Turn on thread page Beta

Conservative government... good or bad? watch

  • View Poll Results: Conservatives win
    = good
    52.94%
    = bad
    47.06%

    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ibzombie96)
    All government is bad? Any reasons for that comment?
    They initiate violence and rob people, which I think is bad.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Falcatas)
    They initiate violence and rob people, which I think is bad.
    They initiate violence? Do you think there'd be less violence without government?

    When you say rob people, do you mean taxes? Because the tax system is there to make sure the poorest in society can survive - I really don't see how that is bad.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ibzombie96)
    They initiate violence? Do you think there'd be less violence without government?

    When you say rob people, do you mean taxes? Because the tax system is there to make sure the poorest in society can survive - I really don't see how that is bad.
    There would, without a doubt, be less violence without the government.


    Being poor doesn't mean you are utterly useless and require a government to survive.
    Charity would still exist, humans are generally more generous than not. The welfare system is an abomination that incentives bad behaviour such as having more children than you can afford and single non working parent families. This creates an underclass of dependants.

    It doesn't matter it may help people, taking money from other people is theft. The ends does not justify the means.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    I was honestly really happy lol. I don't think people should complain until we see this term out though. The NHS isn't going anywhere for starters. Cameron has said this hundreds of times and even explained how spending will increase. Leftist media trying the usual scaremongering tactics, which unfortunately work on the idiots in society.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Xin Xang)
    Depends on three things:

    1. How much money do you have?

    2. Do you have a soul?

    3. Are you rich?
    I think a conservative majority government is good because I get to watch every Labour, Green, SNP, plaid and left wing supporter suffer 5 years of hell and I get to enjoy every minute of it. The next 5 years will be exciting.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    I think it's a pisstake when people say "the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer"

    Well, yes, the rich will always get richer at a significantly higher rate, but what's the problem if everyone is feeling the benefit? Socialists just want to see the gap closed between rich and poor, even if the closure would mean that everyone gets poorer as a result.


    Poor at 5k and rich at 5m or Poor at 25k and rich at 50bn .. which one is the net benefit? Nothing wrong with inequality.

    The poor never had a longer than two-year period of negative net worth since 1929 ... and before than 1873 ... it's the biggest lie made up by latte liberals and champagne socialists. "The Poor" have never had it so good as today, and will only be better at the end of this Parliament.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Falcatas)
    There would, without a doubt, be less violence without the government.


    Being poor doesn't mean you are utterly useless and require a government to survive.
    Charity would still exist, humans are generally more generous than not. The welfare system is an abomination that incentives bad behaviour such as having more children than you can afford and single non working parent families. This creates an underclass of dependants.

    It doesn't matter it may help people, taking money from other people is theft. The ends does not justify the means.
    This is insane.

    How can you say there would be less violence without a government 'without a doubt'? Just imagine all the violent crime that would take place; stealing, revenge etc. So that's argument #1 dealt with.

    And yes, one of the reasons we have a welfare system is because there are people in this country who simply would not survive without it. Charity would still exist, but it wouldn't give any where near as much as people need to survive. Another terrible argument.

    And by the way, it isn't theft if the tax is levied by the government who are in charge of the country. So your argument there is at fault as well.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SotonianOne)
    I think it's a pisstake when people say "the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer"

    Well, yes, the rich will always get richer at a significantly higher rate, but what's the problem if everyone is feeling the benefit? Socialists just want to see the gap closed between rich and poor, even if the closure would mean that everyone gets poorer as a result.


    Poor at 5k and rich at 5m or Poor at 25k and rich at 50bn .. which one is the net benefit? Nothing wrong with inequality.

    The poor never had a longer than two-year period of negative net worth since 1929 ... and before than 1873 ... it's the biggest lie made up by latte liberals and champagne socialists. "The Poor" have never had it so good as today, and will only be better at the end of this Parliament.
    Exactly, if the poor are getting richer they have no right to complain that the rich are as well.

    By the way, have you got anything against champagne socialism?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    good

    labour would ruin this country again
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    I voted Labour and consider myself left-wing but one thing I've learnt from this election is that the left are moany, whiny *******s.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ibzombie96)
    Exactly, if the poor are getting richer they have no right to complain that the rich are as well.

