So you're against the NHS, state funded schools, roads and services?
I find that a very odd position, especially in a society where there is nothing like an even playing field in terms of inherited wealth.
Westminster Politics
- Thread starter altodevil
- Start date
So you're against the NHS, state funded schools, roads and services?
I find that a very odd position, especially in a society where there is nothing like an even playing field in terms of inherited wealth.
s
Just to clarify before I post, I am no supporter of the Tories, and unable to vote in UK elections coming from where I do, but I am subjected to UK politics on tv and in the press.
Corbyn likes to come out with the kinder politics and against the race to the bottom, but he and his supporters, really are no different to the rest. Twitter is full of all sorts of bile coming from all sides of politics, whether it be outright anti-semitism on Twitter by those claiming to support labour, or outright racists on the right. It’s all the same really, just different targets.
The whole country/parliament needs a reset.
Ok so let’s use an example from what you say you favour. Let’s say we have that small libertarian government. Which doesn’t have food or agricultural standards agencies. So Jim finds he can buy some REALLY cheap food/animals/seeds in another country. Which he proceeds to do and sells loads of it back home, because hey who doesn’t like cheap stuff? Except Jim has just brought in products that carries diseases that then contaminate the local agriculture system and population, leading to devastating results.
How exactly do we prevent this kind of event under your preferred system?
Well I think you've largely said it yourself. Corbyn espouses kinder politics, some of his supporters either don't, or are unable to deal with the wrongs that they see without venom. That's no reason to tar Corbyn with the same brush as the outwardly toxic tories.
Well an MP is not likely to ever change their stance on an issue because they lost a vote on it, they will continue to support the course of action they believe is right, that's just democracy in action. Its one of the reasons a country shouldn't try and push through something so extremely risky as Brexit on what is essentially a 50/50 split. Most other countries would require a super-majority, 60% or two-thirds, on any fundamental changes to avoid the chaos we are going through right now.
We are at a point where the government isn't even trying to implement the result of the referendum, but the interpretation of a minority. That is why the opposition is so strong right now, that is why the ruling government is colapsing before us and currently has a disfunctional majoity of -43 MPs.
I'm in the same boat with my parents, sister, step-bro, etc. I tend to disagree with them on everything however :/
A night Watchman state has the role of preventing damage to property or violence against people, whilst enforcing private contracts. If Jim if looking to cause harm he'd be arrested the same as if a mass murderer were planning an attack.
However it is not in Jim's interest to destroy his business by purchasing said dangerous goods. Likewise it's not in the interests of the customer to buy from Jim as a clearly negligent businessman. They would buy from Tesco who would naturally regulate their supply chain and be "cheaper" when balancing a few quid against the risk.
The contamination of private land would be an issue for the private land owners to take against Jim. Sensible land owners would have insurance against damage by the likes of Jim that would be paid out to remedy the damage.
If someone knocked on your door and asked of you wanted to buy several pounds of beef for £2 would you jump at the chance, or would you stick to Tesco?
Again though there are dozens of economists far more learned than myself who've explained how this kind of system would work in far greater depth. Even if you disagree they're worth a read (or YouTube - Milton Friedman is a good start)
Edit: also this is incorrectly assuming the system has to be perfect. Look at the damage central governments have inflicted across the world.
How about if Jim's business employs 1000s of people and because what he is doing is only 'mildly' damaging to health, Jim is let off with a big(but not crippling) fine? Do you not then outlaw the practice in which Jim was partaking to prevent future health risks and litigation?
The reason we have those agencies in real life is because the system falls down without them. In this case you can also replace Jim with Tescos. If someone brings in contamination, you don’t always know where that came from. The buyer doesn’t generally know they’re buying unsafe produce. Unless you have people checking this stuff in the national interest it will happen quite accidentally and frightfully often. In the past there was a lot less international trade and yet there are countless examples of it happening. Now when produce can come from anywhere in the world it would be dramatically worse.
Did you know for instance that wine from France/Italy isn’t grown from purely French/Italian vines? Because after American vines were imported they brought a disease that almost wiped out European vines. Now they have to splice US and European vines to allow them to disease this imported disease.
It’s frighteningly easy to wipe out entire sectors of agriculture, and that’s without even touching on all the other industries that can be effected by dodgy import standards. Toxic toys, lead paints, etc etc etc. The government are the ones who protect us from this stuff, not some corporation who care pretty much only about their bottom line.
Jim would receive no fine, as his customers are buying his goods despite them being of inferior quality. I'm assuming by mildly damaging you mean like alcohol or cannabis is mildly damaging?
On balance customers prefer the cheap but mildly damaging food over the far more expensive rival food.
At the same time Jim's biggest competitor Bob has found a cheaper way to offer the better quality food due to innovations in technology. Over the next few years Jim goes out of business as his mildly damaging produce is not selling due to the non-damaging but now only slightly more expensive superior alternative.
More often than not the government do the very opposite. The result of protectionism is deaths all around the third world due to the cartel of wealth hoarding via government policy. They're actively promoting the deaths of poor people and we defend them as we've eaten the propaganda that their deaths are in our best interests. The same kind of propaganda used when defending how much worse off we'd all be with the abolition of slavery.
Last year as a random point there were over 26,000 deaths or serious injuries in road traffic accidents. Could you imagine a private company responsible for that level of chaos and death? They'd have gone out of business decades ago. Private industry will circumvent the poor road system by safer autonomous vehicles but it was be hundreds of thousands of deaths too late.
Again I'm not saying the system I'm describing is perfect... But I struggle to see how it wouldn't be better from what I've read.
Once again proving that dan the twitter horse is correct
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_slave_trade
Seriously whats your view on segregation ?
