Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    I don’t worship misery and suffering. If there was a drug that could make us happy 24/7 with no negative side effects would you encourage people to take it? Who doesn’t want to be happy right? There’s actually some good in being upset or angry at times. Same figures here. I value being a good person- in order to be a good person it requires bad people- that doesn’t mean I worship bad people.

    Another point: on value, actually no- if people have never been without it how can they truly value it?

    If people are given something as a right, eg housing I believe they are not going to see the true value of it as it hasn’t been ‘earnt’ - it’s like with kids, when I was a stroppy teenager I didn’t give a **** about keeping my room tidy or not wearing muddy shoes indoors and that’s kinda the case I’ve observec with most people who live in council houses (and I’m not ****ging these people off either in this case) they don’t feel as attached to it as they would if they’ve spent time ruthlessly saving up for it.





    Could be s multitude of reasons for this eg commmuting.

    It would be interesting to see a wide ranging study on reduced hours in working. There have been some in specific industries and whilst there were some bonuses (which I’m not disputing) eg in productivity, work satisfaction there are also negative consequences: loneliness and decreases in quality.
    If we have the technology to seriously improve the quality of life of the population and wipe out relative poverty, why would we not do it?[/QUOTE]

    You wouldn’r be able to wipe out relative poverty- there will still be comparatively wealthier people able to afford better products and some people screaming that this isn’t fair.[/QUOTE]

    Absolutely. Why not be happy all the time?

    reducing the working day by a few hours isn't going to cause widespread loneliness.

    You shouldn't have to 'earn' being able to afford food or having a roof over your head. As a society, these should be a given to everyone.

    I've never been without the NHS but I sure appreciate it. I don't need to not have it to value it, even if you think we need to bizarrely privatise huge chunks of it.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    If we have the technology to seriously improve the quality of life of the population and wipe out relative poverty, why would we not do it?
    You wouldn’r be able to wipe out relative poverty- there will still be comparatively wealthier people able to afford better products and some people screaming that this isn’t fair.[/QUOTE]

    Absolutely. Why not be happy all the time?

    reducing the working day by a few hours isn't going to cause widespread loneliness.

    You shouldn't have to 'earn' being able to afford food or having a roof over your head. As a society, these should be a given to everyone.

    I've never been without the NHS but I sure appreciate it. I don't need to not have it to value it, even if you think we need to bizarrely privatise huge chunks of it.[/QUOTE]

    You weren’t talking about a few hours- a twenty hour week would halve my contracted hours.

    On the happiness / value part I guess this is always going to be subjective to some degree.

    I personally find your absoloute reliance on the state to remedy all social ills as horrific as you find my willingness to accept poverty et al as a price for personal responsibility and freedom.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    You wouldn’r be able to wipe out relative poverty- there will still be comparatively wealthier people able to afford better products and some people screaming that this isn’t fair.

    Absolutely. Why not be happy all the time?

    reducing the working day by a few hours isn't going to cause widespread loneliness.

    You shouldn't have to 'earn' being able to afford food or having a roof over your head. As a society, these should be a given to everyone.

    I've never been without the NHS but I sure appreciate it. I don't need to not have it to value it, even if you think we need to bizarrely privatise huge chunks of it.

    You weren’t talking about a few hours- a twenty hour week would halve my contracted hours.

    On the happiness / value part I guess this is always going to be subjective to some degree.

    I personally find your absoloute reliance on the state to remedy all social ills as horrific as you find my willingness to accept poverty et al as a price for personal responsibility and freedom.
    Humans have always formed societies.
    I don't rely on the state to cure all social ills but rather a combination of the public sector, charity sector and worker co-operatives. The private sector operates on a profit basis only and therefore if something isn't profitable, such as curing hunger, then it won't do it.

    We easily have the resources in this country to ensure that no one should ever have to go without food, yet you seem to be suggesting that it would be wrong to ensure just that? I've been lucky that i've never gone without food, that doesn't mean i'm not grateful or that I don't appreciate it.

    You have a really strong distrust and unmerited skepticism of the public sector, yet huge amounts of trust for corporations and the private sector. Time and time again the public sector has shown to provide a better, more efficient and roe inclusive service than the private sector across a whole range of areas.

    The NHS was not brought about by the private sector, it was brought about by the wonderful concept that everyone is entitled to healthcare. What's wrong with that?
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    Well in a democracy it’s feasoble. A fair share of corporates would be happy with such a world for a plethora of reasons.
    It could happen but the result would be chaotic. There are numerous people of undesirable psychology who with no work required would commit crime or generally cause trouble.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Humans have always formed societies.
    I don't rely on the state to cure all social ills but rather a combination of the public sector, charity sector and worker co-operatives. The private sector operates on a profit basis only and therefore if something isn't profitable, such as curing hunger, then it won't do it.

