This discussion is closed.
aliel
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#101
Report 16 years ago
#101
(Original post by JSM)
can you tell me how old you are and how you know of the real world and what you would call the real world then? You obviously know better as you claim i do not know it.
Firstly, I was not suggesting that the age of an individual is a preresquite for their understanding of poverty. For many young people, experience of poverty is simply their experience of their every day life. The thing is, that many of us, are extremely fortunate to not have to deal with some of the most extreme examples of poverty. And thus i feel it important not to underestimate the hardship of such a situation. It is much too easy, and simplistic, to argue that low income earners deserve to be taxed as much those earning much more. From not ever being in a situation like that of those who experience poverty.
0
llama boy
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#102
Report 16 years ago
#102
(Original post by kildare)
Hmmm, well developing countries would benefit more from that rule (from a purely economic point of view anyway). What exactly is your gripe with it?
it, along with a lot of other rules, lead to the "race to the bottom" with all developing countries scrambling to destroy their labour/environmental laws so they can get the "custom" from big business.

such a system is not in the interest of those in the developing world.
0
JSM
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#103
Report Thread starter 16 years ago
#103
(Original post by llama boy)
er no, not really.

i don't see why there has to be a race, and i certainly don't see why equality is undesirable.
there is a race as man is naturally competitve (if your cynical otherwise you would say co-operative)

"What has always made the state a hell on earth has been precisely that man has tried to make it his heaven" F. Hoelderlin.

equality - everyone the same might be desirable but everyone is different, has different needs
0
JSM
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#104
Report Thread starter 16 years ago
#104
(Original post by kildare)
People's economic conditions are also improving, therefore allowing more and more people to turn to private healthcare, thereby easing the strain on the public sector.
what so conservative economic policies are workign and therefore if they help the majority it doesnt matter if they (oppress the minority?)
0
aliel
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#105
Report 16 years ago
#105
(Original post by JSM)
there is a race as man is naturally competitve (if your cynical otherwise you would say co-operative)

"What has always made the state a hell on earth has been precisely that man has tried to make it his heaven" F. Hoelderlin.

equality - everyone the same might be desirable but everyone is different, has different needs

I am sure JSM you are famaliar with the 'basic needs'
0
llama boy
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#106
Report 16 years ago
#106
(Original post by JSM)
i dont understand because every case is an individual, however you do pretend you know as otherwise you could not challenge me on this. You cannot make everyones plight better as there will always be relative poverty unless under totalitariansim which is a huge challenge against liberty.
i disagree.

i believe there can be both absolute freedom and equality.
0
JSM
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#107
Report Thread starter 16 years ago
#107
(Original post by aliel)
Firstly, I was not suggesting that the age of an individual is a preresquite for their understanding of poverty. For many young people, experience of poverty is simply their experience of their every day life. The thing is, that many of us, are extremely fortunate to not have to deal with some of the most extreme examples of poverty. And thus i feel it important not to underestimate the hardship of such a situation. It is much too easy, and simplistic, to argue that low income earners deserve to be taxed as much those earning much more. From not ever being in a situation like that of those who experience poverty.
well you obviously needed my age to judge my experiance of the world and therefore whether i would know enough to comment. How old are you? although you have pointedly ignored this. Fortunate not to have to deal with extreme examples of poverty, if i was there i would take full advantage of what the state offers and get the hell out of absolute poverty. However, i would claim very few, in none at all in britain are in absolute poverty. It is easy to argue that those who earn more should be taxed more, its even esaier to attack a system and not defend what you would propose in its palce.
0
kildare
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#108
Report 16 years ago
#108
(Original post by llama boy)
it, along with a lot of other rules, lead to the "race to the bottom" with all developing countries scrambling to destroy their labour/environmental laws so they can get the "custom" from big business.

such a system is not in the interest of those in the developing world.
I can understand your points, but you have to remember that it's only in your opinion that it's not in their interests, the countries in question have decided that it is.

