The Commons Bar Mk IX - MHoC Chat Thread Watch

This discussion is closed.
Green_Pink
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#1961
Report 4 years ago
#1961
You know, one of the concepts I often here small-c conservatives talk about is that we're not owed anything. The idea that we do not have the right to benefits, or a job, or an education but instead that everything in life has to be earned so that hard work shall be rewarded. The biggest contradiction in that to me is when we come to talk about third-world countries. They suddenly seem to be of the opinion that we, by birthright, have a right to a more democratic country, a stronger economy and a chance in life, and in no way shape or form should we either have to open that up to competition from foreigners or help lead sustainable development so that everyone has their chance. The individuals living in impoverished countries are not responsible for any historical failings in governance, whether that by by their own ancestors or imperial regimes: so what, please tell, entitles you to so many privileges they fail to enjoy?

The answer of course would be the concept of property that can be handed down from one generation to the next free from interference, and here for me lies the real problem. This attitude literally commercialises our very existence: we are able to have democracy, food, shelter, not because we've earned it - on the contrary, most of the work we do is nothing compared to the struggles of a mother in sub-Saharan African - but because of the decisions of our forefathers. I do believe in property and competition, but this can only work in a truly free market, one we can all compete it, which I truly think would be better for everyone: and to get that, we need to change our attitude. I am not better than an African: we are both human beings trying to make our way in the world. And whilst ingrained advantage is a necessary function of capitalism, putting billions of people on a playing field where they cannot possibly compete is unnecessary and will in time prove not only a humanitarian disaster, but one in terms of innovation and international security too. When we can all freely access a market, compete, and have both security and the chance to aspire for more, we will have not only a free economy but a free and prosperous planet.
1
RayApparently
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#1962
Report 4 years ago
#1962
(Original post by Life_peer)
Sorry?
In societies where women are afforded more rights, the population goes down.
0
TeeEff
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#1963
Report 4 years ago
#1963
(Original post by Aph)
Very, I guess it's small minded of me but I assume mose people on here are white British...

but an equal standard which is also high... Anyway from what I've heard Eritrea is doing well for itself these days.
I was born and bred here, so I've still grown up in a British environment

That's the utopian vision. The reality is quite different for a massive country like China where you have over a billion people to keep to the same standard of living. Socialism can work for a while if you're a small country sitting on a nice bunch of natural resources and you know how to manage it (Norway being the obvious example) but it's more impractical once those resources run out and you lose your source of income to redistribute. History and current experience has shown it doesn't work for China. I'm not going to deny they have their failings but Markets still provided the more workable mechanism imho to increasing their prosperity.
0
Aph
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#1964
Report 4 years ago
#1964
(Original post by Green_Pink)
You know, one of the concepts I often here small-c conservatives talk about is that we're not owed anything. The idea that we do not have the right to benefits, or a job, or an education but instead that everything in life has to be earned so that hard work shall be rewarded. The biggest contradiction in that to me is when we come to talk about third-world countries. They suddenly seem to be of the opinion that we, by birthright, have a right to a more democratic country, a stronger economy and a chance in life, and in no way shape or form should we either have to open that up to competition from foreigners or help lead sustainable development so that everyone has their chance. The individuals living in impoverished countries are not responsible for any historical failings in governance, whether that by by their own ancestors or imperial regimes: so what, please tell, entitles you to so many privileges they fail to enjoy?

The answer of course would be the concept of property that can be handed down from one generation to the next free from interference, and here for me lies the real problem. This attitude literally commercialises our very existence: we are able to have democracy, food, shelter, not because we've earned it - on the contrary, most of the work we do is nothing compared to the struggles of a mother in sub-Saharan African - but because of the decisions of our forefathers. I do believe in property and competition, but this can only work in a truly free market, one we can all compete it, which I truly think would be better for everyone: and to get that, we need to change our attitude. I am not better than an African: we are both human beings trying to make our way in the world. And whilst ingrained advantage is a necessary function of capitalism, putting billions of people on a playing field where they cannot possibly compete is unnecessary and will in time prove not only a humanitarian disaster, but one in terms of innovation and international security too. When we can all freely access a market, compete, and have both security and the chance to aspire for more, we will have not only a free economy but a free and prosperous planet.
Hear hear!!!!
PRSOM:grumble:
(Original post by The Financier)
I was born and bred here, so I've still grown up in a British environment

