General Election 2017

[TrentVilla]

 

I'm starting to think Corbyn doesn't actually think he can win this election.

What is the point in him campaigning in Birmingham, what exactly is that going to achieve.

[Awol]

58 minutes ago, blandy said:

Not in my understanding - they're almost opposites in many regards, surely? Maybe I'm wrong, but I kind of have Libertarianism as freedom for individuals and individuals owning business to just get on with it, and socialism to be heavy on state intervention, preventing people and businesses just getting on with it (for what they see as the common good, rather than individual good).

I think a mix is the best solution - enough state regulation to reign in the negatives of greed and pollution etc. but not so much as to remove incentives for peope to do well for themselves and their families. I suppose everyone's version will be different, mind.

Put a badge on that and you've got a winner, but as a formula it doesn't apply to any domestic  political party in my lifetime. 

[Xann]

Antiques trade press reckon one of May's chums, that represents wealthy dealers, may have done a deal to relax the ivory ban?

Might get a couple of mink and perhaps dalmations in.

Make a killing.

[RunRickyRun]

2 hours ago, snowychap said:

Erm add in the authoritarianism and managerialism (terrorism laws, ASBOs, increase in numbers of criminal offences, increased use of secret evidence in trials, rendition stuff, &c.) and the Purnell/Lord Fraud stuff which gave the Tories a kick start on the path to the benefit 'reforms' we see now.

Binning the 10p tax bracket as well. Scandalous.

[darrenm]

15 minutes ago, TrentVilla said:

 

I'm starting to think Corbyn doesn't actually think he can win this election.

What is the point in him campaigning in Birmingham, what exactly is that going to achieve.

Why wouldn't he have the 2nd city on the list of places to visit during the campaign? It would be conspicuous in its absence surely?

[darrenm]

1 hour ago, blandy said:

Not in my understanding - they're almost opposites in many regards, surely? Maybe I'm wrong, but I kind of have Libertarianism as freedom for individuals and individuals owning business to just get on with it, and socialism to be heavy on state intervention, preventing people and businesses just getting on with it (for what they see as the common good, rather than individual good).

I think a mix is the best solution - enough state regulation to reign in the negatives of greed and pollution etc. but not so much as to remove incentives for peope to do well for themselves and their families. I suppose everyone's version will be different, mind.

I've never seen socialism as having any predicates preventing libertarianism. There's no state intervention in entrepreneurialship and small businesses. The state intervention tends to come at corporate and enterprise level, so it only goes against liberalism which tends to apply more to free markets, rather than against libertarianism which is more about personal freedoms.

Is just how I see it anyway, but I am a Johnny come lately to all of this socioeconomic stuff. Fully agreed on your utopia though, which I think most reasonable people tend to want.

[snowychap]

9 minutes ago, RunRickyRun said:

Binning the 10p tax bracket as well. Scandalous.

And shambolic (led to the one off payment of £60 to a lot of people, didn't it?).

[magnkarl]

1 hour ago, blandy said:

Not in my understanding - they're almost opposites in many regards, surely? Maybe I'm wrong, but I kind of have Libertarianism as freedom for individuals and individuals owning business to just get on with it, and socialism to be heavy on state intervention, preventing people and businesses just getting on with it (for what they see as the common good, rather than individual good).

I think a mix is the best solution - enough state regulation to reign in the negatives of greed and pollution etc. but not so much as to remove incentives for peope to do well for themselves and their families. I suppose everyone's version will be different, mind.

I am of the same opinion, if we could pick and mix and have actual singular policies to vote for that would be great. Elections would take a hell of a long time though.. Right now we've got either the most conservative conservatives in a very long time or newly rebranded socialism - both will probably burn in flames if they push through much of their manifestos. What countries with more parties have going for them is that they can sort of pick and mix by encouraging coalitions between say centrist parties and left parties. We don't - we've got either blue slime or red slime. Pest or cholera. 

[magnkarl]

34 minutes ago, darrenm said:

I've never seen socialism as having any predicates preventing libertarianism. There's no state intervention in entrepreneurialship and small businesses. The state intervention tends to come at corporate and enterprise level, so it only goes against liberalism which tends to apply more to free markets, rather than against libertarianism which is more about personal freedoms.

Is just how I see it anyway, but I am a Johnny come lately to all of this socioeconomic stuff. Fully agreed on your utopia though, which I think most reasonable people tend to want.

Socialism does exactly that - it prevents people being people by forcing everything to be owned by the state. There is no individual in a socialist state. We had this discussion on here last night too. It seems like the definition of socialism is lost on a lot of people - what you are probably thinking about is a welfare state system - which by and large isn't a socialist phenomenon. 

Definition of socialism: a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

In other words, why would you as a business owner work hard when you get paid the same as everyone else? It's the hardest anti-libertarian theory out there. The only ones motivated by socialism is the people getting equal pay, rights etc to the people that work the hardest or innovate in any shape or form while at the same time doing as little as possible. Humans aren't machines - we are driven by goals and money. There are no goals in a socialist society because everything is always the same.

Edited May 20, 2017 by magnkarl

[snowychap]

15 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

The only ones motivated by socialism is the people getting equal pay, rights etc to the people that work the hardest or innovate in any shape or form while at the same time doing as little as possible. Humans aren't machines - we are driven by goals and money. There are no goals in a socialist society because everything is always the same.

That is tripe.

[magnkarl]

18 minutes ago, snowychap said:

That is tripe.

Oh sorry, no socialism is great. Works wonders really. Give us some proof of a socialist country that's flourishing please. Do bear in mind that China and none of the Nordic countries are socialist countries by any standard.

Again, bear in mind what the actual definition of socialism is before you call something tripe.