Of course if you eliminated the nation state you wouldn't have this problem, but I'll leave my own delusional beliefs out this debate
0
llama boy
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#109
Report 16 years ago
#109
(Original post by JSM)
there is a race as man is naturally competitve (if your cynical otherwise you would say co-operative)
I believe man can be both competitive and co-operative. the latter is more desirable.

equality - everyone the same might be desirable but everyone is different, has different needs
yes - i'm not arguing for equality of outcome - everyone having the same houses / pots / pans / food etc etc.

that doesn't mean there can't be equality.
0
JSM
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#110
Report Thread starter 16 years ago
#110
(Original post by aliel)
I am sure JSM you are famaliar with the 'basic needs'
so you should fulfill basic needs, easy bring back the poorhouse, they fulfilled those basic needs. Would you agree with that system.
0
kildare
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#111
Report 16 years ago
#111
(Original post by JSM)
what so conservative economic policies are workign and therefore if they help the majority it doesnt matter if they (oppress the minority?)
How does providing free healthcare "oppress the minority"?
0
JSM
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#112
Report Thread starter 16 years ago
#112
(Original post by llama boy)
i disagree.

i believe there can be both absolute freedom and equality.
how
0
JSM
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#113
Report Thread starter 16 years ago
#113
(Original post by llama boy)
I believe man can be both competitive and co-operative. the latter is more desirable.

yes - i'm not arguing for equality of outcome - everyone having the same houses / pots / pans / food etc etc.

that doesn't mean there can't be equality.
there is equality of opportunity (legally) at the moment so what equality do you want.
0
kildare
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#114
Report 16 years ago
#114
(Original post by JSM)
if i was there i would take full advantage of what the state offers and get the hell out of absolute poverty.
You assume this is far easier than it actually is.
0
kildare
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#115
Report 16 years ago
#115
(Original post by JSM)
so you should fulfill basic needs, easy bring back the poorhouse, they fulfilled those basic needs. Would you agree with that system.
Fortunatley we are now in a position where everyone can enjoy considerably better "basic needs"
0
JSM
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#116
Report Thread starter 16 years ago
#116
(Original post by kildare)
How does providing free healthcare "oppress the minority"?
i wasnt saying they were, i was asking that if people stop doing the NHS by earning enough, then obviously conservative economics works. Conservative economics/neo-liberlaism you would say oppresses the minority of the poor.
0
JSM
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#117
Report Thread starter 16 years ago
#117
(Original post by kildare)
You assume this is far easier than it actually is.
well how do you know? How do i know? well if what the state provides at the moment is good, it should be possible or maybe there will always be an underclass
0
JSM
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#118
Report Thread starter 16 years ago
#118
(Original post by kildare)
Fortunatley we are now in a position where everyone can enjoy considerably better "basic needs"
such as? car, satallite tv, then i would call that relative poverty
0
kildare
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#119
Report 16 years ago
#119
(Original post by JSM)
i wasnt saying they were, i was asking that if people stop doing the NHS by earning enough, then obviously conservative economics works. Conservative economics/neo-liberlaism you would say oppresses the minority of the poor.
Average income in the U.K has indeed increased throughout history, I don't see why this nessecairly means "conservative economics" "work" or any better than other economic systems though.
0
llama boy
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#120
Report 16 years ago
#120
(Original post by kildare)
I can understand your points, but you have to remember that it's only in your opinion that it's not in their interests, the countries in question have decided that it is.
faced with the choice they were (although in some cases it isn't a choice - see Venezuela for a nice example of the US reaction to dissent from the New World Order) they (or at least the governments - of varying representation) made the one they thought was in their interests. But you must remember it is/was a pretty horrendous choice. They are options available that are much better than all of the choice that the US put on the table at that time.

Of course if you eliminated the nation state you wouldn't have this problem, but I'll leave my own delusional beliefs out this debate
yeah, and go get a job you dirty anarchist!
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

Do you get study leave?

Yes- I like it (149)
60.57%
Yes- I don't like it (11)
4.47%
No- I want it (69)
28.05%
No- I don't want it (17)
6.91%

Watched Threads

View All