Your most controversial view?

Religion doesn't create ethics, but it certainly influences them. I don't think it's right to completely discount religion when we're talking about the things that people do that we can trace beck to religious scripture.

Funny how everyone seems to remember 'an eye for an eye makes the whole world go blind' but no one remembers 'if India wants a bloodbath she will get it'

That is just a stupid idea. We need tax for our country to simply be able to function, it's as simple as that.

What sort of cuts would you make? Abolish the state funded NHS, leaving many people unable to afford healthcare? Abolish unemployment benefits and leave the unemployed to starve to death on the streets? Because you'd have to be that extreme if you were to abolish all sorts of taxes while halving corporation tax.

We don't need taxes for our country to function, that's just statist thinking. The private sector has done perfectly fine without massive government spending. It's amazing how statists think that we won't be able to function without a government to spend our money for us yet we're able to pay for all inefficiently run public services anyway, plus a massive central government and all its bureaucracy. There's absolutely no reason we can't cut out the middle man.

As for benefits, just because a service isn't run by the government doesn't mean it can't exist at all. Before social security, charities existed to help those unfortunate and received masses of funding privately. Voluntary socialism is entirely possible under a libertarian society.

Society would be far, far richer without the monopolistic government's services that are inefficient, more expensive and of poorer quality than a private sector solution sorted out by the free market.

Yes we do need taxes for our country to function.

Under your system of abolish the welfare system and let charities replace it, people would be starving to death. Relying on charities is not a reliable way to sort out those problems because they cannot help everyone who needs help.

If a service is not run by the government, that service ends up being run with profit as the main motive. This is dangerous for things like health care where the aim should be to provide a social service, not to make profit.

You do know that "private = efficient and state = inefficient" is a very very general rule of thumb with many exceptions, rather than a hard and fast rule? It wasn't a state run police force that failed to provide enough security personnel for the olympics. It wasn't a state funded healthcare system that pulled out of a contract to run an NHS hospital basically citing an inability to make profit. And the state funded NHS has been rated as one of the best healthcare systems in the western world by a study that also rated privatised health systems like in the USA to be very poor in comparison. Private healthcare is only good for those who can afford it.

The idea that we could basically abolish taxes and have the private sector replace public services and deliver them to the same standard is pure fantasy.

climate change isn't man made.

Have you ever taken a science class in your life?

Labour and socialism discourage social mobility.
Women shouldn't be able to have abortions under any circumstances.
Sam Smith is overrated.
Life sentence prisoners should have the option for the death penalty.

Have you ever taken a science class in your life?

Yes we do need taxes for our country to function.

Under your system of abolish the welfare system and let charities replace it, people would be starving to death. Relying on charities is not a reliable way to sort out those problems because they cannot help everyone who needs help.

Really? Under any circumstances? Even if the pregnancy will kill her?

Apologies. I meant women shouldn't be able to have abortions in all circumstances but in situations like rape or if it would kill her they should be allowed.