No I meant 'mildly' damaging as in it's really bad for you, but not in an obvious and immediate kind of way. Though your misinterpretation did enable you to neatly side-step the follow up question of where do the laws which you would enforce, come from. And what is the difference between a regulation derived from scientifically evidenced best practice and whatever laws you deem reasonable?
The bolded bit is confusing me, I have to say. If you mean: even many people who work in decent jobs are forced to choose the cheap(over-processed) food as their budget won't stretch to the proper food, then maybe they 'prefer' it to not being able to heat their homes. Or they would choose the cheaper food if money wasn't an issue. Either way, this statement is incorrect.
Why should every consumer of foodstuffs need to be an expert in the entire food chain in order to not eat contaminated/substandard food? Surely a system of regulation is much more efficient and beneficial to the health of any society?
Protection through regulation is not the same as protectionism. And your 'more often than not' really needs a citation as it sounds very much like someone has made it up.
It depends.
Let's take London taxi drivers for example. Their jobs are at risk because they lobbied the government for lots of pointless regulation and fixed high pricing... In the short term this meant a somewhat unskilled job ended up with drivers that were paid more than their market value at the expense of the general public.
Uber came along and smashed that apart by bypassing the pointless protectionist regulations. They either now have to adapt or will dwindle in numbers.
I gave a couple of examples, but there are examples in most sectors, there are numerous books written about this. For example public Vs private roads as my previous example.
YouTube Milton Friedman as a good start if you're genuinely interested (regardless if you'll never agree).
Not the public vs private roads madness again.
It depends.
Let's take London taxi drivers for example. Their jobs are at risk because they lobbied the government for lots of pointless regulation and fixed high pricing... In the short term this meant a somewhat unskilled job ended up with drivers that were paid more than their market value at the expense of the general public.
Uber came along and smashed that apart by bypassing the pointless protectionist regulations. They either now have to adapt or will dwindle in numbers.
I gave a couple of examples, but there are examples in most sectors, there are numerous books written about this. For example public Vs private roads as my previous example.
YouTube Milton Friedman as a good start if you're genuinely interested (regardless if you'll never agree).
I think bypassing the bit where they try to make money might have been relevant. They reported losses of something like 5bn in a quarter recently.
I do not need to hear any more Milton Friedman, nor Ayn Rand. You people are insane.
This is the second time you've avoided put forward your views on segregation. Come on lets hear it.
Last edited:
Because it's a stupid question. Obviously forcing someone to do something against their will is by definition coercion and would be treated as such.
Down to aggressive investment in autonomous vehicles I believe (rather than a failing business model).
I have watched far too many videos of Friedman. Let's just say I find his arguments have not stood the test of time.
I notice you haven't been addressing my questions. This one in particular seemed to get to the root of what was wrong with your earlier argument:
As for Uber. Do you not see any downside with their business model? They have been fined repeatedly all over the world, and can only continue to undercut other operators due to the cutting of standards for workers and customers. Classic race to the bottom stuff.
Can't wait for cars, busses, trucks and bikes to finally be built by private companies. Will become much safer, i'm sure of it.
Of course its a stupid question but well...... your a libertarian, it needs to be asked. What happens if a local business man feels serving black people or gay people is against his will ?
Last edited:
I think their business would fail very quickly so there would be no incentive for them to take that position. Businesses adopting this policy would be at a disadvantage against their competitors so would fail.
It'd be like saying what's my opinion on a theoretical example of Tesco's replacing all products on their shelves with only dog food. People would go to Asda instead and Tesco would quickly disappear.
A business article that was linked from Reddit (sorry I can't find directly atm) was stating that their R&D costs are insanely high in pursuit of those technologies.
Anyway I'm signing out for the day as I've got stuff to do!
What makes you believe this?
Well said. I would not have responded to the other post so eloquently or diplomatically.
Personally I thought the previous post was incorrect and was founded on a self serving ideology.
'Ladies and gentlemen we got him'
I suggest you stop watching Milton Freeman videos and start googling the american civil rights movement.
Last edited:
I've heard the you can't take no deal off the table argument many times mate. I understand it and in other circumstances i might even agree with it but here i 100% do not. First of all as you and/or others have said i'm sure Boris isn't even negotiating so it's not a negotiating tool at this point. For Boris and the boys no deal is the goal.
On using the threat of no deal as a negotiating chip itself i've never agreed with it. It's basically the UK saying to the EU break your laws to allow us to break International Law and shit all over an international peace agreement that we signed to secure peace in a part of our own country, just so we can appease a few headbangers. It doesn't make sense from that perspective and i'm sure it is not a good look to the rest of the world. It wouldn't be a great start to this brave new world of trying to secure international trade deals if it was all achieved by breaking an international deal lodged with the UN. How could anyone trust the UK after that?
On a personal note as someone from Northern Ireland the constant threat of no deal by British politicians to try to get what they want considering the ramifications for The Northern Ireland peace process and the Good Friday Agreement have been at best irresponsible and at worst completely immoral in my opinion. This isn't business it's people's lives and people here are worried about the troubles rearing its ugly head again, this place is far from healed things could kick off again at any minute. There are plenty of radicals on both sides who are just looking for an excuse to rally round to justify violence again. In my opinion the peace and the GFA referendum should have been respected form day one before the 2016 vote was even taken. Northern Ireland should have been placed off limits and the GFA upheld. If that meant NI staying in the CU/SM while the rest of the UK left so be it. And i some hope left that that might still happen.
Odds on Johnson and Trump being impeached before the year is out?
I'm surprised this hasn't been discussed... especially by our Labour friends.
What's up doc?
Turns out he's a Lib Dem activist.
Clearly can't be trusted. Traitor Remoaner
So the question is which side of the pond can host the best reality TV impeachment show? 24/7 via digital media powered by 5G.
It's gonna be nuts. How the fcuk did it come to all this?
Last edited: