The UK election 2010

This is the place for topical debate and discussion about anything in the world (non-Queen related)

Who will you vote for in 2010?

Labour
7
20%
Conservative
17
49%
Lib-Dems
6
17%
UK-IP
0
No votes
BNP
2
6%
Greens
2
6%
Others
1
3%
 
Total votes : 35

Re: The UK election 2010

Postby Belle Leisha » Tue Apr 13, 2010 6:13 pm

Ace - I don't have any problem with any one earning higher wages in the least, people in the jobs I mentioned, doctors, lawyers, etc, we'd be pretty screwed without them! Correct me if I'm wrong though but the higher up the wage brackets you go the less people are in them? They just aren't in the majority, by necessicity and in a democracy the majority must be the important thing right? I don't believe in class war either, the only time in which I think class is valid is when class is used as a means of condescension, as Thatcher did, all people aiming to be middle class, why, is there something wrong with being working class now? I don't personally think it makes the blindest bit of difference who you are or what you earn, so when class does come up in any discussion, a clearly someone thinks it does.


We are going to fundamentally disagree here, the idea that any number of people going to University is 'too many' is just beyond me. As far as I'm concerned there's an intrinsic value to education that everyone in the world has a right too. The only angle from which that is not the case, is if you equate a degree to what you will later earn, which again, is a wage bracket related thing I just don't care about, at all. I think this is where you're perceiving a problem with higher wage brackets,I don't have one, but I think you do se sucess as relating to them. If I got a very well paid job but never got a degree it would be failure to me. I couldn't vote for a Government who agree that earning money is the be all and end all.


It is true that people are the ones who hunt, but that has been dealt with with a law, in the same way as people, not Governments steal, kill, etc, and laws deal with all of those too. Repealing a law that stops people acting barbarically is like leaping back a few centuries.
Image


I'm a restless kinda gal, there's No Turning Back Now

http://www.phoenixfirefoundation.com
User avatar
Belle Leisha
I Want To Break Free
I Want To Break Free
 
Posts: 11778
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2005 5:51 pm
Location: Never a FarCry from here...

Re: The UK election 2010

Postby Martin1988 » Tue Apr 13, 2010 6:23 pm

It is true that people are the ones who hunt, but that has been dealt with with a law, in the same way as people, not Governments steal, kill, etc, and laws deal with all of those too. Repealing a law that stops people acting barbarically is like leaping back a few centuries.

I'm in the strange position of being anti-fox hunting and anti-the ban. Quite simply, just because an activity is seen as immoral is not, in itself, justification for using force to stop people doing it.

Anyway, governments don't steal? Kill? Ever heard of tax and war?
҉̔̕̚̕̚҉ ~HE ͡҉ ҉̔̕WHO͡҉ ҉̔̕̚̕̚҉ ~ ҉̵̞̟ WA͡҉ ҉̔̕̚~ ҉̵̞̟̠̖̗̘̙̜̝̞̟̠͇ITS BEHIND ͡҉ ҉̔̕̚̕̚҉ ~ ҉
User avatar
Martin1988
Don't Stop Me Now
Don't Stop Me Now
 
Posts: 4613
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 2:14 pm
Location: Ignorance is taking over. And it doesn't even know it.

Re: The UK election 2010

Postby Knute » Tue Apr 13, 2010 6:26 pm

This is all very fascinating to me as a bystander.

I'll be watching closely.

My early prediction?

David Cameron will be your next Prime Minister.
User avatar
Knute
Don't Stop Me Now
Don't Stop Me Now
 
Posts: 4439
Joined: Sat Jan 08, 2005 9:57 am
Location: Let the center be your home.

Re: The UK election 2010

Postby Belle Leisha » Tue Apr 13, 2010 6:50 pm

Martin1988 wrote:
It is true that people are the ones who hunt, but that has been dealt with with a law, in the same way as people, not Governments steal, kill, etc, and laws deal with all of those too. Repealing a law that stops people acting barbarically is like leaping back a few centuries.

I'm in the strange position of being anti-fox hunting and anti-the ban. Quite simply, just because an activity is seen as immoral is not, in itself, justification for using force to stop people doing it.

Anyway, governments don't steal? Kill? Ever heard of tax and war?


It's not just immoral though, why would decent human beings of sound mind want to watch a fox being ripped apart for fun? Killing people is immoral, we have to stop being doing that. Killing animals is no different. That's how laws work.

Yes but I was choosing not to be a smart ass about it, in order just to reply to Ace's point. The acts committed on a Governmental level throughout history are in their own bracket of horrific, but for this particular point, it is people and not entities that are the important thing. The Tory Government will not repeal the law and then go and find people who were not already hunting types and make them hunt, even without the law people will still have a choice. The point is that much like other crimes, in this century the choice to hunt should carry a jail sentence as a result of making it.
Image


I'm a restless kinda gal, there's No Turning Back Now

http://www.phoenixfirefoundation.com
User avatar
Belle Leisha
I Want To Break Free
I Want To Break Free
 
Posts: 11778
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2005 5:51 pm
Location: Never a FarCry from here...

Re: The UK election 2010

Postby Belle Leisha » Tue Apr 13, 2010 6:52 pm

Knute wrote:This is all very fascinating to me as a bystander.

I'll be watching closely.

My early prediction?

David Cameron will be your next Prime Minister.


I really, very seriously hope not, but nor am I yet convinced, his popularity is plumetting.
Image


I'm a restless kinda gal, there's No Turning Back Now

http://www.phoenixfirefoundation.com
User avatar
Belle Leisha
I Want To Break Free
I Want To Break Free
 
Posts: 11778
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2005 5:51 pm
Location: Never a FarCry from here...

Re: The UK election 2010

Postby fairydandy » Tue Apr 13, 2010 7:27 pm

Belle Leisha wrote:We are going to fundamentally disagree here, the idea that any number of people going to University is 'too many' is just beyond me. As far as I'm concerned there's an intrinsic value to education that everyone in the world has a right too.


I agree, but why should we pay for it? Society pays for and educates every child up to the age of 16. How much longer are we to educate them them? I left school at 16 and spent the day after in total bewilderment at what the hell I was going to do. A week later and I was working..and I pretty much have done that every day since then. That's pretty much how it was back then, apart from the very brightest of pupils and they went on to 6th form and university. Nowadays it's gone too far, kids go on to hopeless college courses, studying quite useless nonsense that is of absolutely no value to anybody.

If some kids want to put off the inevitible misery of a life of work, that's fine...but why the hell should my taxes be paying anything at all towards it?
User avatar
fairydandy
Don't Stop Me Now
Don't Stop Me Now
 
Posts: 4245
Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2008 9:02 am

Re: The UK election 2010

Postby Martin1988 » Tue Apr 13, 2010 9:14 pm

Firstly, nothing has intrinsic value. An education is only as valuable as another person will pay to hire the student. Value is always subjective.


Secondly, the ideal number of students is the number required to fulfil all necessary roles in society. Artificially inflating the number of students, as does artificially decreasing them, causes excess or shortages respectively. There's no real knowable ideal number, in terms of "we're getting X million through the doors, vote for us", and thus any system of incentives or targets set to reach such a number is in vein.
҉̔̕̚̕̚҉ ~HE ͡҉ ҉̔̕WHO͡҉ ҉̔̕̚̕̚҉ ~ ҉̵̞̟ WA͡҉ ҉̔̕̚~ ҉̵̞̟̠̖̗̘̙̜̝̞̟̠͇ITS BEHIND ͡҉ ҉̔̕̚̕̚҉ ~ ҉
User avatar
Martin1988
Don't Stop Me Now
Don't Stop Me Now
 
Posts: 4613
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 2:14 pm
Location: Ignorance is taking over. And it doesn't even know it.

Re: The UK election 2010

Postby Belle Leisha » Tue Apr 13, 2010 10:07 pm

fairydandy wrote:
Belle Leisha wrote:We are going to fundamentally disagree here, the idea that any number of people going to University is 'too many' is just beyond me. As far as I'm concerned there's an intrinsic value to education that everyone in the world has a right too.


I agree, but why should we pay for it? Society pays for and educates every child up to the age of 16. How much longer are we to educate them them? I left school at 16 and spent the day after in total bewilderment at what the hell I was going to do. A week later and I was working..and I pretty much have done that every day since then. That's pretty much how it was back then, apart from the very brightest of pupils and they went on to 6th form and university. Nowadays it's gone too far, kids go on to hopeless college courses, studying quite useless nonsense that is of absolutely no value to anybody.

If some kids want to put off the inevitible misery of a life of work, that's fine...but why the hell should my taxes be paying anything at all towards it?


I do agree that there are some utterly stupid degrees and college courses available that should not be allowed. In terms of whether the subject should correspond to a later career, or should only be for a very intelligent elite, I don't agree at all. I think there should be a reasonable limit on what can and can't be taught as a degree subject, this would include David Beckham studies being immediately gotten rid of, for example.

The taxes thing doesn't make any sense to me because it's not just your taxes, it's everyone's, including those going to University, and only for those who otherwise couldn't afford to. I resent tax being used on stupid things, MP's dodgy expenses, for example, but not education. Plus, student loans have to be paid back, so in the long run, you're not paying for anything, the people going to university are.
Image


I'm a restless kinda gal, there's No Turning Back Now

http://www.phoenixfirefoundation.com
User avatar
Belle Leisha
I Want To Break Free
I Want To Break Free
 
Posts: 11778
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2005 5:51 pm
Location: Never a FarCry from here...

Re: The UK election 2010

Postby Belle Leisha » Tue Apr 13, 2010 10:12 pm

Martin1988 wrote:Firstly, nothing has intrinsic value. An education is only as valuable as another person will pay to hire the student. Value is always subjective.


Secondly, the ideal number of students is the number required to fulfil all necessary roles in society. Artificially inflating the number of students, as does artificially decreasing them, causes excess or shortages respectively. There's no real knowable ideal number, in terms of "we're getting X million through the doors, vote for us", and thus any system of incentives or targets set to reach such a number is in vein.


Education is a valuable as the person being educated takes it to be. The value of education to an individual could be absolutely intrinsic, of course it's subjective, and I subjectively see intrinsic value in education!


It's not artificially inflating numbers of students, it's not thinking that the only reason to have an education beyond GSCE is to get a job. My degree has nothing to do with my planned career path, you don't have things like the OU for people who think in their mid fifties they're suddenly going to become an entrepeneur, it's just people who want an education, fullstop, and that should be available to them. It is, for us, which is great and while I do want to see improvements in the current system, I'd take us sticking with this one over lessening public spending and lowering the numbers of people getting degrees. We have been out of the feudal system for some time, the days of uneducated peasants are behind us and personally, I quite like it that way. ;)
Image


I'm a restless kinda gal, there's No Turning Back Now

http://www.phoenixfirefoundation.com
User avatar
Belle Leisha
I Want To Break Free
I Want To Break Free
 
Posts: 11778
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2005 5:51 pm
Location: Never a FarCry from here...

Re: The UK election 2010

Postby Martin1988 » Tue Apr 13, 2010 10:26 pm

Education is a valuable as the person being educated takes it to be. The value of education to an individual could be absolutely intrinsic, of course it's subjective, and I subjectively see intrinsic value in education!

So it's subjective. Good we've got that covered. (But otherwise, subjectively intrinsic? wut?)


It's not artificially inflating numbers of students, it's not thinking that the only reason to have an education beyond GSCE is to get a job.

Yes, government targets modify the number of students from its ideal (which is impossible for central planners to calculate), and, although it is conceivable some people want to go onto education for reasons other than to get another job, I doubt they would find it's a good use of their time.


My degree has nothing to do with my planned career path, you don't have things like the OU for people who think in their mid fifties they're suddenly going to become an entrepeneur, it's just people who want an education, fullstop, and that should be available to them

No one has an automatic "Right" to a massively expensive service that requires force to fund, though.
It is, for us, which is great and while I do want to see improvements in the current system, I'd take us sticking with this one over lessening public spending and lowering the numbers of people getting degrees.

An increase in public spending pretty much never follows an increase in services. Quite, the opposite in fact.

We have been out of the feudal system for some time, the days of uneducated peasants are behind us and personally, I quite like it that way.

Yes, we are, that's because a little thing called capitalism came along and suddenly production was, rather than being centrally controlled for a certain few, aimed at mass production of goods for the public at large.

As centuries of state schooling experiments have shown, however, we're not quite out of the days of uneducated peasants. Just like any good or service, schools can't be provided to any decent quality by central planning.
҉̔̕̚̕̚҉ ~HE ͡҉ ҉̔̕WHO͡҉ ҉̔̕̚̕̚҉ ~ ҉̵̞̟ WA͡҉ ҉̔̕̚~ ҉̵̞̟̠̖̗̘̙̜̝̞̟̠͇ITS BEHIND ͡҉ ҉̔̕̚̕̚҉ ~ ҉
User avatar
Martin1988
Don't Stop Me Now
Don't Stop Me Now
 
Posts: 4613
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 2:14 pm
Location: Ignorance is taking over. And it doesn't even know it.

Re: The UK election 2010

Postby Belle Leisha » Tue Apr 13, 2010 10:48 pm

Martin1988 wrote:So it's subjective. Good we've got that covered. (But otherwise, subjectively intrinsic? wut?)


I don't think you're actually thick so please don't act it. ;) This is really very simple. What you think about education, is subjective, that's not rocket science. It's not subjectively intrinsic, it's an opinion, that education has intrinsic value, you either think it does or you think it doesn't. I think it does. You think nothing has intrinsic value and I think that's bollocks. Another subjective opinion.