    We easily have the resources in this country to ensure that no one should ever have to go without food, yet you seem to be suggesting that it would be wrong to ensure just that? I've been lucky that i've never gone without food, that doesn't mean i'm not grateful or that I don't appreciate it.

    You have a really strong distrust and unmerited skepticism of the public sector, yet huge amounts of trust for corporations and the private sector. Time and time again the public sector has shown to provide a better, more efficient and roe inclusive service than the private sector across a whole range of areas.

    The NHS was not brought about by the private sector, it was brought about by the wonderful concept that everyone is entitled to healthcare. What's wrong with that?
    What is the point of charities in the above described world? Worker mutuals... fine, but I find them a ludicrous concept as I’ve said to CB- who last time I checked was more of an anarchist than you.

    Where have I said I’ve got faith in the private sector? The private sector is terrible or wrong at some things just like all institutions. It has the profit incentive but it also is not taxpayer funded except in vital areas or some corporatist schemes- which yes may happen in some cases but generally don’t.

    My ‘faith’ is in myself and the people I know not politicians/ doctors/ corporations. All institutions are corrupt and fallen and there should be balances to their power incorporating the public, private and third sectors- plus families and individual choice.


    Food in the UK isn’t a right provided by the government and nobody starves to death )except in criminal cases)

    The point of the NHS is that it’s tax payer funded at the point of use... in an age where people lived up to fifty.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    What is the point of charities in the above described world? Worker mutuals... fine, but I find them a ludicrous concept as I’ve said to CB- who last time I checked was more of an anarchist than you.

    Where have I said I’ve got faith in the private sector? The private sector is terrible or wrong at some things just like all institutions. It has the profit incentive but it also is not taxpayer funded except in vital areas or some corporatist schemes- which yes may happen in some cases but generally don’t.

    My ‘faith’ is in myself and the people I know not politicians/ doctors/ corporations. All institutions are corrupt and fallen and there should be balances to their power incorporating the public, private and third sectors- plus families and individual choice.


    Food in the UK isn’t a right provided by the government and nobody starves to death )except in criminal cases)

    The point of the NHS is that it’s tax payer funded at the point of use... in an age where people lived up to fifty.
    Capitalism doesn't necessarily provide meaningful 'freedom' and I would strongly argue against 'freedom' necessarily being a good thing in every circumstance.

    A homeless person technically has the freedom to buy a house, but without the resources to do so then that feeedom is meaningless. Guaranteed housing is far better than being homeless but having technical freedom to buy a house.

    People in 1940s lived longer than 50.

    There is such a thing as society and there always has been.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Capitalism doesn't necessarily provide meaningful 'freedom' and I would strongly argue against 'freedom' necessarily being a good thing in every circumstance.

    A homeless person technically has the freedom to buy a house, but without the resources to do so then that feeedom is meaningless. Guaranteed housing is far better than being homeless but having technical freedom to buy a house.

    People in 1940s lived longer than 50.

    There is such a thing as society and there always has been.
    Society is great. I’m all for that. I just don’t equate the government with that.

    You get my point though on age, general life span was far lower than now.

    Capitalism doesn’t provide freedom- we are born with it. Capitalism merely facilitates it to an adequate degree- to his benefit usually.

    The homeless mans freedom to buy a house is not impeded though, in a free society, by any force other than circumstance. Of course it’s easy for me to wax lyrical when I’m not in this position.

    But it’s a hypothetical. If I was a refugee fleeing poverty I’d think that the UK should take me in. If you were a foetus about to be aborted you’d be pro life. Note how our freedoms are impacting on others.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    Society is great. I’m all for that. I just don’t equate the government with that.

    You get my point though on age, general life span was far lower than now.

    Capitalism doesn’t provide freedom- we are born with it. Capitalism merely facilitates it to an adequate degree- to his benefit usually.

    The homeless mans freedom to buy a house is not impeded though, in a free society, by any force other than circumstance. Of course it’s easy for me to wax lyrical when I’m not in this position.

    But it’s a hypothetical. If I was a refugee fleeing poverty I’d think that the UK should take me in. If you were a foetus about to be aborted you’d be pro life. Note how our freedoms are impacting on others.
    That's the point I'm making, 'freedom' isn't necessarily a good thing and in many situations such as the freedom of Americans to buy guns, it can have quite bad consequences.

    The 'freedom' to do something is meaningless if you are never going to have the resources to be able to do it.

    I don't want the freedom to buy private healthcare, I want the certainty of having a world class healthcare system free at the point of use, as does the vast majority of the public.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    That's the point I'm making, 'freedom' isn't necessarily a good thing and in many situations such as the freedom of Americans to buy guns, it can have quite bad consequences.

    The 'freedom' to do something is meaningless if you are never going to have the resources to be able to do it.

