Any rightists in house? Watch

cleverasvoltaire
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#101
Report 4 years ago
#101
(Original post by liquid funk)
As of September I'll be doing Environmental Science. I agree with democracy as it exists today, yes the lure of power seems to be the corrupting factor.
Oh nice! I want to do law at Cambridge, hoping for A*A*A* predictions next year. Good luck with your course and I wish you all the best
0
reply
41b
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#102
Report 4 years ago
#102
(Original post by liquid funk)
As of September I'll be doing Environmental Science. I agree with democracy as it exists today, yes the lure of power seems to be the corrupting factor.
You might find the website "wattsupwiththat" interesting and relevant. It's a global warming sceptic website run by a scientist, and has won a few awards.
0
reply
Rmcewan176
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#103
Report 4 years ago
#103
You can't be a libertarian conservative. Like, you just can't. You can be a libertarian Conservative, as in the Conservative party, but libertarians and conservatives are fundamentally different on a variety of issues
0
reply
HigherMinion
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#104
Report 4 years ago
#104
(Original post by Rmcewan176)
You can't be a libertarian conservative. Like, you just can't. You can be a libertarian Conservative, as in the Conservative party, but libertarians and conservatives are fundamentally different on a variety of issues

Conservatism, inasmuch as English conservatism is concerned, is very libertarian in comparison to the leftist totalitarianism we're under now, with all the business and social regulations, not to mention the welfare state. There is considerable overlap with libertarianism and conservatism, and indeed, Dr Sean Gabb - leader of the Libertarian Alliance- concedes that hardcore full-on stateless libertarianism is impossible, at least in one sweep. He also concedes that maintaining borders are extremely important.

I combine my libertarian and conservative values and call myself a traditionalist.
0
reply
HigherMinion
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#105
Report 4 years ago
#105
(Original post by liquid funk)
:ashamed2:

Haha in all honesty I wouldn't say that defines me. Truly, I believe in a world without money and where management and equal distribution of resources is the priority. Where technology is used by all to its full potential and isn't used by one group as a means of power and control over another.

Brb getting my kevlar bodysuit on..
(Original post by cleverasvoltaire)
I am idealistically a 'Marxist', if society could be built up from scratch. It would be possible in that case and that case only.

I agree with you two. If we started not only a new colony, but also if human nature were malleable, we might be in for a chance of a free society without prejudice and discrimination; no rich and poor, etc. but damnit, everyday I wake up with a constant reminder that this is the real world and Marxists got it wrong and human nature must be catered to, as it has been for thousands of years. Unfortunately, this means that people care more about their close ones than others and each group will do their best to look after THEIR people rather than just people. How sad, eh?
0
reply
liquid funk
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#106
Report 4 years ago
#106
(Original post by cleverasvoltaire)
Oh nice! I want to do law at Cambridge, hoping for A*A*A* predictions next year. Good luck with your course and I wish you all the best
Thank you kindly, best wishes to you as well I hope you achieve your potential.

(Original post by HigherMinion)
I agree with you two. If we started not only a new colony, but also if human nature were malleable, we might be in for a chance of a free society without prejudice and discrimination; no rich and poor, etc. but damnit, everyday I wake up with a constant reminder that this is the real world and Marxists got it wrong and human nature must be catered to, as it has been for thousands of years. Unfortunately, this means that people care more about their close ones than others and each group will do their best to look after THEIR people rather than just people. How sad, eh?
I think it's a common misconception that it's 'human nature' to be greedy and materialistic. I think it's a condition of the society we live in that we think that it's natural behavior to hoard wealth and have this consumerist attitude. Believe me there is nothing natural about it.

I do think that tribal behavior is instinctive but it doesn't necessarily mean that we're automatically programmed to go to war with anyone but our own. The only reason for conflict is because group A wants what group B has and group B is unwilling to share. If you think about the planet as a whole spreading the resources evenly amongst all peoples regardless of nation, there would be no cause to fight. Crime would be reduced dramatically. When the minority of the planet controls the majority of its resources it is inevitable there will be conflict.

