Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nothos)
    Speaking of posting, have you found my headphones and or charger? :ninja:
    Not in Portsmouth atm, i'm still definite that the micro USB cable i found was yours, which was connected to a USB wall adapter, because i don't own those things (remember you said it definitely wasn't?). Not sure about headphones atm, sorry.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by abucha3)
    Maybe it should be you that needs to look at your grammar and it wasn't meant to be you're. I was saying that you have a joke of a C1.

    TSR Conservatives participate largely in the House and have submitted numerous bills. It would seem that TSR Socialists have few inactive members, and with many members seeking joint membership to TSR Socialists and TSR Labour, perhaps it's time to throw in the towel and merge.

    I'm 17 - so what? You're older, yet my grammar was better than yours
    Read that back. Seriously.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by abucha3)
    I was saying that you have a joke of a C1.

    It would seem that TSR Socialists have few inactive members, and with many members seeking joint membership to TSR Socialists and TSR Labour, perhaps it's time to throw in the towel and merge.

    We don't currently have a C1, we're having an election after a VoNC.

    Yes, we do have a few inactive members at the moment, and only one of our members has joint TSR Socialist-Labour membership.

    Although I think we do have a lot in common with TSR Labour I think it's also important not to merge letting us Socialists clearly stand out further on the left.

    Also, it may appear that we don't have a lot of bills coming from us at the moment due to not having a C2, which we're also running an election for; however due to Dayne's technical issue this is also taking time.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    So somebody negged me calling me a 'naive socialist student stereotype'. It seems I'm in the wrong party, can I join? :p:
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Following on from a discussion in the HoC...

    Do Socialists believe that only the State can help the poor?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by simontinsley)
    So somebody negged me calling me a 'naive socialist student stereotype'. It seems I'm in the wrong party, can I join? :p:
    Makes sense, what with the Libertarians being so similar to Socialists 'en all! :P
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by UniOfLife)
    Following on from a discussion in the HoC...

    Do Socialists believe that only the State can help the poor?
    I personally don't believe that "only the State can help the poor". However, I do people that it is the State's responsibility to help all citizens that need it, and I also believe that corporations cannot be trusted to help the poor due to my belief that all they want to do is make money which often includes taking advantage of people who are often "the poor".
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by UniOfLife)
    Following on from a discussion in the HoC...

    Do Socialists believe that only the State can help the poor?
    Edix has summed it up well.
    The poor can do a lot to help themselves, and they often do. However, the state is the best way to allow the poor to help themselves. We can provide the education, we can provide the healthcare, etc, but they need to be used well. Private companies certainly can't be trusted with this, and charities are not reliable enough to have it trusted to only them.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xXedixXx)
    I personally don't believe that "only the State can help the poor". However, I do people that it is the State's responsibility to help all citizens that need it, and I also believe that corporations cannot be trusted to help the poor due to my belief that all they want to do is make money which often includes taking advantage of people who are often "the poor".
    Do you agree with the statement:

    "The State is merely a collection of the individuals who live in the country"?

    If so, doesn't your position amount to saying that the citizens of a country have a responsibility to help the poor?

    And finally, if so do you believe that it is correct for me to force my neighbour to contribute to my charity that helps the poor?

    I trust, with this last one, that you get where I'm going
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by xXedixXx)
    I personally don't believe that "only the State can help the poor". However, I do people that it is the State's responsibility to help all citizens that need it, and I also believe that corporations cannot be trusted to help the poor due to my belief that all they want to do is make money which often includes taking advantage of people who are often "the poor".
    I pretty much agree with this.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by UniOfLife)
    Do you agree with the statement:

    "The State is merely a collection of the individuals who live in the country"?

    If so, doesn't your position amount to saying that the citizens of a country have a responsibility to help the poor?

    And finally, if so do you believe that it is correct for me to force my neighbour to contribute to my charity that helps the poor?

    I trust, with this last one, that you get where I'm going
    I suppose I agree with that statement; although it is incredibly vague.

    Addressing your second point: I think that only the citizens who want to, and make it their job of governing a country have an accountable responsibility to help the poor, however that doesn't limit other citizens to not helping the poor at all.

