[Barden]

Poverty breeds crime. All economic models result in somebody, somewhere being poor.

[ukip72]

(Original post by Barden)
a quote has been correctly attributed to the person who said it... guess that means case closed...

Well lets face it Churchill was right

[chrisawhitmore]

(Original post by The Socktor)
So then make them value education; make it more interesting to them.



Proof?



I'm pretty sure most people use the ability to read and write that they learn from school...



Is that really the issue, or is something more complex?; I would say the latter.



Define "misspending of taxpayer's money".

On the first point, I agree that it is necessary to make education valuable to children. That was my issue with socialism, as it punishes those who work hardest and do best at school and university with high tax rates while rewarding those who don't try and don't work with free housing and money. Making education valuable is incompatible with socialism (probably why the more extreme examples tended to shoot the intellectuals).

On the second point I can offer only anecdotal evidence, as my best friend from primary school was an extremely bright boy who eventually left school with almost no qualifications as he was told that it wasn't important to study and essentially bullied by his family until he stopped trying to do well at school.

On the third I was referring to skills taught beyond primary school level, in particular mathematics (for some reason people always ask 'when will I use this in real life' in maths, but almost never in P.E.)

While I don't pretend that lack of parental discipline is the only issue, it certainly doesn't help teachers when any attempt to discipline the child is undermined by the parents.

As to the misspending of taxpayer's money, the definition will vary with an individual's opinions, but could easily start with the numerous failed projects like the NHS IT system (£12.1bn) and the rather expensive entertainments budgets enjoyed by many publicly funded bodies, but I would direct you to Milton Friedman's four ways to spend money to explain why government spending is the worst way to spend money. It can be found here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RDMdc5r5z8

[The Socktor]

(Original post by chrisawhitmore)
it punishes those who work hardest and do best at school and university with high tax rates while rewarding those who don't try and don't work with free housing and money.

Well, even in state schools, you are less likely to do well if you are poor than if you are wealthy. To say that all success and failure in schools and universities is down to hard work (or lack thereof) is pretty naive. If we really were living in a meritocracy I could see your point but the fact is we don't. Housing benefits and other benefits are not "rewards", they are simply means of helping the underprivileged maintain a healthy lifestyle, and even if they were, would it really be right to let a child live out on the streets because his/her parents did poorly in school?

(Original post by chrisawhitmore)
Making education valuable is incompatible with socialism (probably why the more extreme examples tended to shoot the intellectuals).

I'm not even going to bother responding to this.

(Original post by chrisawhitmore)
On the second point I can offer only anecdotal evidence, as my best friend from primary school was an extremely bright boy who eventually left school with almost no qualifications as he was told that it wasn't important to study and essentially bullied by his family until he stopped trying to do well at school.

Well, that's just it isn't it? bullying naturally does make it hard for one to concentrate on school, or on college, uni, work or whatever. The solution to that is to attempt to remove the social ills that make it common for someone be bullied. That and the popular culture we seem to have where people start earning millions of pounds for doing things which are frankly only hobbies to the rest of us (e.g. sportspersons, reality TV hosts, etc.).

(Original post by chrisawhitmore)
On the third I was referring to skills taught beyond primary school level, in particular mathematics (for some reason people always ask 'when will I use this in real life' in maths, but almost never in P.E.)

Well, frankly I think students have every right to be answered when asking that question. I'm pretty sure if the teachers were to do so, they'd be more keen on learning it than they would if they just said "Oh! stop arguing with me!". Well, I guess it's quite obvious in P.E. since very few of them are actually going to get such a profession.

(Original post by chrisawhitmore)
While I don't pretend that lack of parental discipline is the only issue, it certainly doesn't help teachers when any attempt to discipline the child is undermined by the parents.

Perhaps discipline isn't the issue though? perhaps it's just a case that the things they learn about in school are just boring to them and don't meet their interests. If we try to tailor education around individual children, I'm sure they'd be more than happy to learn.

(Original post by chrisawhitmore)
As to the misspending of taxpayer's money, the definition will vary with an individual's opinions, but could easily start with the numerous failed projects like the NHS IT system (£12.1bn) and the rather expensive entertainments budgets enjoyed by many publicly funded bodies, but I would direct you to Milton Friedman's four ways to spend money to explain why government spending is the worst way to spend money. It can be found here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RDMdc5r5z8

Cool story, bro. I agree, I'm against governments, did you not see the flag I have to the top-right of my post? however, within the current system I'm pretty supportive of welfare.

[chrisawhitmore]

(Original post by The Socktor)
Well, even in state schools, you are less likely to do well if you are poor than if you are wealthy. To say that all success and failure in schools and universities is down to hard work (or lack thereof) is pretty naive. If we really were living in a meritocracy I could see your point but the fact is we don't. Housing benefits and other benefits are not "rewards", they are simply means of helping the underprivileged maintain a healthy lifestyle, and even if they were, would it really be right to let a child live out on the streets because his/her parents did poorly in school? I'm not even going to bother responding to this. Well, that's just it isn't it? bullying naturally does make it hard for one to concentrate on school, or on college, uni, work or whatever. The solution to that is to attempt to remove the social ills that make it common for someone be bullied. That and the popular culture we seem to have where people start earning millions of pounds for doing things which are frankly only hobbies to the rest of us (e.g. sportspersons, reality TV hosts, etc.). Well, frankly I think students have every right to be answered when asking that question. I'm pretty sure if the teachers were to do so, they'd be more keen on learning it than they would if they just said "Oh! stop arguing with me!". Well, I guess it's quite obvious in P.E. since very few of them are actually going to get such a profession. Perhaps discipline isn't the issue though? perhaps it's just a case that the things they learn about in school are just boring to them and don't meet their interests. If we try to tailor education around individual children, I'm sure they'd be more than happy to learn. Cool story, bro. I agree, I'm against governments, did you not see the flag I have to the top-right of my post? however, within the current system I'm pretty supportive of welfare.