Yes, government targets modify the number of students from its ideal (which is impossible for central planners to calculate), and, although it is conceivable some people want to go onto education for reasons other than to get another job, I doubt they would find it's a good use of their time.


Yes but again, you're talking about politicians, not people. You're supposed to elect politicians to serve the people, not elect politicians for the people based on which of the politicians doing exactly what they want regardless of the people, are the best of a bad lot. You can't build your view of education around what politicians think is a good use of their time. As politicians will always think inside that ideal, and have to, the only real option if you're of that view, is to vote for a party who makes eductaion most readily available, as education for everyone is not an option.

No one has an automatic "Right" to a massively expensive service that requires force to fund, though.


Maybe not, but much like a national health service I don't think whether or not you get an education should come down to how wealthy your family are.

An increase in public spending pretty much never follows an increase in services. Quite, the opposite in fact.


A cut in public spending certainly isn't going to improve public services.

Yes, we are, that's because a little thing called capitalism came along and suddenly production was, rather than being centrally controlled for a certain few, aimed at mass production of goods for the public at large.

As centuries of state schooling experiments have shown, however, we're not quite out of the days of uneducated peasants. Just like any good or service, schools can't be provided to any decent quality by central planning.


Capitalism is pretty much the major point here, the Government serve the capital which it is their job to do. I think it was Marx who explained why you can never have democracy under capitalism. The two are mutually exclusive, democracy serves the people, capitalism serves the capital, the good of the capital will never be the good of the people.

Also saying we're not quite out of it isn't incentive to voluntarily dive headlong back into it.
Image


I'm a restless kinda gal, there's No Turning Back Now

http://www.phoenixfirefoundation.com
User avatar
Belle Leisha
I Want To Break Free
I Want To Break Free
 
Posts: 11778
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2005 5:51 pm
Location: Never a FarCry from here...

Re: The UK election 2010

Postby fairydandy » Tue Apr 13, 2010 10:50 pm

Belle Leisha wrote:
The taxes thing doesn't make any sense to me because it's not just your taxes, it's everyone's, including those going to University, and only for those who otherwise couldn't afford to. I resent tax being used on stupid things, MP's dodgy expenses, for example, but not education. Plus, student loans have to be paid back, so in the long run, you're not paying for anything, the people going to university are.


I see your bus has stopped at cloud cuckoo land again.
User avatar
fairydandy
Don't Stop Me Now
Don't Stop Me Now
 
Posts: 4245
Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2008 9:02 am

Re: The UK election 2010

Postby Martin1988 » Tue Apr 13, 2010 11:02 pm

Belle Leisha wrote:
Martin1988 wrote:So it's subjective. Good we've got that covered. (But otherwise, subjectively intrinsic? wut?)


I don't think you're actually thick so please don't act it. ;) This is really very simple. What you think about education, is subjective, that's not rocket science. It's not subjectively intrinsic, it's an opinion, that education has intrinsic value, you either think it does or you think it doesn't. I think it does. You think nothing has intrinsic value and I think that's bollocks. Another subjective opinion.




Yes but again, you're talking about politicians, not people. You're supposed to elect politicians to serve the people, not elect politicians for the people based on which of the politicians doing exactly what they want regardless of the people, are the best of a bad lot. You can't build your view of education around what politicians think is a good use of their time. As politicians will always think inside that ideal, and have to, the only real option if you're of that view, is to vote for a party who makes eductaion most readily available, as education for everyone is not an option.


It's so good to hear you say politicians are not people!

Politicians do not serve the people. They have never done so. Democracy doesn't work that way; it merely gives the impression it does. The striving for power invariable leads to those with the power using it for ends they wish. Also, elected representatives, in fact, have no incentive to represent those who vote for them. After all, their entire accountability rests on a quite poor voting system, one day, every 5 years. In a voluntary society, however, services must adapt on a dime to serve its consumers. The State has no such incentives. It is, after all, an organisation of force. Obedience is compulsory, payment for its services non negotiable.

The idea that the state can be made to work for the people is the fatal conceit that's at the heart of all social problems, as it allows for the use of force to "solve" them.

Another problem with the idea of "vote for a party that has a good education policy" is that we do not select different parties for different policies like we're at some sort of buffet. It's very much a package deal- In our case, Labour, or Conservatives. Big government social democrats, either way. Lose lose.


A cut in public spending certainly isn't going to improve public services.

The problem is who's providing the services. Voluntary organisations such as co ops and businesses, or a gang of thugs?

Yes, we are, that's because a little thing called capitalism came along and suddenly production was, rather than being centrally controlled for a certain few, aimed at mass production of goods for the public at large.