We're led to believe it's the ultimate tragic failing of humans that we destroy everything we touch but don't believe it. Yes, as we are now that's true but it's not because of a general consensus among every living person that we do it. We're just led though life with a blindfold on being told "that's just how it is" "It's the way of the world" I mean.. sure if we keep letting it happen then it is. But it's up to us now to do something about it and leave a legacy for our children and their children to be proud of. Not carrying on centuries old outdated traditions designed to keep the elite elite, and the rest of us barely better than slaves.

It's not a lack of knowledge, it's not a lack of technology, it's simply a lack of willingness to change. People in power will do whatever they can to cling on to that power. I'm not talking about prime ministers or presidents. I'm talking about the people in charge of the major financial institutions. The 'old boys' clubs.
0
reply
HigherMinion
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#107
Report 4 years ago
#107
(Original post by liquid funk)
Thank you kindly, best wishes to you as well I hope you achieve your potential.



I think it's a common misconception that it's 'human nature' to be greedy and materialistic. I think it's a condition of the society we live in that we think that it's natural behavior to hoard wealth and have this consumerist attitude. Believe me there is nothing natural about it.
Let me stop you there: there is a difference between hoarding wealth and a consumerist attitude. the two are, in fact, a paradox. You can't hoard your wealth if you're always spending, can you? Saving, conserving and hoarding for a rainy day are all natural. Back in the day, you'd buy a pair of shoes and spend money having them repaired- not on a new pair. Now point me to the cobbler in the street.

You see, people constantly blame "capitalism" for this poverty, and "greed", but really it's down to certain incentives and keynesian economics of bolstering consumerism and not encouraging saving. Brave New World prophecises that we create broken individuals when they are born so we can charge them as adults to fix them. It's not far off, if you look at how many children are on drugs for this and that mental issue.
0
reply
liquid funk
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#108
Report 4 years ago
#108
(Original post by HigherMinion)
Let me stop you there: there is a difference between hoarding wealth and a consumerist attitude. the two are, in fact, a paradox. You can't hoard your wealth if you're always spending, can you? Saving, conserving and hoarding for a rainy day are all natural. Back in the day, you'd buy a pair of shoes and spend money having them repaired- not on a new pair. Now point me to the cobbler in the street.

You see, people constantly blame "capitalism" for this poverty, and "greed", but really it's down to certain incentives and keynesian economics of bolstering consumerism and not encouraging saving. Brave New World prophecises that we create broken individuals when they are born so we can charge them as adults to fix them. It's not far off, if you look at how many children are on drugs for this and that mental issue.
I didn't really explain clearly, sorry. It's encouraged by institutions, business, hell even government to be consumerist. Spend spend spend. Advertising and conditioning people that they have to have this next product or that brand is impossible to escape. (I myself am as guilty as the next person of buying in to it, don't get me wrong.) Where does all this money go? The majority to a handful of people at the top. People earning hundreds or thousands of times what the average Joe does.

Why are we encouraged to spend? So that we have to work. It's a means of control. A lot of jobs could easily be done by robots. Look at production lines of the 30's and 40's as an example to what we use today. (Anyone remember the Citreon Xsara Picasso advert with the spraying robot?)

Look at the UK minimum wage as an example, considerably less than what one group (I forget who) consider the minimum basic living wage. Anyway, we have to take out loans (credit cards, mortgages, bank loans, etc.) All that is charged with interest. Where is this money they loan us coming from? It's made up out of thin air, it's information stored on a computer. Or it's the money that we already gave to XYZ company which goes to the 100 million quid a year chairman who banks it and earns a high rate of interest on. Which we then pay to him with the interest we end up paying from our own debts.

I explained that terribly, perhaps someone with a bit more eloquence would care to decipher it. Hopefully you get the basic jist of it.

tl;dr: Poor get poorer and therefore more easily subservient. Rich get richer and in this system money = power.