    Finally, not at all. Your neighbour would already be contributing to helping the poor by paying his or her taxes.

    I hope this has clarified my position for you.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xXedixXx)
    Finally, not at all. Your neighbour would already be contributing to helping the poor by paying his or her taxes.
    But that is by force, since people have no choice over whether to pay their taxes.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by simontinsley)
    But that is by force, since people have no choice over whether to pay their taxes.
    That was inevitable and predictable. Yes, tax is a forcefull way of paying for the state. We live in a democracy so the state is an extension of society and we are all part of that. Do you believe in an abolition of all tax? If so you're insane what do you think society would be like without it? Do you really think the country would be better? If you don't believe tax should be abolished, its merely a diffference in what we think the role of the state (and thus society) is. I think those better off should help those who are less well off, so I support a large state in order to help society.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DayneD89)
    That was inevitable and predictable. Yes, tax is a forcefull way of paying for the state. We live in a democracy so the state is an extension of society and we are all part of that. Do you believe in an abolition of all tax? If so you're insane what do you think society would be like without it? Do you really think the country would be better? If you don't believe tax should be abolished, its merely a diffference in what we think the role of the state (and thus society) is. I think those better off should help those who are less well off, so I support a large state in order to help society.
    To me, there's only one justifiable tax - that on the ground rent of land. This could raise £200-300bn annually, which is plenty for the subsidy to healthcare an education I'd propose. I do, however think that a large state doesn't help society, but rather hinders it - so I support a small state in order to help society.

    Regardless, my point was one focussing on the philosophical not consequential side of the argument, and to argue that you're not forcing your neighbour because they already (by force) paid their tax to help the poor is utter nonsense.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xXedixXx)
    I suppose I agree with that statement; although it is incredibly vague.

    Addressing your second point: I think that only the citizens who want to, and make it their job of governing a country have an accountable responsibility to help the poor, however that doesn't limit other citizens to not helping the poor at all.

    Finally, not at all. Your neighbour would already be contributing to helping the poor by paying his or her taxes.

    I hope this has clarified my position for you.
    Your response to the final point kind of implies that were there no taxes I would indeed be correct to force my neighbour to contribute to my charity.

    I guess my point here is to say that while everyone has a moral responsibility to help the poor (and indeed the rich if they need help for whatever reason) that responsibility does not automatically translate into the State levying taxes in order to hand out benefits. There are other ways that that moral responsibility can be discharged and many very good reasons why the State should not use taxation to do so. I hope that this will allow socialists to recognise that Libertarians do not hate the poor nor in any way seek to make the poor suffer. Certainly it should suffice to enable socialists to accept that Libertarianism is not designed to be an enemy of the poor as some of your members appear to believe.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by UniOfLife)
    Your response to the final point kind of implies that were there no taxes I would indeed be correct to force my neighbour to contribute to my charity.

    I guess my point here is to say that while everyone has a moral responsibility to help the poor (and indeed the rich if they need help for whatever reason) that responsibility does not automatically translate into the State levying taxes in order to hand out benefits. There are other ways that that moral responsibility can be discharged and many very good reasons why the State should not use taxation to do so. I hope that this will allow socialists to recognise that Libertarians do not hate the poor nor in any way seek to make the poor suffer. Certainly it should suffice to enable socialists to accept that Libertarianism is not designed to be an enemy of the poor as some of your members appear to believe.
    I think that socialists often support the use of the state for historic reasons: in countries like Britain, we have often needed State legislation to help the poor (limiting working hours and such). When we look back at the 19th century when there were few regulations on industry (though Britain was of course not a libetarian state) we see many horrors which we would not want to see replicated under a system with little regulation.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thepoodle)
    I think that socialists often support the use of the state for historic reasons: in countries like Britain, we have often needed State legislation to help the poor (limiting working hours and such). When we look back at the 19th century when there were few regulations on industry (though Britain was of course not a libetarian state) we see many horrors which we would not want to see replicated under a system with little regulation.
    Firstly, I don't think it is so clear that the State is needed to help the poor. If memory serves it was Victorian businessmen like Josiah Wedgwood who led the move to better working conditions, although I could be wrong or oversimplifying matters (it is not an area I have studied in any depth).