As centuries of state schooling experiments have shown, however, we're not quite out of the days of uneducated peasants. Just like any good or service, schools can't be provided to any decent quality by central planning.


Capitalism is pretty much the major point here, the Government serve the capital which it is their job to do. I think it was Marx who explained why you can never have democracy under capitalism. The two are mutually exclusive, democracy serves the people, capitalism serves the capital, the good of the capital will never be the good of the people.

Also saying we're not quite out of it isn't incentive to voluntarily dive headlong back into it.


What I think you mean by that is "the owners of capital". However, it is precisely this group who are targeted by government with excessive regulation and taxation (rivaling only those on lowest incomes- they are the ones who get the worst deal, tax wise). Government does not serve capitalism, in fact, the two are mutually exclusive, as Rothbard shows so well time and time again.

As for democracy and socialism, Hayek showed in The Road to serfdom that they're incompatible. The more elements of life that are given to central control, the more these tasks must be delegated to unaccountable bodies. Hey, presto, we've got a massive wave of unaccountable, undemocratic organizations such as QUANGOs, ACPO, NICE, etc, etc, running all our services.

Democracy doesn't serve the people, because the state doesn't serve the people. The state serves the state, no one else.
҉̔̕̚̕̚҉ ~HE ͡҉ ҉̔̕WHO͡҉ ҉̔̕̚̕̚҉ ~ ҉̵̞̟ WA͡҉ ҉̔̕̚~ ҉̵̞̟̠̖̗̘̙̜̝̞̟̠͇ITS BEHIND ͡҉ ҉̔̕̚̕̚҉ ~ ҉
User avatar
Martin1988
Don't Stop Me Now
Don't Stop Me Now
 
Posts: 4613
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 2:14 pm
Location: Ignorance is taking over. And it doesn't even know it.

Re: The UK election 2010

Postby Belle Leisha » Tue Apr 13, 2010 11:16 pm

fairydandy wrote:
Belle Leisha wrote:
The taxes thing doesn't make any sense to me because it's not just your taxes, it's everyone's, including those going to University, and only for those who otherwise couldn't afford to. I resent tax being used on stupid things, MP's dodgy expenses, for example, but not education. Plus, student loans have to be paid back, so in the long run, you're not paying for anything, the people going to university are.


I see your bus has stopped at cloud cuckoo land again.


Feel free to highlight the problem here.
Image


I'm a restless kinda gal, there's No Turning Back Now

http://www.phoenixfirefoundation.com
User avatar
Belle Leisha
I Want To Break Free
I Want To Break Free
 
Posts: 11778
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2005 5:51 pm
Location: Never a FarCry from here...

Re: The UK election 2010

Postby Belle Leisha » Tue Apr 13, 2010 11:35 pm

Lord above Martin that's long even for me. :P

I didn't say politicians are not people, unless I'm very, very much mistaken the relative few politicians aren't quite in the same numbers as the general voters.

No, the illusion of democracy works the way you're decribing, not real democracy. Real democracy would not include a compromised Government. I certainly think if you were to ask either Gordon Brown, David Cameron or any of the no-hopers in the running (I'm saying that, while planing to Vote Lib Dems... :roll: ) , they would not be quick to say the Government does not serve the people.


You seem to be under the mistaken impression I think any of the available parties are going to answer all current issues. You don't really have a choice about whether you go along with Government, we have a collective choice between parties who will all have their pros and cons. Some have more weighted to either side, most will have a terminal flaw for individual voters. The conservatives are they, for me. I'm not sure you can say we're in a lose/lose situation in this country, we have our problems but we don't have a national debt of a squillion pounds and a yearly starvation death toll of 35'000 children, we're not doing too badly.

Why would the alternative to moving into the private sector be a gang of thugs?


See I've read Road to Serfdom, it was a present from a decidely Tory friend, :lol: and I think you can pretty much gather from the title that is wasn't about to end with a fair review on Marxist or even socialist principles.

So on one hand we have it being taken as absolute fact that what makes a good Government is the state of the economy, yet the Government don't serve the capital? Or the people. The state serves the state is just a 'fuck the Government', meaningless faux anarchy statement, given there's no outline of what "the state" entails there.
Image


I'm a restless kinda gal, there's No Turning Back Now

http://www.phoenixfirefoundation.com
User avatar
Belle Leisha
I Want To Break Free
I Want To Break Free
 
Posts: 11778
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2005 5:51 pm
Location: Never a FarCry from here...

PreviousNext

Return to IS THIS THE WORLD WE CREATED?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests

cron