Woodstock Jag Posted January 6, 2011 Report Share Posted January 6, 2011 How about investing in civil servants to collect the tax; or is that toooo zany? Like they already do? If you seriously think that promoting and recruiting a few hundred more civil servants is going to make billions magically appear out of thin air, then you're deluded. What was it I said about resorting to Ad hominem abuse. Are the naughty Commies getting to you? Do you actually know what "ad hominem abuse" means? Saying that someone is "talking shite" is not ad hominem abuse. Saying that someone "is a shite" is ad hominem abuse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meister Jag Posted January 6, 2011 Report Share Posted January 6, 2011 (edited) Like they already do? If you seriously think that promoting and recruiting a few hundred more civil servants is going to make billions magically appear out of thin air, then you're deluded. Nope, don't think I am. CS numbers have been drastically reduced so as to make revenue collection difficult - self-assessment etc. More civil servants would increase the amount of dosh brought in. Simple really. Funny how numbers will increase when the benefit cuts are up and running; but maybe I'm just being naive and cynical. you'll probably tell me that I am. Do you actually know what "ad hominem abuse" means? Saying that someone is "talking shite" is not ad hominem abuse. Saying that someone "is a shite" is ad hominem abuse. I seem to recall that ad homien abuse related to attacks and arguments which are designed to discredit the person rather than countering the logic or reason of the person's position or argument. Commonly referred to in DG parlance as flames; so when people like you and me send flames back and forth it is known as a flamewar. You seem to be taking this all very personally... is it not past your bed time? Edited January 6, 2011 by Meister Jag Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodstock Jag Posted January 6, 2011 Report Share Posted January 6, 2011 (edited) Nope, don't think I am. CS numbers have been drastically reduced so as to make revenue collection difficult - self-assessment etc. More civil servants would increase the amount of dosh brought in. Simple really. Funny how numbers will increase when the benefit cuts are up and running; but maybe I'm just being naive and cynical. you'll probably tell me that I am. Self-assessment has hugely decreased the cost of tax collection and hasn't made it any less efficient. The only difference is that instead of wasting valuable hours on routine tax returns, civil servants instead EXAMINE the completed accounts of those who self-assess and flag up anything that is obviously wrong. More civil servants would not necessarily increase the amount of dosh brought in. It would have to be in conjunction with a (probably very expensive) overhaul of HMRC procedure and practices to have an effect worthy of the additional resources. As I recall, the Coalition actually ARE putting more money back into anti-tax-avoidance measures (£6 billion IIRC) to mitigate the culture that was bred of tolerating tax avoidance by Labour in the last 13 years. I seem to recall that ad homien abuse related to attacks and arguments which are designed to discredit the person rather than countering the logic or reason of the person's position or argument. Commonly referred to in DG parlance as flames; so when people like you and me send flames back and forth it is known as a flamewar. You seem to be taking this all very personally... is it not past your bed time? And to say "you are talking shite" is not designed to discredit the person. It is a judgment on the evident lack of logic and reason in their argument. When the Commies all team up, market anarchists have to fight their corner. It would be profoundly hypocritical to slunk off and surrender to the coercive evil of statist "you want to trample on the poor and then piss on their face" propaganda. Edited January 6, 2011 by Woodstock Jag Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meister Jag Posted January 6, 2011 Report Share Posted January 6, 2011 Self-assessment has hugely decreased the cost of tax collection and hasn't made it any less efficient. The only difference is that instead of wasting valuable hours on routine tax returns, civil servants instead EXAMINE the completed accounts of those who self-assess and flag up anything that is obviously wrong. More civil servants would not necessarily increase the amount of dosh brought in. It would have to be in conjunction with a (probably very expensive) overhaul of HMRC procedure and practices to have an effect worthy of the additional resources. As I recall, the Coalition actually ARE putting more money back into anti-tax-avoidance measures (£6 billion IIRC) to mitigate the culture that was bred of tolerating tax avoidance by Labour in the last 13 years. Yet cutting CS numbers so a false economy IMO. Who'll be there to do the work or are we relying on the honesty of individuals and businesses etc? And to say "you are talking shite" is not designed to discredit the person. It is a judgment on the evident lack of logic and reason in their argument. When the Commies all team up, market anarchists have to fight their corner. It would be profoundly hypocritical to slunk off and surrender to the coercive evil of statist "you want to trample on the poor and then piss on their face" propaganda. Commies? I think you'll find that most of us are just ordinary folk who are fed up with the crap that is spouted