Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AperfectBalance)
    A country is an arbitrary bit of land
    and? It is what we have done to this land that makes it what it is. I am just a pretty insignificant ball of flesh and organs, but it is what I have done that defines me.

    I mean look at currency a £10 note is technically worth near nothing but it is the value we place on it. It is not the dirt that makes Great Britain it is the people and history

    -Biggest empire
    -Spurred the industrial revolution
    -Spread culture
    -Created some of the greatest nations on Earth or at least helped
    -Mostly great society with good humor and tact.
    -Amazing history
    -Amazing scientific discoveries
    -Our resilience

    Many many more


    Why does the fact that it's who we are mean it's who we should be


    It obviously influences us greatly and while we should remember what we were bettering ourselves is something we do well and continue to do. we have come a long way socially in 100 years even in the past 10. and you look at most islamic countries, Its safe to say we are doing pretty well.
    Your reference to the term 'we' assumes your conclusion, since it assumes there is a good reason to associate us with our ancestors. I would say that there isn't - just as a country is an arbitrary border, a population is an arbitrary society and any individual cannot rationally feel proud or refer to any other people in the country in which they live. At the very least, you need to justify it before any of the post quoted is of any argumentative value at all.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AperfectBalance)
    -Biggest empire
    -Amazing history
    Biggest empire is hardly something to boast about, the British Empire did some of the worse things to ever take place on the surface of this planet, and where the flag barriers for some barbaric trends such as concentration camps and slavery. The empire is not something to be proud about, I'm not saying lets get on our knees and beg forgiveness, but lets consign worship of what was a barbaric piece of history to history.

    And mentioning history, I wouldn't say amazing unless you meant it in a way of saying interesting, or fascinating, because as I said in my paragraph above Britain has overseen some of the most barbaric things to occur on this planet as part of it's empires, and our Kings and Queens have rarely been people to be proud of.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jape)
    Anglosphere civilisations aren't the best in the world because of our genetic makeup. They're the best because of what we believe in. Liberty, the Rule of Law and Free Markets.
    Why are these things good?

    Moreover, I'd like to ask you what you think the rule of law is.

    Finally, free markets are inherently contrary to liberty IMO, since private property is the most illiberal concept around; it maximally restricts peoples' freedom to interact with that property.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    I'm not saying we shouldn't have private property. I'm saying it's silly to take 'private property must be protected' as your starting point when you can only justify it instrumentally rather than showing it to be intrinsically valuable (you have made an argument for instrumental utility here), because taking something to be only instrumentally valuable necessarily precludes it being taken as a be-all end-all goal (and there are clearly cases where distribution yields better results). I am a full supporter of a market economy, I just think that tends to work best with multiple state-owned firms in most sectors. The end goal is only unsustainable because of capital flight; an authoritarian approach to property is obviously not the same thing as totalitarianism. Therefore, if the most powerful economies are all socialist, then it will be sustained.



    Doesn't matter. As I said earlier, history is essentially irrelevant to anything political.

    As I said earlier, history is essentially irrelevant to anything political.
    Is this a joke? History and Politics have a lot to do with each other and most of the time they are heavily intertwined.
    Lets take Spain and Catalonia. Granted I am no expert but I know they Catalonia speak a variation of Spanish and have different traditions hence why some want to Leave Spain. this is both political and historical.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Kay_Winters)
    Biggest empire is hardly something to boast about, the British Empire did some of the worse things to ever take place on the surface of this planet, and where the flag barriers for some barbaric trends such as concentration camps and slavery. The empire is not something to be proud about, I'm not saying lets get on our knees and beg forgiveness, but lets consign worship of what was a barbaric piece of history to history.

    And mentioning history, I wouldn't say amazing unless you meant it in a way of saying interesting, or fascinating, because as I said in my paragraph above Britain has overseen some of the most barbaric things to occur on this planet as part of it's empires, and our Kings and Queens have rarely been people to be proud of.
    And this is the problem with today's youth, you run away from history and only look at the subjectively bad stuff. "" concentration camp" is a prime example of this, they weren't what you think they are, or you're intentionally trying to make them sound worse.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AperfectBalance)
    As I said earlier, history is essentially irrelevant to anything political.
    Is this a joke? History and Politics have a lot to do with each other and most of the time they are heavily intertwined.
    Lets take Spain and Catalonia. Granted I am no expert but I know they Catalonia speak a variation of Spanish and have different traditions hence why some want to Leave Spain. this is both political and historical.
    Sorry, let me rephrase. History has a lot to do with the IS of politics, but it has nothing to do with the OUGHT of politics, and it is of terrible predictive value, and should be ignored when considering our political strategies for the future. As we all know, an ought cannot be derived from an is.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    A country is an arbitrary bit of land. There is no such thing as British culture or British values and even if there were what makes them superior to anything else? And why do you call the nation great? What makes it so?
    "Arbitrary bit of land", Britain isn't the land mass or the soil or even lines on a map. Great Britain is the people, the culture and amazing history we have made over 5000 years more then the US mere 300 years if that, since European colonisation. We have unrivalled resilience in the face of unimaginable odds, the Spanish Armada, Nazi Germany, if it wasn't for Great Britain the world wipeout do be speaking German and saying "Seig Heil" to a picture of Adolf Hitler every morning.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kay_Winters)
    Biggest empire is hardly something to boast about, the British Empire did some of the worse things to ever take place on the surface of this planet, and where the flag barriers for some barbaric trends such as concentration camps and slavery. The empire is not something to be proud about, I'm not saying lets get on our knees and beg forgiveness, but lets consign worship of what was a barbaric piece of history to history.