    By the way, have you got anything against champagne socialism?
    Yes.

    If people are rich but they want to help the poorer and they refuse to contribute, they are hypocritical. People who hoard more money than they would under their own political beliefs are terrible. Brand etc.

    "Give me your money and let me redistribute it among other people while I keep my own"
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ibzombie96)
    This is insane.

    How can you say there would be less violence without a government 'without a doubt'? Just imagine all the violent crime that would take place; stealing, revenge etc. So that's argument #1 dealt with.
    People are capable of defending their own property and organising themselves without the need of government. There would be a market for defence as well for security guards and etc.


    Are you blind to the stealing that takes place now? What happens if there is no government and some thugs threaten to kill me if I don't give up some of my income to them? Do you not see the irony here?



    And yes, one of the reasons we have a welfare system is because there are people in this country who simply would not survive without it. Charity would still exist, but it wouldn't give any where near as much as people need to survive. Another terrible argument.
    There are not many people who exclusively claim welfare and don't work but would it matter? If you die due to your own laziness that is your own problem. These type of people are very rare however.
    If you require stolen money from people to survive I really have no sympathy for you.

    You also have no evidence charity wouldn't be enough. People would have more money to spend (and donate voluntarily) if the government did not take stuff from them.




    And by the way, it isn't theft if the tax is levied by the government who are in charge of the country. So your argument there is at fault as well.
    Theft: A criminal act in which property belonging to another is taken without that person's consent.
    You just redefined theft so the state is exempt from it. Why not do the same for all crimes?
    If the state commanded its agents to just start killing people would you object to this being called murder?

    You can't just give exemptions to the state. If it is wrong for individuals to take another persons stuff without their consent then it is wrong for a state to do it as well.

    Governments are not legitimate things, they solely exist by nothing other than its ability to violently subjugate the people it intends to subjugate, and its means to kill anyone who threatens said ability.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SotonianOne)
    Yes.

    If people are rich but they want to help the poorer and they refuse to contribute, they are hypocritical. People who hoard more money than they would under their own political beliefs are terrible. Brand etc.

    "Give me your money and let me redistribute it among other people while I keep my own"
    That last comment is not what champagne socialists do. They would take the same amount of money from themselves before redistributing it.

    They do contribute, they just don't give away all their money. Do you know why? Because they think they can use the money they have and the influence it affords them to change the way things systematically work in this country. Giving away their money is very much a short term solution. People like you may only think in the short term, but these champagne socialists actually think about what effect they can have on the country after their donations have run out.

    Honestly, my argument is hardly radical. It came up in one of my Oxford critical reasoning tests It's really not hard to prove that your thinking is very uncritical and unintelligent here.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Falcatas)
    People are capable of defending their own property and organising themselves without the need of government. There would be a market for defence as well for security guards and etc.


    Are you blind to the stealing that takes place now? What happens if there is no government and some thugs threaten to kill me if I don't give up some of my income to them? Do you not see the irony here?




    There are not many people who exclusively claim welfare and don't work but would it matter? If you die due to your own laziness that is your own problem. These type of people are very rare however.
    If you require stolen money from people to survive I really have no sympathy for you.

    You also have no evidence charity wouldn't be enough. People would have more money to spend (and donate voluntarily) if the government did not take stuff from them.





    Theft: A criminal act in which property belonging to another is taken without that person's consent.
    You just redefined theft so the state is exempt from it. Why not do the same for all crimes?
    If the state commanded its agents to just start killing people would you object to this being called murder?

    You can't just give exemptions to the state. If it is wrong for individuals to take another persons stuff without their consent then it is wrong for a state to do it as well.

