Al Gore, what a loser.

[Bruce Wayne]

Well firstly, I think leaving school with the ability to read, write and perform basic arithmatic is consistent for every pupil. Sadly many don't leave with even these simple abilities.

Secondly, you're supporting my wish for non-state provided education precisely because it does offer far greater choice and variety than a 'one size fits all', as you put it, system offered by the government.

 

[chicoazul]

And they all lived happily ever after.

THE END

 

[monty]

Surely not another bad day at black rock , hand bags to one side girls, no nastiness please

 

[TX Bill]

It doesn't really work like that though does it. We've had well over 50 years of free, compulsory education for each and every child in the country, and still people abuse it and don't make the most of this wonderful opportunity.

You say people are grateful for the system that supports them, I'd suggest that many think that it's their right to be supported. This nanny statism is a major problem in my opinion because people seldom do things if others are there to do it for them. So where families were once expected to provide for their own, and indeed neighbourhoods for their own, now the state is the shoulder to cry on.

Now don't get me wrong, I believe in philanthropy and helping others, but we have a society now where the safety net is so big it's smothering. As I've said before, charity should be a voluntary thing, not obligatory. Making mistakes is all a part of life and there should be punishments for making them, it's all a part of learning. At the moment the cushion is so big people can almost make mistakes with impunity.

I'm adopted and you wouldn't believe the hoops my parents had to jump through to prove themselves worthy. Yet time after time people can knock out children with no thought of how to raise the child and the state steps in to provide housing, money, goodness knows what else. Now if people want to help single parents, or the jobless (remember the 13 years of free education every kid has?) then fair enough, you should be able to spend your money the way you want, but no one should be obligated to help another. That's a basic freedom, the right to live your life how you like so long as you don't hurt anyone else.

It's about taking responsibility for your own actions and your own life. Go to places in the third world and they'd give their right arm for 13 years of free education, yet so many of our kids absolutely waste it. Why should anyone be obliged to help someone who has wasted such an opportunity in life? We've had a welfare state now for over 50 years and yet we still have millions of poor and uneducated people. Surely if it was working at all the numbers would be getting less and less, but they grow ever greater each year. We're not helping the poor, we're making them dependant.

Bruce, you sure you're not conservative?

 

[neonleon]

It doesn't really work like that though does it. We've had well over 50 years of free, compulsory education for each and every child in the country, and still people abuse it and don't make the most of this wonderful opportunity.

You say people are grateful for the system that supports them, I'd suggest that many think that it's their right to be supported. This nanny statism is a major problem in my opinion because people seldom do things if others are there to do it for them. So where families were once expected to provide for their own, and indeed neighbourhoods for their own, now the state is the shoulder to cry on.

Now don't get me wrong, I believe in philanthropy and helping others, but we have a society now where the safety net is so big it's smothering. As I've said before, charity should be a voluntary thing, not obligatory. Making mistakes is all a part of life and there should be punishments for making them, it's all a part of learning. At the moment the cushion is so big people can almost make mistakes with impunity.

I'm adopted and you wouldn't believe the hoops my parents had to jump through to prove themselves worthy. Yet time after time people can knock out children with no thought of how to raise the child and the state steps in to provide housing, money, goodness knows what else. Now if people want to help single parents, or the jobless (remember the 13 years of free education every kid has?) then fair enough, you should be able to spend your money the way you want, but no one should be obligated to help another. That's a basic freedom, the right to live your life how you like so long as you don't hurt anyone else.

It's about taking responsibility for your own actions and your own life. Go to places in the third world and they'd give their right arm for 13 years of free education, yet so many of our kids absolutely waste it. Why should anyone be obliged to help someone who has wasted such an opportunity in life? We've had a welfare state now for over 50 years and yet we still have millions of poor and uneducated people. Surely if it was working at all the numbers would be getting less and less, but they grow ever greater each year. We're not helping the poor, we're making them dependant.

well I've got to say I'm alot less liberal when it comes to single parents on benefit. Its not the cost of bringing up that child to the state as much as the impact on the child, the parent (who is doing the job that an entire family would of done as part of a community), and the community as a whole. An entire generation of knife wielding feral kids roam the streets if you are to believe the media. Whilst this isn't accurate its not without a kernel of truth in it. With families no longer the ethical force they were and inner city "look the other way" codes of conduct spreading across the country, lawlessness is increasing.