That's the utopian vision. The reality is quite different for a massive country like China where you have over a billion people to keep to the same standard of living. Socialism can work for a while if you're a small country sitting on a nice bunch of natural resources and you know how to manage it (Norway being the obvious example) but it's more impractical once those resources run out and you lose your source of income to redistribute. Markets still provide the more efficient mechanism imho to increasing prosperity.
The Scandanavian model as I've said many times is ideal to me, if Scandinavia were ever to merge then I would push for Britain to be included. But there are other ways but it'd take global co-operation which is a long way off:sad:
0
InnerTemple
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#1965
Report 4 years ago
#1965
(Original post by Green_Pink)
You know, one of the concepts I often here small-c conservatives talk about is that we're not owed anything. The idea that we do not have the right to benefits, or a job, or an education but instead that everything in life has to be earned so that hard work shall be rewarded. The biggest contradiction in that to me is when we come to talk about third-world countries.
Because most conservatives are full of rubbish.

They are only interested in themselves - or their wealthy mates. As far as they are concerned, anyone else can go to hell. That is unless you are of some use to them - in which case you are just a means to an end.

This is a characteristic that all Tories have. It's disgusting.
1
James Milibanter
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#1966
Report 4 years ago
#1966
(Original post by The Financier)
That's the utopian vision. The reality is quite different for a massive country like China where you have over a billion people to keep to the same standard of living. Socialism can work for a while if you're a small country sitting on a nice bunch of natural resources and you know how to manage it (Norway being the obvious example) but it's more impractical once those resources run out and you lose your source of income to redistribute. History and current experience has shown it doesn't work for China. I'm not going to deny they have their failings but Markets still provided the more workable mechanism imho to increasing their prosperity.
Well if you read up on Trotsky, his ideology fits quite well into what you've written here. He believed that socialism should be obtained by several revolutions happening all over the world and creating a global economic structure in which all of these several socialist states would work together in sustaining this "utopia".
0
RayApparently
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#1967
Report 4 years ago
#1967
(Original post by InnerTemple)
Because most conservatives are full of rubbish.

They are only interested in themselves - or their wealthy mates. As far as they are concerned, anyone else can go to hell. That is unless you are of some use to them - in which case you are just a means to an end.

This is a characteristic that all Tories have. It's disgusting.
You remind me of Charlie Brooker.

Attached files
0
InnerTemple
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#1968
Report 4 years ago
#1968
(Original post by RayApparently)
You remind me of Charlie Brooker.

What a lovely compliment! Thank you.
0
Green_Pink
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#1969
Report 4 years ago
#1969
(Original post by InnerTemple)
Because most conservatives are full of rubbish.

They are only interested in themselves - or their wealthy mates. As far as they are concerned, anyone else can go to hell. That is unless you are of some use to them - in which case you are just a means to an end.

This is a characteristic that all Tories have. It's disgusting.
I genuinely think most everyday conservatives are good, well-meaning people. There is plenty to be said for capitalism, and they don't seem inherently evil. But in my mind the ideology underpinning it is at best inconsistent.
0
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#1970
Report 4 years ago
#1970
(Original post by Green_Pink)
QFA
Obviously i'm not the most small-c conservative but i'll answer a few points.

You know, one of the concepts I often here small-c conservatives talk about is that we're not owed anything. The idea that we do not have the right to benefits, or a job, or an education but instead that everything in life has to be earned so that hard work shall be rewarded.
This is true. While i support the existence of a state that does those things to some degree it's true that these need to be paid for, they need to be earned and those who don't contribute while legally able to access such services should not be viewed upon positively.

The biggest contradiction in that to me is when we come to talk about third-world countries. They suddenly seem to be of the opinion that we, by birthright, have a right to a more democratic country, a stronger economy and a chance in life, and in no way shape or form should we either have to open that up to competition from foreigners or help lead sustainable development so that everyone has their chance. The individuals living in impoverished countries are not responsible for any historical failings in governance, whether that by by their own ancestors or imperial regimes: so what, please tell, entitles you to so many privileges they fail to enjoy?
Is it a contradiction?

