Al Gore, what a loser.

[chicoazul]

And here me thinking you were a human calculator.

 

[Ct jr.]

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.

Unfortunately that seems to the situation in south africa, believe me i have been there and it is really tragic. It really should be avoided at all costs. Besides why shouldn't we help the poor, they are just as much people as we are.

 

[SuitsBlue]

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.

where do criminals fit into spontaneous order? tony montana sat at the top of his hierarchy, he had many underlings. where do sick and premature babies fit in? where do individuals suffering with mental illness fit in? - on this last point are we looking at bringing back institutions? - ''you'll fit where society indicates or its the funny farm for you'' - all systems are open to manipulation and corruption - in the natural selection of spontaneous order how does a big business owner feel when his fuckwipe of a son shows all the capabilities of being nothing more than a door stop? surely the father will want to look after his son before he does the ''right thing'' and promotes the spontaneously selected individual individual. (or does the inept son fit the criteria?)

 

[Bruce Wayne]

There seems to be this underlying theory that a system needs a boss at the top of it to tell people how to act, with the spontaneous order system I'm proposing seeming to have me at the top or something.

Frankly I don't know the answer to every minutai of public life, that's the whole point of spontaneous order: no one individual does, it's simply impossible. The people that do know best are the ones close to the situation. Do you think Gordon Brown knows diddly squat about the problems in my life, or yours? Of course he doesn't. He uses generalisations, so single mothers are all exactly the same, the unemployed are all exactly the same, the wealthy are all exactly the same, and so on. There is no room for individuals because our current system means one man deals with 60 million of us, it's simply impossible.

I'm not proposing some kind of anarchy here, if you look back I suggest that governments have a role in maintaining law and order. I'm not a criminologist so please don't ask me about the minutai of the criminal justice system.

Big business can run however the heck they like, just as they can now. Except obviously they will remain accountable to shareholders, and to a large extent all other stakeholders in the company. I'm not sure James Murdoch is the fuckwit that you suggest but I suppose he could be an example of nepotism.

Do some reading around the subject. You'll realise that not every scenario has to work out perfectly for every individual in the system for the system as a whole to flourish. Once again, I'm not going to defend things as though I would be in charge of everyone, that's the whole point, we would all be in charge, we want some lame duck saving, well got off your arse and save it. If it doesn't get saved then you can't blame a poor government because it's up to you.

Think of the English language as an example. No one controls that. New words are formed by the people that speak it. New dialects are spoken in small areas and it evolves due to the people that speak it, not through some architect telling us how it should be. Some people speak terrible English, some speak very good English. It doesn't really matter and certainly doesn't stop the language evolving into ever more richer forms.

 

[Rob]

I say we just put the Queen back in charge and let her do what she wants, democracy is a sham and a lie.

Politicians are too scared to do anything that would be unpopular in the eyes of the public.

Democracy in the end boils down to this - Whoever has the most money becomes the president/prime minister.

 

[monty]

Having only read in depth the last few psots but, should we have let the Germans win the last war????

 

[atrottel]

Well, Rob wants to put them back in charge of the country....

 

[Rob]

Having only read in depth the last few psots but, should we have let the Germans win the last war????

yeh why not, would have saved millions of lives.

I'm being sarcastic by the way.

 

[Dylan]

I say we just put the Queen back in charge and let her do what she wants, democracy is a sham and a lie.

Politicians are too scared to do anything that would be unpopular in the eyes of the public.

Democracy in the end boils down to this - Whoever has the most money becomes the president/prime minister.

 

[Rob]

Well, Rob wants to put them back in charge of the country....

you pick on everything I say, nit picker!

picky picky atro I'm calling you from now on!

In Austria you are not allowed to voice opinions.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Having only read in depth the last few psots but, should we have let the Germans win the last war????

Not sure I understand what you mean by this monty. I'm sure you're not calling anyone here a Nazi but it would be nice to get some clarification

 

[SuitsBlue]

Think of the English language as an example. No one controls that. New words are formed by the people that speak it. New dialects are spoken in small areas and it evolves due to the people that speak it, not through some architect telling us how it should be. Some people speak terrible English, some speak very good English. It doesn't really matter and certainly doesn't stop the language evolving into ever more richer forms.