Pro-socialist and anti-government. I can see why you've set up the troll party.

[billydisco]

(Original post by Lukfisto)
societies which are more equal and living standards are higher, crime rate is very low.

How can societies be equal when people are VERY unequal?

That's the flaw in socialism- to make everyone equal socialism tries to hold back strong achievers (tax/anti grammar school etc).

[The Socktor]

(Original post by chrisawhitmore)
Pro-socialist and anti-government. I can see why you've set up the troll party.

LOL. Good one there.

But seriously, I see nothing contradictory there...

[Fires]

(Original post by Iron Lady)
What are your thoughts?

Your thoughts bring up thoughts of bad behaviour in me.

[Llamageddon]

Most socialists I know are pretty foul people. Same is true for anybody on the political fringes though, whether they be far-left or far-right.

[The Socktor]

(Original post by billydisco)
How can societies be equal when people are VERY unequal?

Elaborate?

[billydisco]

(Original post by The Socktor)
Elaborate?

How can I elaborate on such a simple sentence?

People are not equal, there are those which are extremely talented and those which are not/ill. How can you make society equal without trying to "punish" the very "best"?

[chrisawhitmore]

(Original post by The Socktor)
LOL. Good one there.

But seriously, I see nothing contradictory there...

It is very hard to see how socialism is practicable without a Government to control distribution. I'd be interested to hear a more libertarian alternative to Government run socialism, but I've not come across one yet.

[anarchism101]

(Original post by chrisawhitmore)
It is very hard to see how socialism is practicable without a Government to control distribution.

Socialism simply means worker control of the means of production. It's nothing necessarily about distribution. In fact, unless government mechanisms can be made to act in accordance with popular will (which is unlikely, but not totally impossible), government is directly anti-socialist.

I'd be interested to hear a more libertarian alternative to Government run socialism, but I've not come across one yet.

http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/index.html/

[chrisawhitmore]

(Original post by anarchism101)
Socialism simply means worker control of the means of production. It's nothing necessarily about distribution. In fact, unless government mechanisms can be made to act in accordance with popular will (which is unlikely, but not totally impossible), government is directly anti-socialist.



http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/index.html/

Thanks.

[Alkain1607]

I like the idea of socialism, but unfortunately it doesn't work- there's always going to be people who are poor- of course that doesn't mean we should give up the idea. The rich should help the poorer in society

[Fires]

(Original post by Alkain1607)
I like the idea of socialism, but unfortunately it doesn't work- there's always going to be people who are poor- of course that doesn't mean we should give up the idea. The rich should help the poorer in society

Hmmm. Problem is, they generally (with some honourable exceptions) don't.

[Alkain1607]

Haha, too true.

[The Socktor]

(Original post by anarchism101)
Socialism simply means worker control of the means of production. It's nothing necessarily about distribution. In fact, unless government mechanisms can be made to act in accordance with popular will (which is unlikely, but not totally impossible), government is directly anti-socialist.



http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/index.html/

Thanks for that. I would have replied but I've been busy recently. Then again I don't think I could have put it better.

[johnaulich]

(Original post by Suetonius)
You're right. It is boring and monotonous, considering I'm always informed by self-proclaimed socialists that any left-wing current that doesn't conform to their own conception of socialism is "denied" as being so.

Socialism isn't socialism without a degree of support for "state intervention". I never said anywhere that it was "just" that, but your claim that it doesn't favour it "at all" flies in the face of everything in the socialist canon. I don't know what your conception of 'socialist' is, but you won't get anywhere by simply saying that you're "socialist on social issues" (while supporting a free market), as that would be almost identical to a libertarian social policy. The only real place where socialists and libertarians differ is in the economic field, where the socialist generally favours a degree of state interference, which in turn stultifies competition.

No, where Socialists and Libertarianists differ is in who should ultimately own the means of production. There is no general consensus among socialists as to how their goal should be achieved... very few modern socialists see state ownership as a good transitional phase, as it has a tendency to get 'stuck' there (i.e. USSR)

[Gremlins]

(Original post by tufc)
You really need to do some research into the ideology you claim to support. Yes, libertarian socialism might reject central planning; but it does support the overthrow of institutions to replace them with direct democracy. Any socialist ideology that rejects centralised planning and power is a small town ideology. If you want it, go and set up New Lanark II. Leave me out of it, though.

I think it's you that needs to do some research. People who might be broadly conceived of as libertarian socialists have come up with plenty of ways of scaling their ideas to match larger economic units - of course they have. Check out, for example, Parecon or Economic Democracy.