Your suggesting that conservatives actively decide we deserve them because we are better (because we were born here) but actually i think it's truer to say that we deserve in a divided world to act in our own collective self interest. Now that does not stop an Australian coming (culturally compatible and likely to be skilled) but it does mean that the third world has no reason to be here from our point of view. Bringing a load of Somalians or Syrians may enhance their lives, but it's unlikely to enhance ours.

The answer of course would be the concept of property that can be handed down from one generation to the next free from interference, and here for me lies the real problem.
One of our primal drivers is to better the lives of our children. To propagate and ensure the survival of our family and to some extent wider pack.

This attitude literally commercialises our very existence: we are able to have democracy, food, shelter, not because we've earned it - on the contrary, most of the work we do is nothing compared to the struggles of a mother in sub-Saharan African - but because of the decisions of our forefathers. I do believe in property and competition, but this can only work in a truly free market, one we can all compete it, which I truly think would be better for everyone: and to get that, we need to change our attitude. I am not better than an African: we are both human beings trying to make our way in the world.
You as an individual are not better than an African but Britain as a collective is better than Africa. Now that maybe due to the decisions of our parents and ancestors (which you clearly find unfair) but let's not forget that China in 30 years has gone from unable to feed itself to above the global average in GDP per capita, free trade can deliver these people prosperity with the correct economic management in a generation or two. Yes, that inbetween generation will suffer still but life is unfair and there's not all that much we can do to abate it.

And whilst ingrained advantage is a necessary function of capitalism, putting billions of people on a playing field where they cannot possibly compete is unnecessary and will in time prove not only a humanitarian disaster, but one in terms of innovation and international security too.
Why can't they compete? Why is Africa any different to Hong Kong, China and the like before their growth. Africa does not really innovate, at least not in anything which enhances our way of life here.

When we can all freely access a market, compete, and have both security and the chance to aspire for more, we will have not only a free economy but a free and prosperous planet.
I agree but we must wait for these people to reach a satisfactory level of development.
0
Aph
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#1971
Report 4 years ago
#1971
So, who's gonna right up this terms scandles in the TSR history book?
0
RayApparently
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#1972
Report 4 years ago
#1972
(Original post by InnerTemple)
What a lovely compliment! Thank you.
Of course the less quoted full version of that is funnier (and more offensive):

"The Conservative party is an eternally irritating force for wrong that appeals exclusively to bigots, toffs, money-minded machine men, faded entertainers and selfish, grasping simpletons who were born with some essential part of their soul missing. None of history’s truly historical figures has been a Tory, apart from the ones that were, and they only did it by mistake. To reach a more advanced stage of intellectual evolution, humankind must first eradicate the ‘Tory instinct’ from the brain – which is why mother nature is gradually making them less sexy with each passing generation. The final Tory is doomed to spend his or her life masturbating alone on a hillside, which, let’s face it, is the way things were supposed to be all along." - Charlie Brooker
0
RayApparently
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#1973
Report 4 years ago
#1973
(Original post by Aph)
So, who's gonna right up this terms scandles in the TSR history book?
The Speaker, I imagine.
0
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#1974
Report 4 years ago
#1974
I believe you can edit the wiki at will. I remember there was a horrendously biased history towards Labour in key events at one point so i made sure the Tory one reflected the truth.
0
Aph
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#1975
Report 4 years ago
#1975
(Original post by Rakas21)
I believe you can edit the wiki at will. I remember there was a horrendously biased history towards Labour in key events at one point so i made sure the Tory one reflected the truth.
Aye, that part they can. The last scandles update was in 2012, I'd write them all up and post them but I not sure I'd do it fairly.
(Original post by RayApparently)
The Speaker, I imagine.
Anyone can do it, I've been updating leaders as no one else has been, haven't done the Tories because I don't remember their full leadership this term.
0
Green_Pink
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#1976
Report 4 years ago
#1976
(Original post by Rakas21)
Obviously i'm not the most small-c conservative but i'll answer a few points.



