Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tonight Matthew)
    Because you are generalising from me advocating state interference in this type of free enterprise to me advocating state interference in all free enterprise.
    Am I?

    "you show no concern for free enterprise and market economics and state interference into either."

    Have you showed concern in this thread?

    Whatsmore, you cant interfere into the free market at leisure and to differing degrees, thats not a 'free market'.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Vienna)
    Am I?

    "you show no concern for free enterprise and market economics and state interference into either."

    Have you showed concern in this thread?
    Does the fact that I haven't shown concern for it in this thread mean that I must never show concern for it at all? Are my political beliefs just my comments in one thread?

    (Original post by Vienna)
    Whatsmore, you cant interfere into the free market at leisure and to differing degrees, thats not a 'free market'
    I've never advocated a 100% free market.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tonight Matthew)
    Does the fact that I haven't shown concern for it in this thread mean that I must never show concern for it at all?
    No, but then I never suggested otherwise. In response to your comments: "you show no concern..."

    I've never advocated a 100% free market.
    What part of a free market do you advocate?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Vienna)

    What part of a free market do you advocate?
    I don't feel that I know enough about economics to really give you a decent answer, at this stage. However, in very general terms, I feel government involvement can be acceptable when it is particularly in the interests of the majority of the people.

    I'll get back to you on this in more detail when I've got more to say, though.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tonight Matthew)
    I don't feel that I know enough about economics to really give you a decent answer, at this stage. However, in very general terms, I feel government involvement can be acceptable when it is particularly in the interests of the majority of the people.
    OK, so the state should interfere to ensure the market benefits the majority? To what extent, to ensure that there is a basic standard of contractual obligation, minimum wage etc? Or should it go further and interfere with the market by regulating each sector, industry or business? or should it go further and decide how business is conducted? or should it go furthest and take control over what can or cannot happen on private property, those that own it, those that enter onto it and any activity that pursues? Incidentally, next stop is state ownership of private business and the end of the free market.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Vienna)
    OK, so the state should interfere to ensure the market benefits the majority? To what extent, to ensure that there is a basic standard of contractual obligation, minimum wage etc? Or should it go further and interfere with the market by regulating each sector, industry or business? or should it go further and decide how business is conducted? or should it go furthest and take control over what can or cannot happen on private property, those that own it, those that enter onto it and any activity that pursues? Incidentally, next stop is state ownership of private business and the end of the free market.
    Did you actually read my previous post?

    I will consider these questions more thoroughly and get back to you.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tonight Matthew)
    Did you actually read my previous post?

    I will consider these questions more thoroughly and get back to you.
    Yes, im trying to simplify things. A significant proportion of my opinion is instinct, I assumed you would have a gut feeling as to which you felt was the 'right choice'.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Vienna)
    Yes, im trying to simplify things. A significant proportion of my opinion is instinct, I assumed you would have a gut feeling as to which you felt was the 'right choice'.
    Oh, I see, sorry, I misunderstood. I'll come back to this when I come back online tomorrow, as for now I'm off.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Vienna)
    I didnt quote you, so id appreciate it if you didnt misrepresent what I posted.



    What a thought provoking analysis.

    I quoted ad verbatim what you said on your post #145. So were you saying that you were a communist and that you thought that the state should take over control of all private places? You can't wriggle out of that one, whatever you say!

    Although you found my summation of your non-persuasive contributions to this thread to be "a thought provoking analysis" it hasn't stopped you from going elsewhere, has it?
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Tonight Matthew)
    Because you are generalising from me advocating state interference in this type of free enterprise to me advocating state interference in all free enterprise.
    Don't waste your time on trying to understand the mind of someone who twists and distorts situations.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Vienna)
    A significant proportion of my opinion is instinct
    Then you are obviously not very intuitive! Either that or you are projecting your own interpretations onto another and making them the owner of your 'gut-feelings'.

    No-one has an ultimate right if it impinges of the rights of others to protect their own health, whilst enjoying their leisure. End of argument!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Tonight Matthew: Keep in mind, smokers are not "a minority" of the pub-going population.

    One reason these bans get on my nerves so bad is that they're high-handed and absolutist. I wouldn't mind them so much if the public had actually asked for them. I would hardly mind them at all if they were imposed by bar-owners in response to non-smokers' complaints. But what we have now is bans being rammed into place, by the very highest political powers and on nationwide levels, and with the attendant propaganda/misinformation campaign. This is social engineering.