by Tory and Lib Dem apologists. Happy reading and night night: http://www.scottishcommunists.org.uk/communist-news/cuts-comprehensive-spending-review-the-most-comprehensive-assault-on-public-services-and-the-welfare-state-in-british-history-britain-s-communists-urge-militant-resistance-to-barbarians-at-the-gate Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodstock Jag Posted January 6, 2011 Report Share Posted January 6, 2011 Yet cutting CS numbers so a false economy IMO. Who'll be there to do the work or are we relying on the honesty of individuals and businesses etc? Cutting civil servant numbers isn't a false economy. Excess bureaucrats should get themselves to Commies? I think you'll find that most of us are just ordinary folk who are fed up with the crap that is spouted by Tory and Lib Dem apologists. You eulogise about Marx and dialectic materialism. If you can't call that Commy, then there's no such thing as a communist. Happy reading and night night: http://www.scottishcommunists.org.uk/communist-news/cuts-comprehensive-spending-review-the-most-comprehensive-assault-on-public-services-and-the-welfare-state-in-british-history-britain-s-communists-urge-militant-resistance-to-barbarians-at-the-gate Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dragon Posted January 6, 2011 Report Share Posted January 6, 2011 I "earned" the "private sector" job I had before this Government decided to take it away and can provide a list of my qualifications and previous employment experience to show this. I can also provide a list of all the "private sector" jobs I've applied for and the bog standard replys (if you're lucky enough to get a response) of "due to the unusually large number of applicants please do not expect a reply". I also know people who are facing a bleak future who "earned" a job who have received the "due to Government cuts the position you hold is now under-threat of redundacy". I also know a number of "private" business owners whose businesses are under threat as they have some contracts with the "public sector" and have had to tell their "private sector" employees they are also "under threat". I also "earned" the right to the house I am in just now by working my backside off and had a period of homelessness with one young kid and another on the way. However, who knows how long we will be in here once the rent can't be paid for and we'll no doubt be expected to leave it because we longer "earn" the right to be there. I'm no hero, but, I spent some time in the forces, which seems a lifetime away now, and have seen human greed up close and personal. Humanity - you're having a laugh! It's not pleasent watching neighbours kill neighbours and old friends kill old friends when there is no social order to prevent it. And, to think some would have you believe that the rich would help the poor if taxation, etc, was taken away. Keep dreaming! At the end of the day this is the reality of these "tiny cuts" for myself and others who were like me. Screwed over even though you were happy enough to work your butt off just to have enough to live on and not take on any loans/mortgage as everything you had you saved for and was paid for. Now everything we "earned" has been sold off to bring in additonal cash and also to cut the household budget. But, then I'm not looking for any kind of sympathy just stating that for some the ConDems are the best thing since sliced bread which I truly hope remains the same, but, for others, like me, they were the worst of all that could have been elected. I have no political allegiance to any of the parties as none would quite clearly not associate themselves with my thoughts. As far as I am concerned if you want to be in politics, which I studied at great length in college and university, then you would do so on the basis of getting reasonable ( ) expenses ( ) and no salary whilst working in other paid employment. I firmly believe there are other ways that this mess could be sorted out, but, unlike some I am not going to bore by ranting on about how "I" would do it. This will be my last post as quite clearly the thoughts and warnings I am trying to give, and the views of others, is only replied to in a manner that I find quite derogatory and condescending because let's face it I am old enough and wise enough to know what a "mortgage" is. Not sure if I can delete the username or not. If not then Admin you can remove/reset "Dragon" as you see fit. Dragon - Died Jan 6th 2011. RIP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_mm_ Posted January 6, 2011 Report Share Posted January 6, 2011 No, not really. Negative freedoms are rights not to be inhibited from doing things (e.g. freedom of speech is a negative right because it's the right not to have others prevent you from saying what you want to say). Positive freedoms are of debatable existence. They require actual acts by society rather than inaction (e.g. a right to education is an aspirational positive right, as it requires action from society in the formation of education providers. This would only be a negative right in the sense that, e.g. unlike in Afghanistan, there should be no legal impediment to women being allowed to receive an education at school. Meh...i completely disagree with your definitions. Negative freedoms are freedoms from external constraint or control. Positive freedoms are the freedoms of pursuit. Both exist concurrently. If memory serves, the traditional view is that liberty is the balance of those two ideas. Per your example, freedom of speech is a negative