But if you make things harder for the poor and unemployed, crime rates will rise, civil unrest will increase. Would you rather help the unemployed and the poor directly or would you rather just buy big ass gates an electrified fence round your gaff and a tank to drive to work in?

It's not a threat, its just a consequence of having some people living the economic miracle and others not.

Incidentally the unemployment benefit we have given out has greatly enriched england. Actors, film makers, artists and musicians all inevitably spend time on the dole, and it is one of the reasons that makes England a desirable place to visit.- because of the cultural achievements of such people.

they don't come for the weather.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

I just think that governments should provide basic law and order and little else. Wherever you read you'll find systems being constructed from the bottom up, rather than the top down favoured by governments.

Evolution works this way in biology, emergence works this way in sociology, market economics work this way, artificial intelligence works this way. The better corporations out there devolve power as much as possible.

I'm simply in favour of giving people as much control over their own life as possible. The private sector already provides food, water, finance and computing perfectly well. The non-profit sector do a thriving trade in education, coast guards and many other areas that governments won't touch with a bargepole.

 

[TX Bill]

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-s...ven-inaccuracies-al-gore-s-inconvenient-truth

Sad that it took an English Court to determine the inaccuracies in Al Gore's "documentary."

 

[neonleon]

I just think that governments should provide basic law and order and little else. Wherever you read you'll find systems being constructed from the bottom up, rather than the top down favoured by governments.

Evolution works this way in biology, emergence works this way in sociology, market economics work this way, artificial intelligence works this way. The better corporations out there devolve power as much as possible.

I'm simply in favour of giving people as much control over their own life as possible. The private sector already provides food, water, finance and computing perfectly well. The non-profit sector do a thriving trade in education, coast guards and many other areas that governments won't touch with a bargepole.

those who are wealthy already have enough control over their own lives.
what is the issue?
those who are poor in capitalist societys are the ones who dont have control. this can be proven.

what is the control that wealthy people lack over their own lives?

 

[SuitsBlue]

Well firstly, I think leaving school with the ability to read, write and perform basic arithmatic is consistent for every pupil. Sadly many don't leave with even these simple abilities.

Secondly, you're supporting my wish for non-state provided education precisely because it does offer far greater choice and variety than a 'one size fits all', as you put it, system offered by the government.

Its a case of educating the parents, it is their duty to instill the will to learn in their children so that their children can have a chance at being successful. Children take up a lot of time and effort, and some parents simply cant be arsed.

"i want my children to have the opportunities i didnt have when i was young"

unfortunately some parents see children as another cheque off the social, it is often the case that these children are neglected, boys get involved with crime, and girls try to get pregnant as quickly as possible so they can get away from their nagging parents and onto the housing list. cyclical.

Its not the rule, i couldnt even guess at percentages.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Bruce, you sure you're not conservative?

Sorry Bill, I didn't have time to give a detailed response as I had swimming training to go to.

Personally I wouldn't regard myself as conservative, although of course others may do. I don't really care if people are gay, or indeed are gay and want to get married. Abortion is a choice for the individuals concerned. I don't care if migrants wish to come into this country, I don't care if people want to have 10 children, I don't care if they want to have none. I don't care if people want to smoke, or drink to excess. I could even bring myself to see the legalisation of certain drugs. I'm not really of the opinion that I know how to run someone elses life better than they do, nor they mine. All I ask is that they pay for themselves.

I'm a little confused by this seemingly pious attitude towards charity. Where exactly does this automatic charity via taxation begin and end? After all there are millions, perhaps even billions, around the world who enjoy terrible living standards, and yet the mode of charity that is being disputed (ie the voluntary kind) is the model used to aid all of these people. I understand that our personal sphere of influence is limited, but where exactly does this sphere begin and end.

