Turn on thread page Beta

Socialists Question Time AKA 'Ask a Socialist' watch

Announcements
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by UniOfLife)
    Just a sign that I am more right wing than left but on those rather humorous political compass things I tend to score just right of centre. That might change though, I have a stack of political reading on my desk...
    Well, when you compare yourself to me ... on those political compass things I'm almost as left as you can get so ... I guess from my perspective you are really far right
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alasdair)
    Well, steel production isn't a public service. But then again, you're a Tory - you don't believe in public services as a concept anyway...

    Now now, that's not quite right. He believes in public services so long as they're run by fat cats with cayman island bank accounts. It's in the "common interest" after all for an internal market in the NHS. Or so Maggie told our parents.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by UniOfLife)
    But you haven't said what you would replace it with...
    Depends on the nature of the outcome of the revolution. Do you think the people who overthrew Louis XVI knew exactly what would happen? Or even those who overthrew Kerensky in 1917?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by UniOfLife)
    That's not a difference. If the State controlled all steel production they would also hand out the resources needed for it according to perceived "need" not wealth.
    Sorry - I didn't read your reply properly. I thought you asking what the purpose nationalising healthcare was.

    The difference between steel and healthcare? Hm, there isn't a core difference: it's just that we value life-saving treatment above alloys, I guess.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alasdair)
    Personal freedom is subservient to the "common good" - you want to remove youth offenders personal freedom when you give them mandatory community service orders. Is personal freedom safe in your hands?



    Communism, surely.



    Well, steel production isn't a public service. But then again, you're a Tory - you don't believe in public services as a concept anyway...
    Personal freedom doesn't allow one to impinge on someone else's freedom directly, but is that the same as the "common good" which is a term that is nothing other than what any single person or group considers to be what all people should want but don't necessarily.

    You lost me with "public service". Could you explain that term a bit more because I am either misunderstanding it or you didn't answer the question
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by UniOfLife)
    But you haven't said what you would replace it with...
    Something better. Capitalism obviously doesn't work, so let's work on something else. When it was first invented, nobody asked the guys in the mid-17th Century what they were going to replace feudalism with...
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by UniOfLife)
    Uke - the point you make is one Oriel made and my response is the same. If you accept the principle that personal freedom can be made subservient to the "common good" then no personal freedom is safe.
    Again you're over-dramatising a bit here. Government is there to restrict personal freedom. Anything we do will restrict somebody's freedom to do something. And some personal freedoms are safe. I do not advocate the death penalty for example and never will.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alasdair)
    Something better. Capitalism obviously doesn't work, so let's work on something else. When it was first invented, nobody asked the guys in the mid-17th Century what they were going to replace feudalism with...
    They'd have said Tulips anyway. Or, whatever the Dutch word for tulips is. *

    *Tulp apparently. Makes sense, Tulpe being the German word. Ahh, that's cool - Dutch is German without the E. :rofl:
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by oriel historian)
    Depends on the nature of the outcome of the revolution. Do you think the people who overthrew Louis XVI knew exactly what would happen? Or even those who overthrew Kerensky in 1917?
    I hardly dare offer an opinion on your field but I think those who organised the overthrow had an ideal in mind even if they didn't know exactly what their attempts to reach that ideal would actually create.

    Also - can people please stop saying what I believe. It's quite irritating

    Grape - do you begin to see my point now? There is no real difference between the State controlling all health care and the State controlling anything and everything else save your own personal feelings. There are no safeguards though on that route.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I'm loving the team-work, guys. Let's take a limb each.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ukebert)
    Again you're over-dramatising a bit here. Government is there to restrict personal freedom. Anything we do will restrict somebody's freedom to do something. And some personal freedoms are safe. I do not advocate the death penalty for example and never will.
    I'm not sure that is true. Government is there to provide and enforce framework within which personal freedom can exist. If you like Governments are there to referee the "game of life" without which no freedom exists for anyone in any real sense.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by UniOfLife)
    I hardly dare offer an opinion on your field but I think those who organised the overthrow had an ideal in mind even if they didn't know exactly what their attempts to reach that ideal would actually create.
    Well the same goes for me / us. We have an ideal. It's grounded in the ideas of communism formulated by Marx but has a pedigree stretching back to the Levellers of the C17th (at least in British terms).
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by UniOfLife)
    Personal freedom doesn't allow one to impinge on someone else's freedom directly, but is that the same as the "common good" which is a term that is nothing other than what any single person or group considers to be what all people should want but don't necessarily.
    I don't by the difference. To say 'oh well, you're not allowed to harm them directly, you're just allowed to screw them from afar' is just another way of saying 'it's okay to screw them'...