freedom only within the context our western governments, in as much as it is them relinquishing a restraint they otherwise have on us. The freedom to say what ever you want is a positive freedom that becomes limited by the confines of whatever society you chose (or coerces!) you to be a part. honestly, i am unfamiliar with any views that positive freedoms are only expressed through the actions of a society and not through the individual. There's no such thing as the positive freedom to conk someone over the head unless you take the Hobbesian view of liberty. you clearly don’t live in my neighbourhood.... That said, though admittedly simplistic, I still maintain that my analogy stands. Me free to have my food without someone taking it (my negative freedom), fella wanting to have food and seeking to attain it by the aforementioned conking (his positive freedom). Ah, you're going down the Hobbesian route! Guilty. The older I get, the more I like Hobbes. Especially as a Thistle fans, I think we can all attest to life being nasty, brutish and short No, I'm a Lockean. but you stop short of following his reason towards the dreaded social contract? As an evident scholar of political and philosophical theory... oh go on! however, you will know that bias does not itself invalidate truthfulness. Touche. You are right there. Cultural bias is not indicative of being wrong. I was trying to tie in a cultural bias towards western thought as being representative of the normative impulse that limits political anarchism as opposed to epistemological anarchism - ie. Your system of governance works only upon acceptance of western reason and the application thereof. That’s what I was trying to say, at least. As willing as you may be to accept flawed perception and the existence of competing methodologies, I am just not convinced that an anarchist political structure is particularly adept at handling these competing paradigms. A theoretical one. It's pretty difficult to give practical application in such a coercive society. In any case market anarchism holds very strongly to the principle of private property rights, and is quite distinct from more commonly found collectivist forms of anarchy. I don't really see the relevance of subsistence farming or squatting in such an anarchy! There’s nothing inherently communitarian about subsistence farming or squats. You can do all of those by yourself if you so choose and they are well within market anarchism. I was asking as to whether you engage in fringe economic activities to subvert "the man." subsistence farming or bartering or selling goods without a license - basically subsisting and engaging in markets out of the reach of the tax man. further, market anarchism holding to the principles of private property rights does not put it in opposition to squatting, imo. it's the state that calls the occupation of abandoned property a squat and then asserts its dominance to kick out the resident(s) because they are not adhering to enforced government deeding practices or paying the appropriate tax. market anarchism most certainly does not necessitate that you engage in accepted, government approved markets. The chains of oppression don’t break themselves, WJ. Why should "society" be obliged to pay for them? less an issue of society being obliged, more an issue of my intense impatience and open willingness to drop money in the hat so i don't have to put up with useless people in the workplace Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodstock Jag Posted January 6, 2011 Report Share Posted January 6, 2011 I "earned" the "private sector" job I had before this Government decided to take it away and can provide a list of my qualifications and previous employment experience to show this. I can also provide a list of all the "private sector" jobs I've applied for and the bog standard replys (if you're lucky enough to get a response) of "due to the unusually large number of applicants please do not expect a reply". A job is not a job for life. That might not be fair, but it's reality. I also know people who are facing a bleak future who "earned" a job who have received the "due to Government cuts the position you hold is now under-threat of redundacy". I also know a number of "private" business owners whose businesses are under threat as they have some contracts with the "public sector" and have had to tell their "private sector" employees they are also "under threat". Three points. Firstly employers will use government cuts as an excuse to trim their workforce with the general economic climate proving less favourable. Labour is for many sectors the most expensive cost and if an employee's net worth is under threat, the harsh reality is that their job is under threat. Secondly the example of private contracts is a prime example of companies being too reliant on individual clients instead of spreading their business interests. Is that really any different from a company which relies on one big private sector contract which falls through because the client cannot secure the finance? Thirdly why do you assume that it is somehow the Coalition's fault that government is pulling out of contracts with private sector companies? Labour wrecked the public finances leaving a huge deficit to be plugged. It's like blaming the Dundee administrator for making players redundant when it was the Dundeee BOD who were responsible for the shortfall accumulating in the first place. I also "earned" the right to the house I am in just now by working my backside off and had a period of homelessness with one young kid and another on the way. However, who knows how long we will be in here once the rent can't be paid for and we'll no doubt be expected to leave it because we longer "earn" the right to be there. Please don't take this personally, but right to stay in a house being rented only exists on the precondition that rent is paid continuously. I'm astonished anyone could think anything else... At the end of the day this is the reality of these "tiny cuts" for myself and others who were like me. Screwed over even though you were happy enough to work your butt off just to have enough to live on and not take on any loans/mortgage as everything you had you saved for and was paid for. Now everything we "earned" has been sold off to bring in additional cash and also to cut the household budget. Life's not easy. Resources are finite. Sometimes people have to suffer. Sometimes some will suffer more than others. Sometimes that won't seem fair. That's just life. But, then I'm not looking for any kind of sympathy just stating that for some the ConDems are the best thing since sliced bread which I truly hope remains the same, but, for others, like me, they were the worst of all that could have been elected. No one's saying they're the best thing since sliced bread. People need to face up to the reality, however, that these cuts have come out of necessity to safeguard the jobs of 5-10 years time. Failure to deal with public sector debt over the next 3-4 years would mean recession becomes depression, and depression becomes default, long-term unemployment would rocket, government wouldn't be able to afford to help those struggling, and there would be no obvious way out as the government tries desperately to pay off a debt that behaves like a neglected credit card. People also need to face up to the reality that it was under Labour's watch, not the Tories' or the Lib Dems' that these economic problems were allowed to ferment. Labour were going to make £53 BILLION of cuts over the course of the next Parliament. They now go around opposing every cut saying that it will hurt group x, y or z, blithely ignoring the fact that most, if not all of the pain being seen with (thus far, very small) cuts would have also had to happen if they were still in power. Labour also wanted to increase National Insurance, putting thousands of jobs at risk and making it harder for small businesses to grow their way out of the recession. Let's be completely clear about this: these cuts are not the fault of the Coalition. They are the FAULT of their predecessors who made unrealistic spending commitments off the back of a fag-packet, especially from 2007 onwards in a desperate act of political electioneering without any consideration of the consequences. I have no political allegiance to any of the parties as none would quite clearly not associate themselves with my thoughts. As far as I am concerned if you want to be in politics, which I studied at great length in college and university, then you would do so on the basis of getting reasonable ( ) expenses ( ) and no salary whilst working in other paid employment. Can't say I disagree with that. This will be my last post as quite clearly the thoughts and warnings I am trying to give, and the views of others, is only replied to in a manner that I find quite derogatory and condescending because let's face it I am old enough and wise enough to know what a "mortgage" is. I'm sorry if you found that condescending and it certainly wasn't the intention. I just fundamentally do not agree that someone has an unqualified and indefinite right to the house they live in if they do so whilst under a standard security or if they rent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodstock Jag Posted January 6, 2011 Report Share Posted January 6, 2011 (edited) Meh...i completely disagree with your definitions. Negative freedoms are freedoms from external constraint or control. Positive freedoms are the freedoms of pursuit. Both exist concurrently. If memory serves, the traditional view is that liberty is the balance of those two ideas. Agree to disagree. Per your example, freedom of speech is a negative freedom only within the context our western governments, in as much as it is them relinquishing a restraint they otherwise have on us. The freedom to say what ever you want is a positive freedom that becomes limited by the confines of whatever society you chose (or coerces!) you to be a part. honestly, i am unfamiliar with any views that positive freedoms are only expressed through the actions of a society and not through the individual. No, freedom of speech is a negative freedom and a negative freedom only. I hold completely the opposite view from you. Freedom of speech is innate to the liberty man has in the state of nature. Western Governments do not "possess" the right to free speech from the outset. They take from the individual's unadulterated freedom. Being born into a society is involuntary, hence it must be fully dissociated from state. you clearly don’t live in my neighbourhood.... That said, though admittedly simplistic, I still maintain that my analogy stands. Me free to have my food without someone taking it (my negative freedom), fella wanting to have food and seeking to attain it by the aforementioned conking (his positive freedom). No, that's not a positive freedom. If it is a positive freedom then the negative freedom does not exist. I hold that the negative freedom exists because of the basic principles of private property, so the