Just because you change the system to be fairer doesn't mean people suddenly get less, in fact it would mean the average person getting far more. Take money out of the equation altogether and suddenly you have a system where resources alone determine what you can have.
0
reply
HigherMinion
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#109
Report 4 years ago
#109
(Original post by liquid funk)
I didn't really explain clearly, sorry. It's encouraged by institutions, business, hell even government to be consumerist. Spend spend spend. Advertising and conditioning people that they have to have this next product or that brand is impossible to escape. (I myself am as guilty as the next person of buying in to it, don't get me wrong.) Where does all this money go? The majority to a handful of people at the top. People earning hundreds or thousands of times what the average Joe does.

Why are we encouraged to spend? So that we have to work. It's a means of control. A lot of jobs could easily be done by robots. Look at production lines of the 30's and 40's as an example to what we use today. (Anyone remember the Citreon Xsara Picasso advert with the spraying robot?)

Look at the UK minimum wage as an example, considerably less than what one group (I forget who) consider the minimum basic living wage. Anyway, we have to take out loans (credit cards, mortgages, bank loans, etc.) All that is charged with interest. Where is this money they loan us coming from? It's made up out of thin air, it's information stored on a computer. Or it's the money that we already gave to XYZ company which goes to the 100 million quid a year chairman who banks it and earns a high rate of interest on. Which we then pay to him with the interest we end up paying from our own debts.

I explained that terribly, perhaps someone with a bit more eloquence would care to decipher it. Hopefully you get the basic jist of it.

tl;dr: Poor get poorer and therefore more easily subservient. Rich get richer and in this system money = power.

Just because you change the system to be fairer doesn't mean people suddenly get less, in fact it would mean the average person getting far more. Take money out of the equation altogether and suddenly you have a system where resources alone determine what you can have.
As long as you can acknowledge hoarding wealth=/= consumerism, that's fine. You're correct in the rest of your analysis. Also, both money and resources = wealth, so there will always be poor people unless you coercively redistribute. People will still hoard resources. Always. It is human_nature.
0
reply
41b
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#110
Report 4 years ago
#110
Read this recently:

If you're against abortion, interested in defeating communism or want to make the world a better place, you are a potential terrorist for the US government.

http://thetruthwins.com/archives/72-...ment-documents While it seems like the author of the website is a conspiracy theorist, the source seems credible.

I suspect the UK government isn't far behind. Giving UKIP a large number of seats might turn out to be crucial in stopping this nonsense in the UK.
0
reply
Rmcewan176
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#111
Report 4 years ago
#111
(Original post by HigherMinion)
Conservatism, inasmuch as English conservatism is concerned, is very libertarian in comparison to the leftist totalitarianism we're under now, with all the business and social regulations, not to mention the welfare state. There is considerable overlap with libertarianism and conservatism, and indeed, Dr Sean Gabb - leader of the Libertarian Alliance- concedes that hardcore full-on stateless libertarianism is impossible, at least in one sweep. He also concedes that maintaining borders are extremely important.

I combine my libertarian and conservative values and call myself a traditionalist.
So like, for example, a conservative would be opposed to drug legalisation or gay marriage and wouldn't be very interested in maintaining civil liberties, whereas a libertarian is the opposite. You can be socially conservative and economically liberal (capitalist), but I can't really see a libertarian coming to terms with a lot of conservative ideas.
0
reply
HigherMinion
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#112
Report 4 years ago
#112
(Original post by Rmcewan176)
So like, for example, a conservative would be opposed to drug legalisation or gay marriage and wouldn't be very interested in maintaining civil liberties, whereas a libertarian is the opposite. You can be socially conservative and economically liberal (capitalist), but I can't really see a libertarian coming to terms with a lot of conservative ideas.
And yet, a balanced and sensible libertarian would agree with a conservative that borders and a standing army must be maintained. Neither are in favour of hate speech/discrimination laws and neither are in favour of the welfare state. When talking of libertarian economic policies, they are very much conservative ones.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Would you turn to a teacher if you were being bullied?

Yes (57)
24.26%
No (178)
75.74%

Watched Threads

View All