    Secondly, it is doubtful whether the State can indeed do a better job at helping the poor than the people can.

    Thirdly, it is somewhat anachronistic to look back to past working conditions and decide that we would still have them were it not for the State. It seems certain that in a century or two people will look back and consider the current working conditions to contain many horrors. It also seems (on the face of it) likely that most of the changes in working conditions has stemmed from new technologies not from new rules.

    Finally and most importantly, though, Libertarians need not argue any of the points above. We are free to agree with you 100% that the power of the State can solve so many more problems than individuals can even if working together if it is only on a voluntary basis. However, we hold firm to the conviction that it is immoral for people to force others into things, regardless of the outcome. We do not believe that the ends justify the means.

    In a way Libertarians would view the argument you present (that the State can do a better job at helping the poor) as similar to the argument in favour of totalitarian dictatorships (they get the trains running on time!). Just as the dictatorship of the few is immoral so is the dictatorship of the many.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thepoodle)
    I think that socialists often support the use of the state for historic reasons: in countries like Britain, we have often needed State legislation to help the poor (limiting working hours and such). When we look back at the 19th century when there were few regulations on industry (though Britain was of course not a libetarian state) we see many horrors which we would not want to see replicated under a system with little regulation.
    The case isn't well made here with regard to the State in the nineteenth century which was, for all intents and purposes, as close to the Libertarian ideal as it's likely to get. Indeed it was Conservative Politicians suserving in the govenrment of Benjamin Disraeli in the 1870s who pioneered social legislation that formed the basis of the interventionist state that socialists would later build on. As one of the very early "labour" members put it, 'The Conservative party have done more for the working classes in five years than the Liberals have in fifty'. The Factory Acts, Public Health Acts, and a variety of other measures were all the result of social toryism and not Liberal Libertarianism.

    Socialists support the State - at first in its local guise and then in its centralised form - because it serves as a powerful mechanism to refocus attention not on the people who form the elites of a country but on the people who have the least voice. It's for these reasons that socialists and One Nation neo-Disraelian Conservatives often get on very well even though we tend to disagree with where the power should be concentrated. Those Tories tend to place power in the hand of paternalistic elites; the aim of socialists is to empower the little man to ensure that they can help themselves. Libertarians forget this, I think, and assume that self-help can take place in a vacuum.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by simontinsley)
    I do, however think that a large state doesn't help society, but rather hinders it - so I support a small state in order to help society.
    See, to me this stinks of: I've had privilege and so to prevent others I'm going to kick the ladder away in the name of small-state freedom. It's remarkable quite how many Libertarians have been privately educated and come from wealthy families. Libertarianism is inherently selfish whereas socialism is inherently selfless except of course the fact it has to be moulded onto a capitalist system defined by material greed means that degrees of selfishness are evident. But we're not perfect! Hell modern libertarianism would be very much defunct if the socialist government in Austria hadn't fallen in the mid-1930s. That's really what Hayek et al were responding to.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Adorno)
    See, to me this stinks of: I've had privilege and so to prevent others I'm going to kick the ladder away in the name of small-state freedom. It's remarkable quite how many Libertarians have been privately educated and come from wealthy families...
    Well this certainly explain why you hate Libertarians. It is also the same mindset that makes people racist or homophobic etc (note to people who cannot read - no I'm NOT accusing Adorno of being racist or homophobic).

    I certainly have not had any kind of privileged background but this is irrelevant now because you do not deal with me as an individual anymore. You have built up an entirely negative stereotype of Libertarians and deal with that stereotype not the person. This is what racists do. They build an entirely negative stereotype of black people, for instance, and then never deal with individuals instead they only deal with the stereotype.

    And a final thought. It would be incredibly easy for any Libertarian to adopt the same stance as you but in reverse and say that socialists are just those who come from a poor background and just want to make their own lives better by taking money away from the rich. It is entirely selfish. I have no doubt whatsoever that anyone who accused you of that would get a whopping great rant, you'd go crying to the mods and put them on your ignore list. That you think its OK to do it to others say a lot about you.

    And yes, I know you won't read this, but I hope others in the House of Commons can appreciate that your position here is pretty ******.
 
 
 
Poll
Did you get less than your required grades and still get into university?

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.