latter does not exist. Guilty. The older I get, the more I like Hobbes. Especially as a Thistle fans, I think we can all attest to life being nasty, brutish and short Fair point... but you stop short of following his reason towards the dreaded social contract? I hold the view that it is only historical positioning that prevents Locke from being a philosophical anarchist. His attempt to dilute the threshold in consent theory is the one major gripe I have. I hold that the state of nature and civil society are one and the same and that to enter a state requires express and unanimous consent, and it must only be logical for one to vest that consent in as far as that state can better protect one's life, liberty and property. Touche. You are right there. Cultural bias is not indicative of being wrong. I was trying to tie in a cultural bias towards western thought as being representative of the normative impulse that limits political anarchism as opposed to epistemological anarchism - ie. Your system of governance works only upon acceptance of western reason and the application thereof. That’s what I was trying to say, at least. As willing as you may be to accept flawed perception and the existence of competing methodologies, I am just not convinced that an anarchist political structure is particularly adept at handling these competing paradigms. I take the view that society will evolve rather than revolutionise out of statist subjection. For that to happen, though, it needs people like me who believe in the market anarchist end to make the arguments and persuade the undecided to consider the possibility of moving beyond the expressly internally political assumptions of the current discourse. There’s nothing inherently communitarian about subsistence farming or squats. You can do all of those by yourself if you so choose and they are well within market anarchism. I was asking as to whether you engage in fringe economic activities to subvert "the man." subsistence farming or bartering or selling goods without a license - basically subsisting and engaging in markets out of the reach of the tax man. further, market anarchism holding to the principles of private property rights does not put it in opposition to squatting, imo. it's the state that calls the occupation of abandoned property a squat and then asserts its dominance to kick out the resident(s) because they are not adhering to enforced government deeding practices or paying the appropriate tax. market anarchism most certainly does not necessitate that you engage in accepted, government approved markets. Ah, sorry, I misunderstood what you were driving at. All I was saying is that I don't particularly desire to participate in subsistence farming or squatting because I live in a nice flat and I don't do early mornings, let alone to dig up dirt! Believing in market anarchism is not inconsistent with full participation in present society. The chains of oppression don’t break themselves, WJ. Embarrassing your captors with reason and ridicule into unlocking the handcuffs is a more satisfactory solution, though less an issue of society being obliged, more an issue of my intense impatience and open willingness to drop money in the hat so i don't have to put up with useless people in the workplace In the truly free market they just wouldn't get a job because they'd provide no value to an employer. Problem solved. Edited January 6, 2011 by Woodstock Jag Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meister Jag Posted January 6, 2011 Report Share Posted January 6, 2011 You eulogise about Marx and dialectic materialism. If you can't call that Commy, then there's no such thing as a communist. I'll take that a complement, ta much! Give me moral ethics over profit any time. I'm also inclined to stop posting on this one as some of this stuff is becoming tot-for-tat and going nowhere. Let's face it we'll never agree; so why not agree to disagree. To quote Nietzsche: "Extreme positions are not succeeded by moderate ones, but by contrary extreme positions." But you'll probably disagree with this... Dragon: Hang in there mate, your post firmly hit the nail on the head and summed up a lot of my personal fears. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B.C.G. JAG Posted January 6, 2011 Report Share Posted January 6, 2011 Dragon: Hang in there mate, your post firmly hit the nail on the head and summed up a lot of my personal fears. I think anyone who has ever suffered through a stretch of unemployment, financial insecurity, bullying employers, poor working conditions or homelessness might be rightfully utterly appalled by a lot of what appears in this thread. Giving one class the 'freedoms' to do as they please whilst the rest of us have the freedom to be pi**ed all over sends shock waves of horror through me - it's taking a ******* liberty alright! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodstock Jag Posted January 6, 2011 Report Share Posted January 6, 2011 Giving one class the 'freedoms' to do as they please whilst the rest of us have the freedom to be pi**ed all over sends shock waves of horror through me - it's taking a ******* liberty alright! Except that's not what anyone on this thread has advocated at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gianlucatoni Posted January 6, 2011 Report Share Posted January 6, 2011 Except that's not what anyone on this thread has advocated at all. I've just clicked on your name and seen your picture ... sheesh nae wonder you've no had your nat king! May I also refer you to an earlier post (number 15) on this thread where you stated you'd leave it there. You're like a wee immature dug with a bone - time to leave it be WJ and go get some life experience. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodstock Jag Posted January 6, 2011 Report Share Posted January 6, 2011 I've just clicked on your name and seen your picture ... sheesh nae wonder you've no had your nat king! If ever I care much for what middle aged men think of my appearance, I'll be sure to let you know Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i@n Posted January 6, 2011 Report Share Posted January 6, 2011 If ever I care much for what middle aged men think of my appearance, I'll be sure to let you know oooh, sounds like the line from a Throbbing Gristle song. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B.C.G. JAG Posted January 6, 2011 Report Share Posted January 6, 2011 If ever I care much for what middle aged men think of my appearance, I'll be sure to let you know Well who knows what sort of a career a politics degree will lead to... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodstock Jag Posted January 6, 2011 Report Share Posted January 6, 2011 Well who knows what sort of a career a politics degree will lead to... Do you need corrected again? I'm not taking a politics degree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackpool Jags Posted January 6, 2011 Report Share Posted January 6, 2011 I've had a chance to sit back and digest a lot of this callous Libertarian nonsense, and am happy to conclude that it's nothing more than a sordid wee fantasy based on the eccentric babblings of deranged 'academics' who probably wore dirty raincoats and had 'issues'. To be honest, I find this type of philosophy obscene as it doesn't give a flying fokk about who gets hurt and dribbles on about pure shite like 'coercion' and 'positive and negative freedoms'. Thank fcuk this trash will never be taken seriously by electors or whoever these fantasists propose will ultimately be entrusted with ushering in this brave new world. Stevie Wonder could see the damage free market capitalism does to good, hard-working people like Dragon. There are literally hundreds of thousands - potentially millions - of real people facing the threat of losing real jobs and having their real houses repossessed. All this Libertarianism pish does is offer much more of the same with blades attached. I like to think that, as a species, we've evolved way beyond the insecurity of the bronze age. Thankfully, nobody takes this libertarian, free-market anarchism/autarchism perversion seriously. For the sake of real people, let this remain the case. And this is definitely my last utterance on the matter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandy Posted January 6, 2011 Report Share Posted January 6, 2011 BJ, i think I agree. WJ, I'm afraid I don't recognise your outline of 'LibertarIan' views as anything but (young) Tory philosophy. You may claim to have LibDem credentials, but if so you are on very right wing of the centre. I can't accept your views as being the traditional Liberal ones that i espouse. I have much sympathy for the situations that Dragon and others describe. Life experiences give political views perspective, depth and meaning; the miners strike of 1984 brought that home to me. I hope your own views mellow through time in acknowledgment of the fact that political theories culled from books rarely reflect and describe real life situations that individuals and families encounter along the way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodstock Jag Posted January 6, 2011 Report Share Posted January 6, 2011 (edited) I've had a chance to sit back and digest a lot of this callous Libertarian nonsense, and am happy to conclude that it's nothing more than a sordid wee fantasy based on the eccentric babblings of deranged 'academics' who probably wore dirty raincoats and had 'issues'. It's not callous in the slightest. I find states forcing people into cycles of dependency callous. I find increasing the benefits system to such an extent that social mobility is actually reduced callous. I find bailing out the banks, shifting the burden from bondholders onto the general taxpayer callous. I find states telling people what they can and can't do callous and unnecessary. To be honest, I find this type of philosophy obscene as it doesn't give a flying fokk about who gets hurt Again, this is absolute bullshit. You and BCJ Jag have both made this point without a shred of evidence in support of it. and dribbles on about pure shite like 'coercion' and 'positive and negative freedoms'. Thank fcuk this trash will never be taken seriously by electors or whoever these fantasists propose will ultimately be entrusted with ushering in this brave new world. Ah, so you think that the nanny state which destroys our fundamental freedoms and creates and preserves elites is a good thing? Thanks for making it abundantly clear where you stand. Stevie Wonder could see the damage free market capitalism does to good, hard-working people like Dragon. There are literally hundreds of thousands - potentially millions - of real people facing the threat of losing real jobs and having their real houses repossessed. All this Libertarianism pish does is offer much more of the same with blades attached. We don't have a free market. We have state aligned protectionist capitalism. It has caused unavoidable damage, and the issue that our politicians are debating is whether to make that pain happen