    Generally speaking, I doubt anyone would have a problem with dividing pubs into smoking & non-smoking sections. This has worked in restaurants (with a few exceptions here and there, usually involving places that haven't actually separated the sections). New York was going to allow "smoking rooms" at first, but the governor scrapped them at the last minute for no reason. (Probably the result would have embarrassed him: empty bars but full smoking rooms.)
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)
    I quoted ad verbatim what you said on your post #145.
    vienna - "And dont do what yawn does: Im not a communist! What rubbish! I just believe that the state should have control over all private property!"

    yawn quotes - ""And don't do what yawn does. 'I am not a communist!' 'What rubbish'. 'I just believe that the state should have control over all private property'. "

    Youve inserted single apostrophes to make it appear as though I had quoted you. As I made clear, I didnt and you did not quote me verbatim.

    Although you found my summation of your non-persuasive contributions to this thread to be "a thought provoking analysis" it hasn't stopped you from going elsewhere, has it?
    Youve havent given a rational explanation as to why you would not favour state control of private property despite your comments endorsing it in this case.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)
    Then you are obviously not very intuitive! Either that or you are projecting your own interpretations onto another and making them the owner of your 'gut-feelings'.

    No-one has an ultimate right if it impinges of the rights of others to protect their own health, whilst enjoying their leisure. End of argument!
    That isnt the argument though, no matter how often you keep trying to smear, ignore, criticise the opinions of others out of the thread. If you feel you have a healthy majority in favour of your opinion, I dont see why you would be so adverse to discussing the points raised, instead of trying to use personal remarks and dogma to kill off the thread.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    What about peoples right to kill themselves slowly with carcinogenic smoke?

    Fair enough getting rid of it in public places, but we should keep the option for private places.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gexko)
    What about peoples right to kill themselves slowly with carcinogenic smoke?
    Word up; it's one of my favorite pastimes.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Vienna)
    That isnt the argument though, no matter how often you keep trying to smear, ignore, criticise the opinions of others out of the thread. If you feel you have a healthy majority in favour of your opinion, I dont see why you would be so adverse to discussing the points raised, instead of trying to use personal remarks and dogma to kill off the thread.
    Thanks for the neg rep - I thought you were too mature to indulge in repping! :rolleyes:

    Anyway - to get back to your post. You see smears, criticism of opinions of others etc. when none is intended - and anyway, how the hell can you take the moral high ground?

    I defend my stance on the grounds of rights.

    As I said before - "No-one has an ultimate right when it impinges on the rights of an individual to protect their own health"

    Do you disagree with that statement? Yes or no.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Vienna)
    vienna - "And dont do what yawn does: Im not a communist! What rubbish! I just believe that the state should have control over all private property!"

    yawn quotes - ""And don't do what yawn does. 'I am not a communist!' 'What rubbish'. 'I just believe that the state should have control over all private property'. "

    Youve inserted single apostrophes to make it appear as though I had quoted you. As I made clear, I didnt and you did not quote ad verbatim
    Come on, Vienna. Just who are you trying to kid?

    Look again at what you said - you deliberately attempted to attribute the comments made to me. How else do you explain it - are you saying that you yourself said "I'm not a communist"...et seq? No, because you started it with ...and don't do what yawn does!

    It's like one saying that black is white. :rolleyes:
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    I voted complete ban because passive smokers are at risk as well as the actual smokers, and probably in fact more at a risk...I have no sympathy for a smoker that finds out that he/she has developed lung cancer for eg.. you smoke knowing all the dangers involved and yet they still choose to put their lives at risk. And furthermore, other peoples' lives! Does anyone remember the advert in England with the children smoking as a result of passive smoking from parents? That was a very freaky advert, and i will always remember it.
    Why should people suffer for other peoples' pleasures...complete ban!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)
    Come on, Vienna. Just who are you trying to kid?

    Look again at what you said - you deliberately attempted to attribute the comments made to me. How else do you explain it - are you saying that you yourself said "I'm not a communist"...et seq? No, because you started it with ...and don't do what yawn does!

    It's like one saying that black is white. :rolleyes:
    Yeah, right. Then why did you add the punctuation?
 
 
 

3,179

students online now

800,000+

Exam discussions

Find your exam discussion here

Poll
Should predicted grades be removed from the uni application process
Useful resources

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.