Why the left-wing lose the debate

Scroll to see replies

No, not for 4 year olds. For adults (18+) pursuing further education.

Why not? Why not go hardcore libertarian and expect 4 year olds to pay for their education?

After all: ''Why should somebody else be made to pay for my education with their own money?''

When are you going to pay back the money that was spent on your primary and secondary education?

Reply 21

anarchism101

Original post by hektik

I believe taxing people who earn more money at a higher rate is much more preferable to a flat rate considering how unfair it is to those who earn little money, but taxing the rich more and more would do more harm than good. They may perhaps leave the country, for example, and as lots of them are job creaters, that's not good.

Aside from anything else, this isn't really directly related to my point; the legality and morality of taxation are different issues to its efficacy.

Would you not agree that money legality is an approximate measure of morality?

Not really, otherwise morality would be different according to what country you're in, and indeed even according to different jurisdictions within the same country, and what was wrong this year might be right next year and so on. And that's just scratching the surface.

Reply 22

ChaoticButterfly

Original post by SHallowvale

The important point here is that people said exactly this when education up to the age of 18 was not available for everyone.

Reply 23

hektik

Original post by SHallowvale

Everyone needs schooling to a certain level. Not everybody need a university education. It's extra education that some people want. If you want a university education, don't expect the tax payer to help you further your development beyond the standard education everyone geta at great expense.

Like everyone, I'll pay back for my schooling with my taxes. That will pay for the next generation and they'll do the same. And don't launch into "the same could be said about uni", not everyone needs it, many degrees are pointless and aren't required for the jobs the graduates of said degrees end up doing. It's and optional extra.

Reply 24

hektik

Original post by anarchism101

Aside from anything else, this isn't really directly related to my point; the legality and morality of taxation are different issues to its efficacy.

Not really, otherwise morality would be different according to what country you're in, and indeed even according to different jurisdictions within the same country, and what was wrong this year might be right next year and so on. And that's just scratching the surface.

Morality is different depending on where you live. For example:
In Saudi Arabia, being gay = bad
In UK = mostly alright

And it does change year to year. For example:
In UK, 1955, gay = bad
In UK, 2015, gay = mostly alright

Reply 25

hektik

Original post by ChaoticButterfly

The important point here is that people said exactly this when education up to the age of 18 was not available for everyone.

Who cares what they said then? Some said "we shouldn't educate them", things happened and now we do.

This is an issue of whether people should get free university tuition. It's a different issue. Maybe one day it will be free to everyone. Maybe it won't. As it stands, only certain people need/can get into university and it will cost a lot of money to put people there.

Not everyone needs to go to university. How many people go to university to study a subject, only to leave and do a completely unrelated job? We need doctors. We should pay for them. Maybe we need civil engineers. Let's invest in them. Otherwise, if you want to do something that ins't needed to make society run better, you shouldn't get it for free. You should pay for it, either upfront or down the line.

Reply 26

anarchism101

Original post by hektik

So you think the anti-gay laws in Saudi Arabia are perfectly right and OK?

Reply 27

hektik

Original post by anarchism101

So you think the anti-gay laws in Saudi Arabia are perfectly right and OK?

Don't do that, you know I'm not saying that.

No, I'm saying morality isn't universal. The average Saudi thinks gay sex is bad, and in his society, that is the moral thing. If I was a Saudi Muslim, I wouldn't question it, that is how it is and I would believe that's moral. I personally don't agree with that. I think that's a very bad way to look at homosexuality. But if you go to SA, those are the morals in the society.

You can shout your morals at the Saudis all you want, but they won't listen, and as far as they're concerned, you're the immoral one. What this shows is, just because you or me may think something is moral, doesn't mean everyone will think the same way. How would you even determine what are "right" morals and what are "wrong"?

Reply 28

MagicNMedicine

Original post by Nigel Farage MEP

What a charming lot these anti-austerity, anti-tuition fees protesters are, their face coverings make them look ever so friendly. As you have guessed, I am joking, the country did nor see violent protests from Tories when Tony Blair won the election in 1997, nor did the Tories protest when Labour opened the borders up to Eastern Europe.

I was asked last week if I was ashamed to hold centre-right beliefs, the answer has never been a stronger know, these protests are a trade mark of the metropolitan left-wing in Britain who need to learn manners before campaigning for something; their voices will be louder that way. In the first picture a formation of people dressed in all black with only their eyes showing, carrying wooden placards that are similar to shields as they march down the street criticising anyone who disagrees.

This is good analysis. Why do you think UKIP disappointed at the 2015 general election and appear to have flatlined after making progress up to 2014? The hangers-on that UKIP seems to attract, racists, bigots etc who are always prone to making some gaffe on Twitter, must have put people off.

Reply 29

Wave of Wisdom

The problem is the Left have won the debate, and have been in power since WWII. It's difficult to find any legitimate conservatives with any power to give voice to the people these days.

Reply 30

balanced

nice rep you got there :redface:

Reply 31

The_Mighty_Bush

They don't lose the debate. They've been consistently winning for decades. Now its reached the stage where you lose your job and potentially face jail time if you disagree with any of their most sacred causes.

Reply 32

saeed97

They dont and havent been losing for a long time. And all you have to do is look at the societal degeneracy they have embedded into the mainstream public.

Reply 33

ghvfdc999

Yes, because Britain's right wing is all good manners, tea and crumpets -- isn't it?

Reply 34

username1148663

Original post by Repsol

Yes, because Britain's right wing is all good manners, tea and crumpets -- isn't it?

Posts a pic of the extreme and tiny right wing to prove his point.

Classic

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 35

ghvfdc999

Original post by paul514

Posts a pic of the extreme and tiny right wing to prove his point.

Classic

Posted from TSR Mobile

You think that the majority of left wingers are balaclava wearing protestors? Of course not. My point was that anyone can cherry-pick fringe groups from either the left or the right wing: none of them represent the majority of either stance.

Reply 36

moggis

Original post by hektik

"I want free education, and I want him to pay for it!"

What is it with people demanding "rich" people giving them their money? It's not your money, it's that person's money, however they got it (assuming it's legal).

It's not somebody else's responsibility to pay for your education. If you want something, earn it. Show what you're worth, contribute to society, receive money in return for your products or services and buy your own university education.

And after you've been through all of that, worked hard and earned your money and bought your higher education, then you will understand the value of money. Contribute meaningfully to other people and earn your own money. If you do not contribute, don't expect someone else to give you what you want for nothing.

All well and good but my understanding is that (British) governments not only raise taxes *to pay for health,the police and security etc they also raise them in order to prevent inflation and even in order to help increase overall demand or controlling demand in certain areas of the economy.

If that's true then I see nothing wrong in some people demanding that a good way to spend some of this money is on free further education.Particularly when it can be argued that we all benefit.

*edit ,almost forgot,they also raise taxes in order to win votes!Yes even Tories do this.