am I?". Pure shit. The only alternative to the pure greed of capitalism isn’t socialism though. Look around the globe, especially to the Nordic countries there are other options..... |
|
|
|
Post by bathstoke on Mar 24, 2019 7:10:35 GMT
Well that’s worked in Yanksville! Well it has, to be fair, insofar as the quality and standard of care is far better than that which our NHS provides, and the research and development of medicines and treatment far surpasses any other country. If you want the best you have to pay for it, that's just reality, no matter how much you might not want to. I'd support a "Default" NHS system in which everyone is enrolled automatically as long as you have the option to opt-out, but obviously we don't. I think you'd be pretty stupid to if you didn't have any other kind of insurance but it's still a choice that people should be allowed to make. The medical industry in Yanksville operates on a profits only basis. Any good it does is only a byproduct. It has a massive lobbying arm and promotes its own drugs whilst dismissing any cheaper alternatives. The NHS, similar to the industrial revolution, brought medicine kicking & screaming into the 20th Cent, long before Yanksville. |
|
|
|
Post by bathstoke on Mar 24, 2019 7:33:08 GMT
Capitalism puts more people in poverty than takes them out. FFS, We’re still getting over when it put people in slavery(which cost the nation a fortune to free them, cause capitalist wouldn’t give them up otherwise) Not even serious economic thinkers believe that capitalism is working. Talk about progressive thinking. Folk want a race to the bottom & back into the dark ages. They’re as bad as ISIS No, the natural state of man is chaos and poverty, and capitalism has provided the means to largely eradicate that. It created the wealth that Socialism seeks to redistribute in the first place. Technology, medicine, every tradable commodity you can think of is a product of a market, which is itself the organic product of people being afforded the freedom to trade as they see fit. Socialism has never worked, despite countless attempts to make it work. Its end game of Communism is invariably brutal and evil. The USSR saw innumerable people risking their lives to defect to the West, how many people did you see risking their lives to escape the terrors of the West to get into the USSR? And as for the slavery issue, in the grand scheme of capitalism it's only a minor side story, and the bulk of the Industrial Revolution's inventions and innovations occurred after its abolition in this country (and fun fact, it was actually a capitalist society that abolished slavery here, and the Republican party that did it in the USA), so as unpleasant and evil as that particular chapter was, it's not only moot but reductivist to tar all capitalism with the same brush, and irrelevant since slavery is not an exvlusive product of capitalism anyway. Slavery predates capitalism by quite a few thousand years actually, and has also existed in socialist / communist societies too. In fact, there's an argument to be made that says if one is not entitled to the fruits of one's labour in full, that is itself a version of slavery, and one actively promoted by the economic left. I don’t know what’s going on with you pretty, but your stance that capitalism is the saviour of the world is V strange. Because my avatar is Fidel, don’t think I’m communist. I just like Cuba, cause it’s got the worlds best cigars & rum & you can watch beautiful people dance to fantastic music. The thing with progress is that it goes the other way too(see Ozymandias) & this country has been sucking off the flat battery of its moral fibre for decades & with each generation of not putting that back on charge we will degenerate & capitalism will not be part of the solution it will be the opposite. As for the line about slavery being abolished by capitalist, I think you’ll find it was the church that pushed for it until capitalists were shamed into it. We’re still living with the aftermath of slavery & we still live with slavery. Slavery is all about greed & let’s not forget Pretty, Greed is good. |
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Mar 24, 2019 14:32:24 GMT
Unlike the post above, I'm not too pissed to treat this post with the contempt it deserves. People naturally want to help each other. There is absolutely no virtue in giving money because you're threatened with prison if you don't. The whole socialist wank-off is based on "Well if I get taxed, I've done my bit without actually doing anything". It's lazy, self-indulgent shit based on making people feel good without them actually doing anything. You call us "alright-Jacks" but when the fuck have you ever been out on the street giving your time because you want to, rather than having your salary skimmed and sitting back like some smug cunt, knowing that it's being done for you? Socialism is shorthand for laziness. "Can't someone else do it for me? Oh they've taken my money off me, how charitable am I?". Pure shit. The only alternative to the pure greed of capitalism isn’t socialism though. Look around the globe, especially to the Nordic countries there are other options..... Err the Nordic countries are capitalist |
|
|
|
Post by Pretty Little Boother on Mar 24, 2019 15:35:15 GMT
It's less to do with me personally wanking off capitalism, but it's really the best system that has been tried. In fact it's not really a system because it's not been designed, it's the organic result of free trade of goods and services for mutual benefit.
It's also the only economic school of thought that fits into my wider world view: people should be free to live their lives as best as they see fit, and to never be an aggressor (Non-Aggression Policy, or "NAP" in libertarian parlance).
Taxation is simply incompatible with that (although voluntary taxation such as VAT are begrudgingly acceptable). It's not selfish, it's not greedy to think like this: it id straight up theft.
I don't normally like using analogies and equivalences to illustrate points but they're quite useful in this context, because people are brainwashed when it comes to taxation.
If a man approaches me in the street and demands my wallet and threatens to kidnap me and lock me in a cage if I don't, it's theft.
If two men do it, it's theft.
If ten men do it it's theft.
If a hundred do it and decide to hold a vote on whether or not to do it, it's theft.
If a thousand do it, hold the vote, and decide to use the money to give to a homeless man down the street, it's theft.
If a million do it to me and fifty others, with the vote, and decide to split their swag between twenty different causes and even spend it on stuff I use, it's still theft.
If seventy million do all of the above and a fraction of them call themselves "the government", it magically stops becoming theft and becomes taxation and it's suddenly a good thing? It's nonsense.
|
|
|
|
Post by felonious on Mar 24, 2019 15:42:01 GMT
It's less to do with me personally wanking off capitalism, but it's really the best system that has been tried. In fact it's not really a system because it's not been designed, it's the organic result of free trade of goods and services for mutual benefit. It's also the only economic school of thought that fits into my wider world view: people should be free to live their lives as best as they see fit, and to never be an aggressor (Non-Aggression Policy, or "NAP" in libertarian parlance). Taxation is simply incompatible with that (although voluntary taxation such as VAT are begrudgingly acceptable). It's not selfish, it's not greedy to think like this: it id straight up theft. I don't normally like using analogies and equivalences to illustrate points but they're quite useful in this context, because people are brainwashed when it comes to taxation. If a man approaches me in the street and demands my wallet and threatens to kidnap me and lock me in a cage if I don't, it's theft. If two men do it, it's theft. If ten men do it it's theft. If a hundred do it and decide to hold a vote on whether or not to do it, it's theft. If a thousand do it, hold the vote, and decide to use the money to give to a homeless man down the street, it's theft. If a million do it to me and fifty others, with the vote, and decide to split their swag between twenty different causes and even spend it on stuff I use, it's still theft. If seventy million do all of the above and a fraction of them call themselves "the government", it magically stops becoming theft and becomes taxation and it's suddenly a good thing? It's nonsense. I take it you'd be willing to donate some of your hard earned cash from the Boother charitable foundation to those who were unable to work through no fault of their own ? |
|
