Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cardozo)
    I think if you're used to high wages and then get told it's being cut but feel free to move onto the US or Saudi Arabia, atleast for a couple of generations they would in my opinion, until people become satisfied with this way of life, which may cripple the nation somewhat for the forseeable future.
    You know that the history of Norway is fascinating in this regard. When it broke from Sweden in 1905, Norway was a poor nation and remained so until the massive transformations put in place by the Labour Party from its victory in 1935. Indeed, Norway (along with New Zealand which turned to the Labour Party in 1937) was a model of how to build a successful democratic socialist state. They went through all of this scaremongering about the rich and talented leaving the country decades ago and came through it to become the most content and happiest nation on the planet with the highest standard of living.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paperclip)
    The flight taxes will take all their money on the way out :ninja:
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Oh, what a hilariously distasteful image.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Adorno)
    You know that the history of Norway is fascinating in this regard. When it broke from Sweden in 1905, Norway was a poor nation and remained so until the massive transformations put in place by the Labour Party from its victory in 1935. Indeed, Norway (along with New Zealand which turned to the Labour Party in 1937) was a model of how to build a successful democratic socialist state. They went through all of this scaremongering about the rich and talented leaving the country decades ago and came through it to become the most content and happiest nation on the planet with the highest standard of living.
    Admittedly this leaves out the biggest factor in Norway's rise to riches - sitting on a huge mound of oil. I'd more call it a model of how to not squander a huge quantity of money you find lying around. Still an admirable achievement, but it's how they can afford their quality of life. Without the oil it wouldn't be a country so many people would want to stay in.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Adorno)
    You know that the history of Norway is fascinating in this regard. When it broke from Sweden in 1905, Norway was a poor nation and remained so until the massive transformations put in place by the Labour Party from its victory in 1935. Indeed, Norway (along with New Zealand which turned to the Labour Party in 1937) was a model of how to build a successful democratic socialist state. They went through all of this scaremongering about the rich and talented leaving the country decades ago and came through it to become the most content and happiest nation on the planet with the highest standard of living.
    I guess that was all to do with acceptance of glorious socialist doctrine? Or maybe it is beacuse they are the 5th largest exporter of oil in the world, and third largest exporter of natural gas.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Adorno)
    You know that the history of Norway is fascinating in this regard. When it broke from Sweden in 1905, Norway was a poor nation and remained so until the massive transformations put in place by the Labour Party from its victory in 1935. Indeed, Norway (along with New Zealand which turned to the Labour Party in 1937) was a model of how to build a successful democratic socialist state. They went through all of this scaremongering about the rich and talented leaving the country decades ago and came through it to become the most content and happiest nation on the planet with the highest standard of living.
    They have a huge wealth of natural resources compared to us with regards to population which obviously ensured that the nation stayed in good shape. Also, the government having a stake in almost all the major public sectors (most importantly oil) around (40%) it boosts the economy no end.

    They also have a very stable society with little religious variation (95%+ christian) and immigration which obviously makes the place a lot easier to manage. They've obviously done well and with around 2 or 3% unemployment have to pay very little out in benefits (considering 3% of 4million people is a very small number) whilst taxable income is constant.

    I personally would pay for the 20% extra cost in living to live in Norway, but our society has become very money hungry and I do not think the people of this nation would take such a move without a revolt.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by smalltownboy)
    Oh, what a hilariously distasteful image.
    It's hardly a joke. You go around talking about locking people into your society and punishing them for trying to leave: that horrible picture is where you end up. On the twentieth anniversay of the fall of the Berlin Wall I'm frankly amazed people still hold such views, but it seems some things never die, even though they really should.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Collingwood)
    It's hardly a joke. You go around talking about locking people into your society and punishing them for trying to leave: that horrible picture is where you end up. On the thirtieth anniversay of the fall of the Berlin Wall I'm frankly amazed people still hold such views, but it seems some things never die, even though they really should.
    "We" go around? What are you talking about? Paperclip made a joke. I'm frankly amazed that people get so hysterical about this. And you can't exactly equate an airport tax with shooting someone in the face...but then I suppose to rabid mental ultra-Libertarians like you, in which all taxation is theft and having an NHS is an "evil Marxist organisation", they could be similar.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by smalltownboy)
    "We" go around? What are you talking about? Paperclip made a joke. I'm frankly amazed that people get so hysterical about this. And you can't exactly equate an airport tax with shooting someone in the face...but then I suppose to rabid mental ultra-Libertarians like you, in which all taxation is theft and having an NHS is an "evil Marxist organisation", they could be similar.
    The talk from the socialists about blocking exits (or even taking over the whole world to ensure no escape route!) had been going on for a while. That socialists trying to stop people leaving the horrible systems they create has a long and disreputable history is hardly in doubt. That you 'only' want to steal all the person's belongings, or make them rush from pillar to post collecting lots of different 'exit permits' with all different expiry dates (as the national socialists did), or whatever, it all ultimately imprisonment, whose ugliest side should be especially clear to us in this of all years.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Collingwood)
    The talk from the socialists about blocking exits (or even taking over the whole world to ensure no escape route!) had been going on for a while. That socialists trying to stop people leaving the horrible systems they create has a long and disreputable history is hardly in doubt. That you 'only' want to steal all the person's belongings, or make them rush from pillar to post collecting lots of different 'exit permits' with all different expiry dates (as the national socialists did), or whatever, it all ultimately imprisonment, whose ugliest side should be especially clear to us in this of all years.
    *yawn*