    Governments are not legitimate things, they solely exist by nothing other than its ability to violently subjugate the people it intends to subjugate, and its means to kill anyone who threatens said ability.
    I really have little time for anarchists, especially anarchists with poor grammar, but here goes:

    1. It seems to me that it is much more cost-effective to have a government that uses the rule of law rather than for everyone to have their own armed security guard. I'm in the fortunate position to be in a very wealthy family, and I'm guessing that we'd need about 8 security guards to defend our main property - with the government there to makes these acts illegal, the need for security guards has gone down to pretty much zero.
    2. Haha you're doing my job for me here - yes, I know there is stealing new, but I'm fairly certain it'd be even worse if there wasn't a state. It's like you live in a house under a dam and, having seen there is a small leak, you orde the dam to be smashed through, despite the damage it would do to your house.
    3. What a blind, elderly woman who can't get a job? It's very easy for people like you to say tasteless things like that, but when it comes to the real world, you'd find it a lot harder.
    4. Yes I do. Charity donations by UK residents (most of which went abroad, by the way, so we can dramatically reduce the following figure) was about £9 billion in 2012. State welfare payments were about £200 billion in 2012. So yes, I do have proof - please actually do a bit of research before you write nonsense like this.
    5. If I earned, say, £60k p/a I really wouldn't want to be donating much to charity at all. It's much better for the state to impose direct taxes than for individuals to give to charity. It's sweet that you think most people are by nature charitable, but as your comment earlier about having no sympathy for those who cannot survive shows, they are not.
    6. Youve assumed it is a crime. And nice straw man, by the way. No, I do not approve of the state's 'agents' killing individuals but imposing direct taxes is a bit different from killing someone...
    7. No. The state, being in control the country, allows the individuals therein to become rich and earn their own money. In return, they ask for taxes to ensure the country remains able to purchase infrastructure, fund an army, and make sure people don't die on the streets. It's not a radical idea.
    8. Who did it kill?

    It's a nice try, but your going to have to do a lot better to successfully argue that a government is a bad thing...
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SotonianOne)
    I think it's a pisstake when people say "the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer"
    Why? Too stubborn to accept there's a problem?

    Well, yes, the rich will always get richer at a significantly higher rate, but what's the problem if everyone is feeling the benefit? Socialists just want to see the gap closed between rich and poor, even if the closure would mean that everyone gets poorer as a result.
    The problem is that not everyone is feeling the benefit. Average wages still haven't returned to pre-recession levels, people are having to go onto zero hour contracts without knowing how often they'll be able to work, house prices are rocketing and pushing the younger generation away from housing, food banks usage has skyrocketed etc.

    Nobody is advocating for complete socialism here, but the fact is the conservatives have done absolutely jack **** to protect the poorest in society.

    Poor at 5k and rich at 5m or Poor at 25k and rich at 50bn .. which one is the net benefit? Nothing wrong with inequality.
    Inequality is always going to happen, but that doesn't mean the government should turn their back on the poor.

    "The Poor" have never had it so good as today, and will only be better at the end of this Parliament.
    lol...

    http://rt.com/uk/167008-poverty-doubles-uk-economy/
    http://news.scotland.gov.uk/News/Wes...gess-1314.aspx
    http://policy-practice.oxfam.org.uk/...gy-welfare-cap
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32738655
    http://www.theguardian.com/money/201...s-benefit-cuts

    Oh look a quick google and I found 5 articles on how the poorest are getting far worse off.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by movkool14811)
    following the GE2015 victory of the conservatives, I've heard nothing but bad things about Cameron and his party. I've heard things like the NHS being privatised, education getting harder and uni fees rising. the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer...

    i want to know, is it all that bad?