Everything is minutia so long as it isnt effecting ones self. the thing about paying tax for the NHS, and the counter of charity, what if its you premature baby and donations are a bit thin that month. whos going to pay to keep murderers and paedophiles and rapists and terrorists in prison? charity again??? it sounds a bit like communism to me bruce - the ideal that all people are the same, when all people clearly arent - human beings are selfish, some human beings are vicious and criminal minded. the current 'one size fits all' is restrictive, but setting up for more freedoms without tests to gauge the capability to deal with them appears to me to be fraught with dilemmas and difficulties.

Also, the comparison with the english language - there was an architect - latin, and it was released upon the peasants of the time by the church. purists might say the evolution of the english language has seen it step backwards, as is their wont - i dont subscribe to that, or the belief that it has necessarily moved forward. The fact is that english words (like any words in any language) are just a vessel for communication - i dont see how the evolution of a certain brand of words is comparable to a new government or way of government.

 

[TX Bill]

Unfortunately that seems to the situation in south africa, believe me i have been there and it is really tragic. It really should be avoided at all costs. Besides why shouldn't we help the poor, they are just as much people as we are.

While I admire your concern for those who are poor, homeless, less fortunate, etc... (as we should all have concern for those less fortunate and I believe that all of us do), the fact that you say it should be avoided "at all costs" makes me wonder a bit.

Because you've in fact hit the nail on the head with that. There would be a substantial cost to completely eradicating poverty. It brings to mind three questions:

1) What would be the best way to reduce/eradicate poverty?
2) Who would bear the costs associated with this?
3) Assuming the first two could be answered, what would keep the system from being abused where you end up with a welfare state?

I agree that poverty is a tragedy but how do we address it?

(Edit: By the way, I believe that non-profit, charitable organizations are a very good route to take in reducing poverty and aiding others in need.)

 

[Dylan]

Not sure I understand what you mean by this monty. I'm sure you're not calling anyone here a Nazi but it would be nice to get some clarification

I think he was referring to Rob's talk about democracy being a sham.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Geez, if you're going to say that then you may as well say nature had an architect in God and that evolution is hokus pokus. Or perhaps you think evolution isn't comparable to government either? Or the economy? Or the Internet? Geez Louise, if you're going to pick holes in this at least do some reading on the subject first.

The whole argument is getting quite tiresome now with these obsurd comparisons to communism and fascism. I'm inclined to think that the true meaning of either has been forgotten. Both of those systems took power away from you, both were systems where the government did everything and if you didn't like what the government offered, tough [Poor language removed].

Please tell me how on earth giving you back the power is anything remotely similar to either of those ideologies? Lets take some simple examples. Schooling. At the moment you go where you live. No choice in the matter. If you're a school, you teach what you're told to teach, again no say in the matter. Yesterday the government announced more tax rises. What choice do you have in the matter? Council tax is set to rise again in the coming year. Try asking the pensioners that have gone to jail because they can't afford to pay it what choice they have in the matter.

Geez, it's this argument about minutai again. I don't know how to run a nuclear power station, yet they still seem to get by ok. I don't know how to fly an aeroplane and yet thousands seem to cope ok. Don't you see that this argument of "well if Bruce doesn't know it musn't be possible" is full of holes? I'm not a fricking encyclopedia

The prison argument is a misnomer. I have said several times in this thread that law and order should probably be a job for government. Could it work in the private sector? Heck, probably, I mean there are private prisons already, the idea isn't completely absurd, but to satisfy the luddites I have said many times that this should be a role for the state. There, prisons paid for by taxes. Better?

The baby situation. Again, it's asking me to know all the answers. I'm not going to do that because I don't have all the answers. I could tell you what I think personally but no doubt that would be jumped on as though I recommending the same for everyone else. There are almost 1 million charities in this country, presumably by their very existance they are all performing a useful function that isn't catered for by the public or private sector. Go figure huh.