now, or make it more acute later. Libertarianism seeks to transform the way we try to deal with the problems of poverty, worklessness and oppression, since the statist way we have tried before has clearly failed catastrophically. The intervention of state in our lives has done more bad than good, creating as many problems as it solves and undermining basic freedoms which we should be fighting to protect. I like to think that, as a species, we've evolved way beyond the insecurity of the bronze age. Thankfully, nobody takes this libertarian, free-market anarchism/autarchism perversion seriously. And again the ridiculous caricature. I would like to think that as a species we value individual responsibility and freedom: two things that the very presence of state attacks with venom. WJ, I'm afraid I don't recognise your outline of 'Libertarian' views as anything but (young) Tory philosophy. You may claim to have LibDem credentials, but if so you are on very right wing of the centre. I can't accept your views as being the traditional Liberal ones that i espouse. Conservatism is vile. It believes in social hierarchies. It holds hugely anti-immigration instincts. It is instinctively economically protectionist. On social issues, it wrangles with issues such as homosexuality and abortion. It is often highly militaristic and oppressive and undermines a lot of freedoms it purports to wish to preserve. People in this country often don't understand what it means to be a "liberal" because years of social democratic influence on the Lib Dems have often made them anything but. Liberal economics BELIEVE in the free market. Liberal economics believe in a reduction in the role of the state. Liberal economics is anti-protectionist with every bone in its body. To be a liberal is to be economically right wing! Look at the Free Democrats in Germany: they are the most economically right wing of the main parties! Being economically right wing is not a bad thing in the slightest. Libertarianism combines liberal economics (such as that shared by the Orange Book sector of the Lib Dems and the bulk of the Tories) with liberal social policy (which I would argue exists out of the main parties only with the Liberal Democrats). I have much sympathy for the situations that Dragon and others describe. Life experiences give political views perspective, depth and meaning; the miners strike of 1984 brought that home to me. I hope your own views mellow through time in acknowledgment of the fact that political theories culled from books rarely reflect and describe real life situations that individuals and families encounter along the way. I'm absolutely astonished anyone could think that I don't sympathise with the difficulties described by Dragon and others. That doesn't mean that I have to Kotow to the fanciful claims that this suffering is realistically avoidable or that more government spending is the answer. What I propose is a different solution to the problem; I do not disagree that there is a problem itself. This "life's about more than political theories in books" is getting tiresome. Of course experience shapes people's political views. It doesn't mean that they are prima facie any more right, any more enlightened or any more worthy of respect than those who are younger who have the sheer audacity to disagree with them. Edited January 6, 2011 by Woodstock Jag Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gianlucatoni Posted January 6, 2011 Report Share Posted January 6, 2011 This "life's about more than political theories in books" is getting tiresome. Of course experience shapes people's political views. It doesn't mean that they are prima facie any more right, any more enlightened or any more worthy of respect than those who are younger who have the sheer audacity to disagree with them. Or so you would have us believe ad nauseam ... some young people (of which you are a prime example) are so full of absolute shite that you simply cannot see it. You've completely and utterly had your baws booted by several posters but still rabbit on dissecting every point. I do hope one day - after life has booted your specky arse plenty times - that you'll look back on this type of espousal as proof that at a young age you talked utter shegite and were a complete phanny. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodstock Jag Posted January 6, 2011 Report Share Posted January 6, 2011 Or so you would have us believe ad nauseam ... some young people (of which you are a prime example) are so full of absolute shite that you simply cannot see it. You've completely and utterly had your baws booted by several posters but still rabbit on dissecting every point. I do hope one day - after life has booted your specky arse plenty times - that you'll look back on this type of espousal as proof that at a young age you talked utter shegite and were a complete phanny. What a thoroughly unpleasant individual you are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gianlucatoni Posted January 6, 2011 Report Share Posted January 6, 2011 What a thoroughly unpleasant individual you are. You cut me deep Shrek. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodstock Jag Posted January 6, 2011 Report Share Posted January 6, 2011 You cut me deep Shrek. Shrek's a good guy, so I'll take that as a compliment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i@n Posted January 7, 2011 Report Share Posted January 7, 2011 What a thoroughly unpleasant individual you are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.