    I don't want the freedom to buy private healthcare, I want the certainty of having a world class healthcare system free at the point of use, as does the vast majority of the public.
    Sure there are times freedom isn’t great. I’ve moved way too the right on this- I’m anti drugs, porn, prostitution and abortion for harming society which I believe you’re all in favour of.

    Perhaps instead of free- ‘responsible’ or self ownership is s better word. If you have kids you’re going to have pay for them and provide care. If you get fat you’re gonna have to lose weight or you’ll get fired rather than expecting the government to prop you up etc.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    Sure there are times freedom isn’t great. I’ve moved way too the right on this- I’m anti drugs, porn, prostitution and abortion for harming society which I believe you’re all in favour of.
    No i'm in favour of liberalism in that regard. People should be free to do with their own bodies what they want. Someone drinking alcohol (so long as they are not violent) does not affect me. Someone not paying their taxes, does.

    I'm economically interventionist and socially liberal.

    Plus, drug addiction is an illness and treating it as a crime makes the matter worse. Both the UK and USA have taken tough line stances in the war on drugs and failed miserably. Portugal decriminalised drugs and has achieved huge success in tackling drug addiction.

    Why not try what works, rather than what doesn't?

    Please tell me you don't think abortion should be outlawed. Please.

    Perhaps instead of free- ‘responsible’ or self ownership is s better word. If you have kids you’re going to have pay for them and provide care. If you get fat you’re gonna have to lose weight or you’ll get fired rather than expecting the government to prop you up etc.
    How can you believe in self-ownership or responsibility if you don't believe people should be allowed to do what they want with their own bodies. Instead you seem to want the state to tell people what they can and can't do.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    No i'm in favour of liberalism in that regard. People should be free to do with their own bodies what they want. Someone drinking alcohol (so long as they are not violent) does not affect me. Someone not paying their taxes, does.
    Why the one and not the other? Paying taxes does effect you, whether you view it as a problem or not.

    Plus, drug addiction is an illness and treating it as a crime makes the matter worse. Both the UK and USA have taken tough line stances in the war on drugs and failed miserably. Portugal decriminalised drugs and has achieved huge success in tackling drug addiction.
    http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co....-examined.html

    I agree with Hitchens about this. Addiction doesn’t exist.

    Why not try what works, rather than what doesn't?
    I’d rather do what I think is morally right thanks- in this case.

    Please tell me you don't think abortion should be outlawed. Please.
    It should certainly be discouraged at any rate.

    How can you believe in self-ownership or responsibility if you don't believe people should be allowed to do what they want with their own bodies. Instead you seem to want the state to tell people what they can and can't do.
    You own your body but you have a responsibility to the society and more importantly your family’s to make the right choices. Ultimately you can do what you want- no law is going to really stop you but you need to bear the price.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    Why the one and not the other? Paying taxes does effect you, whether you view it as a problem or not.

    I really hope you don't mean the stuff you write these days.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    I really hope you don't mean the stuff you write these days.
    Meh. Woundn’t it be boring if we all thought the same ? 😂
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=z9h1izKSvvY


    If I drink heavily that’s going to effect you as I’ll use up NHS time or get into trouble etc. Me paying taxes takes away money that could be spent on bettering myself or my family.

    As to paying money to society of course- but there in comes responsibility.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    Meh. Woundn’t it be boring if we all thought the same ? 😂
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=z9h1izKSvvY


    If I drink heavily that’s going to effect you as I’ll use up NHS time or get into trouble etc. Me paying taxes takes away money that could be spent on bettering myself or my family.

    As to paying money to society of course- but there in comes responsibility.
    I don't think i'd be bored if everyone thought that we should give more money to the NHS.

    If you're going to tell others what they can and can't do with their own bodies, then I can argue that they should be taxed more.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)

    If you're going to tell others what they can and can't do with their own bodies, then I can argue that they should be taxed more.
    Well of course we can both say that.

    My point is- why do you draw the line at intervention in the social level as I have shown it will impact upon you in similar ways as to how not paying taxes will. In fact- it might even be worse. Eg a single mother has twelve children and takes a variety of narcotics you’re looking at a hefty cost both financially and socially.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    Well of course we can both say that.

    My point is- why do you draw the line at intervention in the social level as I have shown it will impact upon you in similar ways as to how not paying taxes will. In fact- it might even be worse. Eg a single mother has twelve children and takes a variety of narcotics you’re looking at a hefty cost both financially and socially.
    Because I tend to think that what a person does with their own body is up to them. Money however, impacts us all more tangibly. Of course there is crossover and not always a clear line between social and economic policy.

    I am however very much in favour in increasing taxation on say cigarettes and alcohol. That way people who use them will be paying more tax towards the NHS, which they may be more likely to need.
 
 
 
  • 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.

  • Poll
    What newspaper do you read/prefer?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • 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.

  • 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

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.