(Original post by ApresAlkan)
That's an ad hominem based on lack of ethos. Right; some people in Britain earn £10 000 p.a.. Others earn £1 000 000 for the same amount of hours' work. Some earn £7.00 an hour, others £700. Are the second groups 100 times as useful as the first's? Capitalism's hierarchy is not ideal. It requires mitigation, as this improves everyone's quality of life. Take a humanist approach to society: what really matters? People and progress. The best method to get here, as far as I can see, is social democracy. If you would care to argue that, I'm game.
That is true. But it is most often the case.
These 'values' over which the individual has no control. 'The mentality of being poor' doesn't seem to make sense for me. Drinking and smoking can be overcome, but being borne into a society into which this sort of thing is rampant does not benefit the individual. Socialism means that education everywhere improves.
Please use 'one' when it is necessary and 'you' when you are addressing me... I just read 'If you're bitter because you haven't made anything of yourself; fine' and felt incredibly insulted... Just an aside.
Quality of education and upbringing are not chosen by the individual. A failed upbringing should necessitate exclusion from society, but rather its aid.
Money indeed does not have everything to do with doing well. However, those who are rich have an immense advantage. Attending a private school should not give an advantage to those richer people... It would be stupid if I suggested that no-one has ever achieved anything from a state school, and against my argument completely.
The rich do earn more than they deserve. I've already mentioned this, the tiers created create tears in the eyes of the lowest. The rich earn disproportionate. Skills should equal money. Skills does not necessarily mean manual skills. Also, bankers don't manage the country's economy. They either help individuals or invest privately to earn lots of money to no real purpose. I think that manual work can be rendered obsolete quite quickly, and agree that those ordering are the staple of the economy as opposed to those ordered, however, the orderers do not deserve so much more than the ordered as the orderers receive.
That's what my argument is. I just think that the British system doesn't go quite far enough.
No, this is social democracy, like Nordic states such as Norway.
Don't you? I don't think it's the best idea at the moment, but everyone being closer to equality, I can only see is a good thing.
Why on earth do you think that? Not equal intelligence, but equal opportunities in education, I argue for, by the way. This is a vehicle for scientific and social progress...
I broadly agree for you, but one must draw a line somewhere before libertinism. I think that private schools should remain, but should not be better that state schools. However, it's the state's job to make the state schools better. That has been my thesis since the outset.
To some countries, but not to Nordic states. The cradle-to-grave benefits system works very well there, and justifies the 50% average tax. People who do not work should still be comfortable, as those who do not improve. There are more people in Britain than we need for economic stability, and even autarky. The state can support everyone. People who choose to work can do so, and are substantially better off than those otherwise. However, at less than current state of affairs, and even more so that libertarianism.
NOT EVERYONE NEEDS TO CONTRIBUTE TO SOCIETY.
The belief otherwise is a fundamental flaw to Conservatism, Liberalism, Communism, Libertarianism and almost all systems. This is due to a mindset outdated since feudal times.
Thanks for your time.