    You lost me with "public service". Could you explain that term a bit more because I am either misunderstanding it or you didn't answer the question
    The NHS or education - something that all of society needs and use, and is generally provided for free.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alasdair)
    I don't by the difference. To say 'oh well, you're not allowed to harm them directly, you're just allowed to screw them from afar' is just another way of saying 'it's okay to screw them'...

    Hmm ... I'm tempted to go Freudian on you. :rolleyes:
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by UniOfLife)
    I'm not sure that is true. Government is there to provide and enforce framework within which personal freedom can exist. If you like Governments are there to referee the "game of life" without which no freedom exists for anyone in any real sense.
    Po-ta-to po-tah-to.

    Show me a government policy that does not restrict personal liberty in any way, shape or form and I'll rep you. Even if they scale back legislation then they restrict the ability of the poor in their liberties. Freedom of Opportunity and all that.

    Even if you use your referee analogy I still don't see how any of our policies contradict that. We're just making sure the big kids don't stamp on the little ones.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alasdair)
    I don't by the difference. To say 'oh well, you're not allowed to harm them directly, you're just allowed to screw them from afar' is just another way of saying 'it's okay to screw them'...



    The NHS or education - something that all of society needs and use, and is generally provided for free.
    As I said to Uke, governments need to referee the game in order for any personal freedom to exist, don't they? And refereeing necessitates not playing as well.

    Hold on - you cannot categorise health care as a "public service" on the basis that it is free when it need not necessarily be free. Likewise education. Besides, what difference does it make whether everyone in the community needs to use some form of health care at some time or other in terms of the justification for the State to control all provision of it?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ukebert)
    Po-ta-to po-tah-to.

    Show me a government policy that does not restrict personal liberty in any way, shape or form and I'll rep you. Even if they scale back legislation then they restrict the ability of the poor in their liberties. Freedom of Opportunity and all that.

    Even if you use your referee analogy I still don't see how any of our policies contradict that. We're just making sure the big kids don't stamp on the little ones.

    CYCLE PATHS. I've even got a really bad joke lined up. Now rep me :p:
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by oriel historian)
    CYCLE PATHS. I've even got a really bad joke lined up. Now rep me :p:
    someone has to pay for them
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ukebert)
    Po-ta-to po-tah-to.

    Show me a government policy that does not restrict personal liberty in any way, shape or form and I'll rep you. Even if they scale back legislation then they restrict the ability of the poor in their liberties. Freedom of Opportunity and all that.

    Even if you use your referee analogy I still don't see how any of our policies contradict that. We're just making sure the big kids don't stamp on the little ones.
    Allowing the State to control all provision of health care makes the State not only the referee but also a player. Instead of simply ensuring a level playing field in terms of everyone knowing the outcome of any action the State now turns provider taking what must surely be arbitrary decisions?

    Take an example. You have 100 surgeons. How many do you allocate to plastic surgery? If the State controls all provision of health care then the State must answer this question. But the answer is arbitrary in as much as it is decided by what the person making the decision happens to feel is the correct ordering of required outcomes. But the people may not agree. The administrator might consider plastic surgery to be the least important whereas individuals may put it higher up the list of priorities.

    Am I making any sense?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ukebert)
    someone has to pay for them
    Meh.
 
 
 
Poll
Were you ever put in isolation at school?

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.