This is true. While i support the existence of a state that does those things to some degree it's true that these need to be paid for, they need to be earned and those who don't contribute while legally able to access such services should not be viewed upon positively.



Is it a contradiction?

Your suggesting that conservatives actively decide we deserve them because we are better (because we were born here) but actually i think it's truer to say that we deserve in a divided world to act in our own collective self interest. Now that does not stop an Australian coming (culturally compatible and likely to be skilled) but it does mean that the third world has no reason to be here from our point of view. Bringing a load of Somalians or Syrians may enhance their lives, but it's unlikely to enhance ours.



One of our primal drivers is to better the lives of our children. To propagate and ensure the survival of our family and to some extent wider pack.



You as an individual are not better than an African but Britain as a collective is better than Africa. Now that maybe due to the decisions of our parents and ancestors (which you clearly find unfair) but let's not forget that China in 30 years has gone from unable to feed itself to above the global average in GDP per capita, free trade can deliver these people prosperity with the correct economic management in a generation or two. Yes, that inbetween generation will suffer still but life is unfair and there's not all that much we can do to abate it.



Why can't they compete? Why is Africa any different to Hong Kong, China and the like before their growth. Africa does not really innovate, at least not in anything which enhances our way of life here.



I agree but we must wait for these people to reach a satisfactory level of development.
I think there's one big differences between us here. You talk about our self-interest, and I agree that that's human nature and an inevitable consequence of the nation state system. However, I believe that the development of people and nations around the globe is in our self-interest. If poorer people can have access to an education, basic security of life for them and their family and the right tools, they will be able to innovate far more than they do right now - advancing technology to everyone's benefit. If they have this basic security the risk of terrorist activity massively decreases, meaning we can spend billions of pounds less each year on security measures. And if we can foster a global spirit of cooperation of nations to help people and businesses around the globe compete rather than simply viewing Africa as inherently inferior, we can develop a much-needed global response to issues such as power change - just imagine for instance if we could one day feasibly harness the Sahara for solar power. This isn't just beneficial to us, it's essential for our long-term prosperity.

Note that I'm not suggesting we immediately let everyone from Africa immigrate to more prosperous nations, that just isn't a good solution. But we should be looking at way to further development, like supporting charities and businesses with foreign aid rather than corrupt and inefficient states. And we should be taking the challenges of climate change, illness and global hunger seriously, not only dealing with ebola when it spreads to Europe and America. If we do this, we'll not just improve billions of lives, in the long-term, we'll improve our own too. It can be done, but it needs a real change in the way we think - from short-term to long-term, from the national to the global, and most importantly from "What's best for me today" to "What's best for humankind, for us and for our children?".
0
RayApparently
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#1977
Report 4 years ago
#1977
(Original post by Aph)
Aye, that part they can. The last scandles update was in 2012, I'd write them all up and post them but I not sure I'd do it fairly.

Anyone can do it, I've been updating leaders as no one else has been, haven't done the Tories because I don't remember their full leadership this term.
You didn't ask who can, you asked who will. I imagine it will be the Speaker.
0
Aph
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#1978
Report 4 years ago
#1978
(Original post by RayApparently)
You didn't ask who can, you asked who will. I imagine it will be the Speaker.
ohhh yes sorry, I just would've thought the speaker would be too busy with the other wiki updates?
0
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#1979
Report 4 years ago
#1979
(Original post by Aph)
Aye, that part they can. The last scandles update was in 2012, I'd write them all up and post them but I not sure I'd do it fairly.

Anyone can do it, I've been updating leaders as no one else has been, haven't done the Tories because I don't remember their full leadership this term.
Early term..

L: Cryptographic
DL: Life Peer
C: TehFrance

Now..

L: Life Peer
DL: The Financier
C: Bun
0
RayApparently
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#1980
Report 4 years ago
#1980
(Original post by Aph)
ohhh yes sorry, I just would've thought the speaker would be too busy with the other wiki updates?
*shrug* This terms events are unlikely to be jotted down until next term is underway anyway.
0
X
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

Have you made up your mind on your five uni choices?

Yes I know where I'm applying (56)
66.67%
No I haven't decided yet (18)
21.43%
Yes but I might change my mind (10)
11.9%

Watched Threads

View All