A political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

It's human nature to not want to share everything we have with everyone else - that isn't a political thing. The maker of the Kalashnikov machine gun died poor because of socialism - the maker of the Winchester rifle was one of the richest men in his day. Winchester awarded their hard workers well while the workers who made Kalashnikov were all paid the same unless they were higher ups in the socialist party. I don't know why people can't realise that "socialism" doesn't mean welfare and everyone getting basic medical care, minimum wage etc - the welfare state isn't a socialist phenomenon.

Edited May 20, 2017 by magnkarl

[PompeyVillan]

23 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

The only ones motivated by socialism is the people getting equal pay, rights etc to the people that work the hardest or innovate in any shape or form while at the same time doing as little as possible. Humans aren't machines - we are driven by goals and money. There are no goals in a socialist society because everything is always the same.

Whatever it is that you are describing isn't on offer at this general election.

[Dodgyknees]

40 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

The only ones motivated by socialism is the people getting equal pay, rights etc to the people that work the hardest or innovate in any shape or form while at the same time doing as little as possible. Humans aren't machines - we are driven by goals and money. There are no goals in a socialist society because everything is always the same.

Oh what bollocks. I'm very well paid, I'm lucky in that I am healthy and am not having to fight for my rights, I am treated well, I don't suffer racism or sexism. But I am a socialist. I'm happy to be taxed more because I want that money to go towards building an NHS aand a country for future generations. I fight for others who are not as lucky as I have been, my job... our job is to plant the seeds now so that the trees as in full blossom for the future, when I am dead. Now, I have not even gone into my feelings about what the country needs, but I am a socialist but I am also very well off. 

[snowychap]

31 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

Oh sorry, no socialism is great.

I didn't say socialism was great. I said what you wrote was tripe.

[magnkarl]

13 minutes ago, DK82 said:

Oh what bollocks. I'm very well paid, I'm lucky in that I am healthy and am not having to fight for my rights, I am treated well, I don't suffer racism or sexism. But I am a socialist. I'm happy to be taxed more because I want that money to go towards building an NHS aand a country for future generations. I fight for others who are not as lucky as I have been, my job... our job is to plant the seeds now so that the trees as in full blossom for the future, when I am dead. Now, I have not even gone into my feelings about what the country needs, but I am a socialist but I am also very well off. 

Which is fair enough. The problem isn't getting people who subscribe to socialism to fork up. The problem is the the productivity, innovation, taxation on average as well as progression towards a better state generally goes down the toilet when you apply too much socialism without keeping some sort of check on how much state interference is acceptable. A state with no checks and no one holding it accountable because everyone is the state is no good for anyone. History has proven that times over.

[chrisp65]

32 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

the maker of the Winchester rifle was one of the richest men in his day. Winchester awarded their hard workers well while the workers who made Kalashnikov were all paid the same unless they were higher ups in the socialist party. I don't know why people can't realise that "socialism" doesn't mean welfare and everyone getting basic medical care, minimum wage etc - the welfare state isn't a socialist phenomenon.

The Volcanic Repeating Arms company sought fresh investment. Winchester invested, but then he forced them in to insolvency. Closed the factory, relocated to a different town leaving many unemployed and changed the name of the company. He then employed Benjamin Henry, his work resulted in the Henry rifle which made Winchester a rich man.

Henry had tried to sue to get fair compensation for what was essentially his invention. So once again Winchester closed the company and then reopened under a different name.

Serial closer of businesses getting rich on the original ideas of others.

 

 

 

 

[darrenm]

1 hour ago, magnkarl said:

Socialism does exactly that - it prevents people being people by forcing everything to be owned by the state. There is no individual in a socialist state. We had this discussion on here last night too. It seems like the definition of socialism is lost on a lot of people - what you are probably thinking about is a welfare state system - which by and large isn't a socialist phenomenon. 

Definition of socialism: a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

In other words, why would you as a business owner work hard when you get paid the same as everyone else? It's the hardest anti-libertarian theory out there. The only ones motivated by socialism is the people getting equal pay, rights etc to the people that work the hardest or innovate in any shape or form while at the same time doing as little as possible. Humans aren't machines - we are driven by goals and money. There are no goals in a socialist society because everything is always the same.

I think you're describing communism more than socialism there. The definition may be what you say but regulation doesn't have to mean it's controlled at every level. E.g. to regulate something means to stop it going over a certain level. A gas regulator will allow any amount of gas through until a certain flow. A private trader will still be able to operate without a socialist state involvement as long as levels aren't above the regulated amounts.

Perhaps when enough people's definition of socialism is different to an 'official' source, the source's definition is outdated.

[magnkarl]

Just now, darrenm said:

I think you're describing communism more than socialism there. The definition may be what you say but regulation doesn't have to mean it's controlled at every level. E.g. to regulate something means to stop it going over a certain level. A gas regulator will allow any amount of gas through until a certain flow. A private trader will still be able to operate without a socialist state involvement as long as levels aren't above the regulated amounts.

Perhaps when enough people's definition of socialism is different to an 'official' source, the source's definition is outdated.

A good point, which is why we need to stop using socialism as a way to describe a mix between libertarianism and collective bargaining. It really isn't. Communism is a totalitarian arm of socialism, so instead of calling every left leaning theory socialism we should call them what they are. Something between progressiveism and liberalism.

[HanoiVillan]

2 hours ago, TrentVilla said:

 

I'm starting to think Corbyn doesn't actually think he can win this election.

What is the point in him campaigning in Birmingham, what exactly is that going to achieve.

I don't understand. I mean, he probably doesn't think he can win the election, why would he, we all know Labour won't win. But why shouldn't he campaign in the second city, home to about half a dozen marginal constituencies? 

[darrenm]

Not charismatic enough.  Not a leader. Unelectable