Why can't liberals think for themselves

I am a High Tory who supports voluntary taxation and open borders immigration policy. My views seem to be the most logical and correct.

1. I believe more local government will allow people to have more control on issues that matter to them, to have a more in touch political class that works on a local level building trust and to ensure that political projects are community focused.

2. Why devolution? People want to see results in their own area and people want money they make to go into improving their lives. They also want more say in this. Of course, certain regions within the UK now make a net loss and are propped up so the exact split of regions would need to be cost effective with investment being put in the right places to make self sustaining regions

5. This agreement is necessary to avoid situations arising whereby one area is doing better than another and another area wants to by force try and take that region. This is always a problem with devolution because regions are smaller and often less powerful. There would be a written agreement all regions sign up to much like the international agreement currently in place that states any attacking region becomes a national threat. All other regions would then be against that region. What region in the UK is going to make the first move when it has the rest of the UK to deal with?

I am a High Tory who supports voluntary taxation and open borders immigration policy. My views seem to be the most logical and correct.

This will lead to people not paying taxes and an entire underclass of people starving and struggling to survive. Of course, being a Tory this does seem logical and correct because with that situation and open borders allowing cheap labour to flood the market you have an entire pool of desperate potential employees to select from to make you even richer. You're not fooling anybody.

And yet you reject the Tories for Ukip.

I agree with all of this, your the first person I've encountered who's said this. The thing is though, what's stopping the most powerful regions forcibly taking the smaller regions? Who can police that? I think we would need an independent body to regulate things.

A torry who believes in open borders, wtf, stay out of the conservative party, they uphold traditional English values like 'go home Jonny Foreigner'. If enough of labour's nonsense was removed, then perhaps voluntary taxation would be possible.

There would be an agreement they'd all sign to to ensure this didn't happen. It would basically say that any region that tried to rise up to take another would become an enemy of all the regions.

Taxation is theft, it is the forced handing over of property. Perhaps you think is it justified but regardless it is still theft.

Again I urge you to you read Hayek.

Hayek was clueless. He predicted that creating an NHS would lead to Soviet-style gestapo. He was wrong.

Moderate social democracy, contrary to the shrieking hysteria of far-right nutcases, does not inherently lead to a Stalinist dictatorship; the lessons of history make this entirely clear

I think you'll find that I'm actually influenced not only by modern events but a lot of what I've read from very intelligent people of decades gone by. Such influences include Oscar Wilde, Bertrand Russell, George Orwell, Martin Luther King, Albert Einstein, Picasso and Mark Twain. I'm pretty sure all of these people are well capable of thinking for themselves. I have read numerous literary works which has helped formulate my viewpoint. I do not believe in the failings of an ideology but the failings of humans in accepting that a different outlook towards life through education can actually lead to an ideology working. Socialism has been let down by humans.

The people were the flaws, not the ideology. To me, this does not indicate that there is a problem with the ideology itself but with us. However, so many people refuse to criticise the human race or accept our faults and our self centric outlook as a species and therefore blame the ideology, of course which cannot fight back. Most humans today see things in the way hunter gatherers did and thats fending for themselves rather than the societal collective. To achieve true socialism you need people's outlook to change so they value the group rather than the individual.

My political beliefs are all laid out and I know fully what I stand for because having studied the work of many of those before me I know now what I believe to be the correct path.

1. I want the political system revolutionised
2. I want devolution to regions
3. I want socialist devolved regions
4. I want money to be distributed more evenly within those democratically devolved socialist regions
5. I want agreements between regions to be created to avoid civil wars between regions

Why? I'll answer each above with the corresponding number below.

1. I believe more local government will allow people to have more control on issues that matter to them, to have a more in touch political class that works on a local level building trust and to ensure that political projects are community focused.

2. Why devolution? People want to see results in their own area and people want money they make to go into improving their lives. They also want more say in this. Of course, certain regions within the UK now make a net loss and are propped up so the exact split of regions would need to be cost effective with investment being put in the right places to make self sustaining regions

3/4. I want them to be socialist with money in these regions being distributed more fairly but the rich in these regions would still have a high quality of life because money would be going back into the local community to improve roads, to improve schools, to improve everything. These people would actually be the heroes of their local community as the money they make would actually keep the community alive.

5. This agreement is necessary to avoid situations arising whereby one area is doing better than another and another area wants to by force try and take that region. This is always a problem with devolution because regions are smaller and often less powerful. There would be a written agreement all regions sign up to much like the international agreement currently in place that states any attacking region becomes a national threat. All other regions would then be against that region. What region in the UK is going to make the first move when it has the rest of the UK to deal with?

Please don't say I've not done research or thought this through. Of course this isn't the entire thing or I'd be here all night but I have thought about it and done loads of research and I agree with people like Einstein who I believe is spot on. Only though education will we move from the self focus to a collective outlook and overcome that psychological barrier.

Far too many people in the UK currently only think about how much tax they're paying and how they're getting done over. We need to change that so people think 'my money is being spent on the local people, the roads, its doing good, I'm improving peoples lives' and they need to feel that that is a massive thing because it is. When people are being fed because of your taxes its great. When people are being clothed and sheltered because of your taxes its great. You should take pride in that, not see it as a slight on your pay cheque.

Humans have many faults. Do not blame ideologies for them. That's just the cowards way out. Self reflection is needed and we as a human race need to do it a lot if we're ever to continue advancing.

Thanks. I suggest you read the works or listen to the works of these great people as it'll open your mind.

My dear fellow, you are confused.

Theft is the unauthorised taking of another's property. Taxation is authorised by the law the of the land, and by necessity and common sense besides.

Are you saying you don't believe in a police force or an army?

What? You've clearly never read The Road to Serfdom... Social democracy != planned economy. Fyi Hayek supported social welfare for services the market could not provide, including a social safety net.

Hayek was clueless. He predicted that creating an NHS would lead to Soviet-style gestapo. He was wrong.

Moderate social democracy, contrary to the shrieking hysteria of far-right nutcases, does not inherently lead to a Stalinist dictatorship; the lessons of history make this entirely clear

WOW.

You're so objective. I notice you haven't included a single person on that list that disagrees with you. Have you read Oakeshott, Burke, Hume, Mises, Hayek, Friedman, Coledrige, Wordsworth? I could go on.

All your 'so called extensive reading' tells me is you are fool subject to confirmation bias.

With all due respect, it sounds like it's you who hasn't read Road to Serfdom.

Hayek said that, basically, the only role for government was in regulating crime, fraud, the environment, certain consumer protections (dangerous goods, etc).

Anything else (i.e. social democracy, planning of any significant kind) was the road to serfdom. That hypothesis has been proved wrong by the history of the Western world over the last 70 years

Are you saying you agree with the NHS?