    i also want to know positive aspects of a conservative govt.
    Good for country but bad for people considering economically.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ibzombie96)
    1. It seems to me that it is much more cost-effective to have a government that uses the rule of law rather than for everyone to have their own armed security guard. I'm in the fortunate position to be in a very wealthy family, and I'm guessing that we'd need about 8 security guards to defend our main property - with the government there to makes these acts illegal, the need for security guards has gone down to pretty much zero.
    2. Haha you're doing my job for me here - yes, I know there is stealing new, but I'm fairly certain it'd be even worse if there wasn't a state. It's like you live in a house under a dam and, having seen there is a small leak, you orde the dam to be smashed through, despite the damage it would do to your house.
    3. What a blind, elderly woman who can't get a job? It's very easy for people like you to say tasteless things like that, but when it comes to the real world, you'd find it a lot harder.
    4. Yes I do. Charity donations by UK residents (most of which went abroad, by the way, so we can dramatically reduce the following figure) was about £9 billion in 2012. State welfare payments were about £200 billion in 2012. So yes, I do have proof - please actually do a bit of research before you write nonsense like this.
    5. If I earned, say, £60k p/a I really wouldn't want to be donating much to charity at all. It's much better for the state to impose direct taxes than for individuals to give to charity. It's sweet that you think most people are by nature charitable, but as your comment earlier about having no sympathy for those who cannot survive shows, they are not.
    6. Youve assumed it is a crime. And nice straw man, by the way. No, I do not approve of the state's 'agents' killing individuals but imposing direct taxes is a bit different from killing someone...
    7. No. The state, being in control the country, allows the individuals therein to become rich and earn their own money. In return, they ask for taxes to ensure the country remains able to purchase infrastructure, fund an army, and make sure people don't die on the streets. It's not a radical idea.
    8. Who did it kill?

    It's a nice try, but your going to have to do a lot better to successfully argue that a government is a bad thing...
    1. Security guards would just be an example of a method there could other things like community militias. Bringing in your own personal argument doesn't count as an argument.

    2. No it isn't. No one would accept a arbitrary group making them hand over a portion of their income in other circumstances.

    3. Argument from emotion. It doesn't justify taking things from other people.

    4. It was 160 billion not 200 and most of that is not giving to people who would die without it. Not everyone on welfare would shrivel up without the state.

    Almost half of it is given as a pension. There would be no need to be a pension if people could save themselves (would help but not taking money of them in the first place). Pensions often lose value due to the idiocy of fiat currency and inflation.
    If you care so much about the poor do you support cost of living taxes like VAT?

    5. I object to the involuntary nature of it. Charity is voluntary, tax is not. You cannot be compassionate with other people's money.

    6. I guess I can't win if you accept that government defines law therefore it could do anything it wants if it says so, because it makes its own rules.

    Any worthwhile set of ethics must be universal. If it is wrong for me, it is wrong for you and wrong for everyone. "Thou shall not steal" is universal. It is possible for everyone to do it at the same time.
    You can't say that stealing is right for the government yet wrong if other people do it.
    If stealing is right then is must be right for everyone to do so. "Thou shall steal" is not universal however as if stealing is universal there is no concept of property rights and without property rights it makes little sense to talk of theft.

    7/8. You accept legitimacy without justifying it. If you refuse to obey the state or its agents they will eventually jail you or kill you if you resist. Governments are not just peacefully formed, people came to together and exerted violence so they can take control.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    So many people became politicians on the day of elections, most of which were quick to say "Conservatives only care about the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer" aka, something they probably heard their grandparents mention a few years back..

    When you look into it, it's not all bad - it'll never be perfect.. Pleasing a whole country is something that's virtually impossible. Each party had their positives and strong points, I personally felt as if Conservatives had the best all round strong point(s).
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ibzombie96)
    Your last comment assumes that there is a limited amount of money about - that the opportunity cost of giving bankers bonuses is the inability to pay public sector employees or invest in public services. That's just not the case.
    Actually, that's not totally true when you factor in the fact that the state has to supplement a low wage worker's wage with in-work tax credits and housing benefits in order to ensure they have enough to live.

    These low wages are kept low in order to preserve profits. Profits which go towards CEO's and executives' bonuses. So in actual fact, through our taxes we are in effect feeling the cost of CEOs getting bigger bonuses.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Sysode)
    So many people became politicians on the day of elections, most of which were quick to say "Conservatives only care about the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer" aka, something they probably heard their grandparents mention a few years back..

    When you look into it, it's not all bad - it'll never be perfect.. Pleasing a whole country is something that's virtually impossible. Each party had their positives and strong points, I personally felt as if Conservatives had the best all round strong point(s).
    Well, started a few months back but really kicked off on the day
 
 
 

1,154

students online now

800,000+

Exam discussions

Find your exam discussion here

Poll
Should universities take a stronger line on drugs?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.