    Is this another case of equating our party with Stalinists and Nazis? Come on, I thought you were better than that. Grow up.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by smalltownboy)
    *yawn*

    Is this another case of equating our party with Stalinists and Nazis? Come on, I thought you were better than that. Grow up.
    Here, here.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Collingwood)
    The talk from the socialists about blocking exits (or even taking over the whole world to ensure no escape route!) had been going on for a while. That socialists trying to stop people leaving the horrible systems they create has a long and disreputable history is hardly in doubt. That you 'only' want to steal all the person's belongings, or make them rush from pillar to post collecting lots of different 'exit permits' with all different expiry dates (as the national socialists did), or whatever, it all ultimately imprisonment, whose ugliest side should be especially clear to us in this of all years.
    You're an idiot.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Collingwood)
    It's not clear to me what such a world would be like. What does it mean to say you've "abolished" capital and property?

    To give an example, if I make a chair, can someone come along and take it without recourse? If so, and I am a carpenter who spends all day making chairs that people come along and take without my consent, am I not in essense a slave? Ah, but I can take their wares, or even take the chair back! But this just leads to irreconcileable conflicts: we can't both have an enforceable claim to the chair.

    Please clarify if this isn't at all what you had in mind, but I think it's essentially a confused notion that you can "abolish property". You can certainly reassign property rights, perhaps so that none of it is held by individuals, but that's a different thing with its own problems.
    Can the Socialists address this question please as it seems quite important. What does it mean to have abolished "property"?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by UniOfLife)
    Can the Socialists address this question please as it seems quite important. What does it mean to have abolished "property"?
    It clearly isn't party policy to "abolish property". I assume he meant abolish property rights, but that is his personal opinion.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by smalltownboy)
    It clearly isn't party policy to "abolish property". I assume he meant abolish property rights, but that is his personal opinion.
    So no one in the Socialist Party wants to abolish property rights (whatever that actually means)?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by smalltownboy)
    *yawn*

    Is this another case of equating our party with Stalinists and Nazis? Come on, I thought you were better than that. Grow up.
    (Original post by History-Boy)
    Here, here.
    (Original post by paperclip)
    You're an idiot.
    While I can see the offensiveness of his picture, there is half a point there: would communists impose punitive exit taxes to try to stem an exodus of the wealthy? Moreover, since the abolition of property rights would involve the wealthy losing all their positions, I can understand why a right-wing libertarian, one who equates the ability to do what you want with your possessions with the ability to do what you want with your body, would find that as offensive as removing freedom of movement or freedom of speech.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by UniOfLife)
    So no one in the Socialist Party wants to abolish property rights (whatever that actually means)?
    Well i'm sure there are. But that doesn't make it party policy does it?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drogue)
    While I can see the offensiveness of his picture, there is half a point there: would communists impose punitive exit taxes to try to stem an exodus of the wealthy? Moreover, since the abolition of property rights would involve the wealthy losing all their positions, I can understand why a right-wing libertarian, one who equates the ability to do what you want with your possessions with the ability to do what you want with your body, would find that as offensive as removing freedom of movement or freedom of speech.
    One would assume that most Communists would actively enjoy an exodus of the wealthy....it saves them from having to put them into gulags:p:
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drogue)
    While I can see the offensiveness of his picture, there is half a point there: would communists impose punitive exit taxes to try to stem an exodus of the wealthy? Moreover, since the abolition of property rights would involve the wealthy losing all their positions, I can understand why a right-wing libertarian, one who equates the ability to do what you want with your possessions with the ability to do what you want with your body, would find that as offensive as removing freedom of movement or freedom of speech.
    We're building a society, not a prison. If people wanna leave, let em.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by smalltownboy)
    One would assume that most Communists would actively enjoy an exodus of the wealthy....it saves them from having to put them into gulags:p:
    (Original post by paperclip)
    We're building a society, not a prison. If people wanna leave, let em.
    Point taken, and a refreshing view
 
 
 
Poll
Brexit: Given the chance now, would you vote leave or remain?

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.