Some anthropologists believe the human brain is only capable of having initmate knowledge of 100 people at a given time, due to the living arrangements of primitive times and thus the requirements of our brain at the time (human evolution has advanced faster than our brain has developed). I believe this is the reason why most military platoons are approximately 100 soldiers strong and why many corporate departments are beginning to mimic this. So this suggests that our sphere of influence is indeed quite small, that our area of concern should rest primarily on those in our immediate environment.

Now obviously people will no doubt clamour on this fact and ask what of the rest of the world. In our global village it would be impossible to ignore the rest of the world and I wouldn't for one minute suggest we should. What I am advocating however is that we could benefit greatly from adhering to the philosophies laid out in spontaneous order. To define for those not familiar with it:

Spontaneous order is a term that describes the spontaneous emergence of order out of seeming chaos. It is also a social theory that describes the emergence of various kinds of social order from a combination of self-interested individuals who are not intentionally trying to create order.

As you can see in the Wiki page I linked to there are numerous examples of spontaneous order in work, from evolution to language. All incredibly complex systems with no over-riding creator or architect, simply individuals within a system going about their business to the best of their ability, and order emerges.

If the above makes me a conservative then I guess I am

 

[TX Bill]

Most people will find this hard to believe but when Americans are asked to open their wallets for charitable causes or disaster relief, they consistently raise the bar with their generosity. And that's not just for causes or relief in our own country, that's worldwide.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

I agree, and I believe many here in Britain would do likewise. The Asian tsunami for instance is a good example. During that incident donations from the public here in Britain started coming in far sooner than anything government led and ended up being sent in greater numbers.

I do a lot of reading on this sort of thing, it fascinates me. Obviously the government supporters have an instinctive belief that man isn't really up to the job of self governing, which is ironic in some ways because whenever I talk to people about this issue it's obviously always other people who they regard as not being capable. I've yet to meet someone who admits to being a deviant bent on mischief, apart from Chico anyway.

There's an awful lot of research, all the way from game theory upwards that suggests that all components within a system, ie all people in society, don't need to be brain surgeons for the system to benefit from spontaneous order.

With the political system as it is I very much doubt anything remotely resembling this will ever become reality but hopefully this discussion will perhaps encourage people to read up on this subject a bit as it is fascinating stuff.

 

[loosecranks]

I don't know where you got your figures on UK expenditure, but in the last budget healthcare spending by the government was around £102 billion, which divided by the UK population works out at £1,711 each, or $3,488.55 at current exchange rates. It's worth baring in mind that expenditure on private healthcare in the UK is also estimated at around 1% of GDP, which at roughly 94 trillion pounds means another 94 billion in private spending. Divide all of that by the UK population and you get £3,224 each per year, or $6,573.41. What was that about believing what you're told?

Umm ... I appreciate the debate has moved on a bit and I'm not trying to go back 10 pages, so apologies for the interruption, but I felt I had to bring this up, in light of the way that Bruce has questioned my figures (not mine, actually, Andrew Stephen's of the New Statesman - I did provide a link).

So, about your own figures, Bruce, about which I think I might have spotted a slight discrepancy. Your estimate for UK GDP at 94 trillion pounds; granted you stated it was rough, but it's actually about 93 trillion pounds out? (Which would make the rest of you sum a little out, too )

Anyway, do carry on ...

Oh, and speaking of charity, how did your charity bike ride go, Bruce?

 

[chicoazul]

He's got the yellow jersey for tomorrow's leg.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

You know, you're right. I'm not quite sure what happened there. It was a Google search and the figure was $1.93 trillion. I must have missed out the 1. from the beginning The government stats are correct though I think (I hope anyway )

There goes my job as future Chancellor

Oh, and the ride went well, 3hrs 51 minutes. Although on current form that may have been 3 weeks 51 minutes