Awol

It's times like this that I miss living in the UK. Snow days are mega.

Given the option of a time machine I suspect very many Iraqi's would jump at the chance to have avoided 'liberation' and all of it's consequences, even if that meant they had to carry on jogging under Saddam (much as many Syrians will probably look back longingly at the 'old days' under Assad in a few years time).

I lol'd at that!

Apologies is the above was a "wah", but... So (and I'm not being facetious here) you think the government should be allowed to effectively seize private property through compulsory purchase schemes if someone (whoever that may be) decides the landlord is asking for too much rent??! Doesn't that rather defeat the concept of private property?

So what exactly should government be doing, examining the business models of private companies? EDIT: If high streets morph into a different kind of social area full of cafes and niche boutique shops, then it will be because customer behaviour has made the old arrangements untenable. That's no different from the way high streets changed from lots of little butchers, bakeries and green grocers to chain stores and large national retailers as I was growing up. /EDIT Businesses exist to service, or in the cleverest cases to stimulate, consumer demand. If they misjudge that or fail to do it in a way that a customer feels adds sufficient value to their shopping experience (see Risso's last two posts) they are screwed. No business has a divine right to exist and it is not the role of the state to prop them up - and that goes for the banks too.

Commercial businesses have to constantly adapt to a changing environment driven by consumer behaviour, particularly in the retail sector. It is their responsibility and not that of the government to constantly update and improve their business model to reflect that. Companies that don't always have one eye on next week, next month and next year will eventually pay the price. Innovate or die, that's the fundamental nature of a competitive market.

Changing the legal definition of what and is and what is not permissible in terms of gainful employment is not the same as legislating over what people can or cannot earn in particular roles. I don't see how in the absence of a capitalist west people in the developing world who have always been dirt poor would miraculously be better off without it. If so, why are these countries trying so hard to industrialise now and and actually shrinking western economies into the bargain? I'd suggest it is to generate wealth and raise the general living standards of their people who've realised that "actually we'd quite like some of that, too." People the world over are inclined to mimic success rather than failure.

No I don't favour that personally precisely because it involves the magic "we" making a value judgement/moral judgement on what the remuneration of others should be based on their occupation. With due respect to you, what business is it of yours or indeed anyone else's what others make as long as the people concerned are acting within the law? Anything else is basically an affront to a free society. There may well be people who agree with that sentiment but I don't and have never said any different. We were discussing the morals around taxation when you introduced this, not me! At the minimum level living standards would be defined (by me) as having a roof over your head, a fire in the grate and food in your belly, i.e. the basic requirements for sustaining human existence. The developed world's definition of minimum living standards obviously far exceeds those basics but even those minimum standards are currently unobtainable for literally billions of people alive today. The engine behind that rise has indisputably been capitalism combined with the rule of law. Has it been perfect for everyone? No of course not, but it has allowed our society to develop to a level where death by starvation is not routine (unless you use Stafford NHS) and our children aren't dropping by the million from preventable diseases. The figures for Cuba are fair enough but I would add that it is the exception to the rule for communist countries. As for collateral damage and China, they may have projected less of it outside their borders but within the country millions died under Mao, millions today are being arbitrarily dispossessed of their land by the State and you can still go straight to jail for uttering the word democracy. I'm not sure they are great example of social progress either. Besides which China is very likely to start projecting collateral damage beyond it's borders in the near future as it seeks to accumulate greater wealth. The seeds of conflict with the countries around the South China Sea are being sown and watered enthusiastically by their Politburo as we write because China wants what they have got.

So if someone's ancestors have profited from something "we" (whoever "we" is defined as in this instance) in more modern times disapprove of, then the inheritors of that wealth are fair game? As for bankers, however much "we" may consider them to be immoral b'stards, they were paid the money by their employers for services rendered. You're right, other than the least possible taxation I don't think "we" have any right to try and sequester/redistribute or otherwise seize their assets - financial or otherwise - unless they have been found guilty of acting illegally. That's what we have courts for in a free society, otherwise people are at liberty to make the best they can of their working lives. No. Putting people at unnecessary risk in the work place is a criminal act and should be punished. You seem to equate wanting limited state interference with people's lives with a desire to have no rules at all. That simply isn't the case. Not if you believe in a capitalist system (and I accept that you do not), as the west is currently configured. While far from perfect this system has created a greater uplift in living standards than any other system across the world, and it's worth noting that when it was deviated from ideologically to either left or right it has produced disaster and death on an epic scale. I don't pretend capitalism is perfect but I am always suspicious when sincere people start talking about the 'collective'. It has to date always ended in tears.

Nice to see your usual civility in evidence when debating those with different views.

I wasn't suggesting that no one should pay any tax, but yes I do believe the principle should be that earned income or personal wealth should belong to the individual as of right. Taking that as a starting point the State should then aim to sequester as little of that money as possible in order to deliver the necessary public services for society. The approach of someone saying "well, we'll give the rich more money" when they are actually describing taking less of their money from them, reveals a state of mind that views the state as having priority and absolute supremacy over the individual, who is reduced to worker bee. That isn't an ideological approach that ends well for the individual, imo.

I think this gives an interesting and entirely unintentional window into the differing views of what we might - just about - still be call traditional left and right. You think taking less money off people in tax is akin to actually giving them money. I start from the premise that it is their's to begin with and that tax payers of whatever financial standing don't simply exist to be milked according to the whims of politicians.

There is fundamental mistake in the analysis of the Empire in this thread, it wasn't about colonisation, it was about trade. Wars were fought to open up new markets or to protect existing ones and the various fuzzy wuzzies were generally left alone under a pliant local ruler and a skeleton crew of British administrators. For example, Sudan is and was then the largest country in Africa but was effectively run by an Imperial staff of about 30 people. Britain was and always has been in the business of business, the great 'civilising mission' was more to do with the Church and various upper middle class do-gooders than State policy, except where establishing things like infrastructure and the rule of law was in the interests of improving trade, like in India for example.

Youthful ignorance.

I've voted Labour before Drat, have you ever voted Tory?

I do read people's posts before replying to them, even yours. As for the rest the post above, it's like watching a maggot wriggling on a hook.

Tell you what Drat, if you can find an example of me saying that selling off the publicly owned critical national infrastructure underpinning the country - begun by the Tories and continued by Labour - was a good thing then please link to it. Until then please don't blatantly call me a liar and then not bother to provide any evidence. It's not very civil and more than a little bit snide.

One is talking about Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Holland etc. I think there is a correlation. Top 10 highly developed countries in 2012 From 1-10: Norway Australia Netherlands USA New Zealand Canada Ireland Liechtenstein Germany Sweden 7 out of 10 are Constitutional Monarchies.

Interesting how many of the countries that lead the various "well ain't this just a swell place to live" polls are actually Constitutional Monarchies.

Add to that the Islamic Philosopher Ibn Khaldoun said that great dynasties only last three generations, as virtue and discipline within the group/tribe/nation is gradually replaced by decadence, greed and idleness. Perhaps it's not only democracies that are doomed to fail but decline is necessary for ultimate renewal. On the other point yes, proud to be British, but based more on experience of other cultures than misty eyed romanticism of my own.

Interesting theory: The wheel hasn't quite turned full circle for the UK yet.

Universal suffrage.

Socialism.

What games, Drat? Is having a civil conversation really beyond you?

Yet she was Britain's longest serving post-war PM - even longer than St Tony of JP Morganshire - winning elections by landslide margins. That's either a lot of people supporting her who didn't come from "working communities" (how are you defining the latter btw?), or lots of "workers" voting Conservative because they thought she had it right at the time, for the time. How would you explain her victories?