    And mentioning history, I wouldn't say amazing unless you meant it in a way of saying interesting, or fascinating, because as I said in my paragraph above Britain has overseen some of the most barbaric things to occur on this planet as part of it's empires, and our Kings and Queens have rarely been people to be proud of.
    Its a fact and I know you are not denying it nor am I denying the facts you pointed out. And nor does this excuse us for what we did but during that time it was not uncommon and nor was it for thousands of years, but yes I agree we do need to realize what we did both good and bad.

    And mentioning history, I wouldn't say amazing unless you meant it in a way of saying interesting, or fascinating, It is precisely what I mean History is both fascinating and Interesting Through war and through peace. And all that goes in between.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    I'm not saying we shouldn't have private property. I'm saying it's silly to take 'private property must be protected' as your starting point when you can only justify it instrumentally rather than showing it to be intrinsically valuable (you have made an argument for instrumental utility here), because taking something to be only instrumentally valuable necessarily precludes it being taken as a be-all end-all goal (and there are clearly cases where distribution yields better results). I am a full supporter of a market economy, I just think that tends to work best with multiple state-owned firms in most sectors. The end goal is only unsustainable because of capital flight; an authoritarian approach to property is obviously not the same thing as totalitarianism. Therefore, if the most powerful economies are all socialist, then it will be sustained.

    It working is a good enough reason as it is. Take away function and what do you have? So much fluff. And people who have the satisfaction of knowing that they serve a higher cause as they starve to death in a Siberian prison camp.

    I have to question why you think government can operate businesses better than private individuals? If a government pen-pusher messes something up and provides a really poor service, there's no recourse because the government doesn't suffer by providing poor service the way a private individual does. Principally because if a company screws up they lose money to the competition. The government has a great source of unlimited money, i.e. my money and yours.

    And lastly, if the only way your vision of the world can reign supreme is when all the other versions have been wiped from the face of the planet your vision of the world might suck.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    Sorry, let me rephrase. History has a lot to do with the IS of politics, but it has nothing to do with the OUGHT of politics, and it is of terrible predictive value, and should be ignored when considering our political strategies for the future. As we all know, an ought cannot be derived from an is.
    If I am getting you right I totally disagree with that

    The culture of Catalonia IS different to Spain so we OUGHT to consider that when we decide if we want to Leave Spain and become independent

    We should give some land in Israel to the jews but we have to remember their culture and Muslim culture IS very different so we OUGHT to keep that in mind when we give them land

    I think that was the idea you had but if not feel free to correct me.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kay_Winters)
    Biggest empire is hardly something to boast about, the British Empire did some of the worse things to ever take place on the surface of this planet, and where the flag barriers for some barbaric trends such as concentration camps and slavery. The empire is not something to be proud about, I'm not saying lets get on our knees and beg forgiveness, but lets consign worship of what was a barbaric piece of history to history.

    And mentioning history, I wouldn't say amazing unless you meant it in a way of saying interesting, or fascinating, because as I said in my paragraph above Britain has overseen some of the most barbaric things to occur on this planet as part of it's empires, and our Kings and Queens have rarely been people to be proud of.
    Daily reminder that the British didn't invent slavery, but ended it on a global level for no reasons except moral ones. #RuleBritannia
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    Why are these things good?

    Moreover, I'd like to ask you what you think the rule of law is.

    Finally, free markets are inherently contrary to liberty IMO, since private property is the most illiberal concept around; it maximally restricts peoples' freedom to interact with that property.
    There has to be a balance To little freedom is bad Too much freedom is bad
    Imagine a mad max world or something along the lines of Pure anarchy, but with more dead people.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jape)
    It working is a good enough reason as it is. Take away function and what do you have? So much fluff. And people who have the satisfaction of knowing that they serve a higher cause as they starve to death in a Siberian prison camp.
    The question isn't whether it reaches a minimal standard of 'working' (I assume you mean not causing violent death to everyone constantly). The question is how we optimise the wellbeing of the entirety of humanity. You can't point to individual instances in the past as evidence that something doesn't work - any given political system at any given point in time has an extremely low chance of being sustainable - it is pure chance, rather than intrinsic quality, that means that capitalism in its current form has been sustained.

    I have to question why you think government can operate businesses better than private individuals? If a government pen-pusher messes something up and provides a really poor service, there's no recourse because the government doesn't suffer by providing poor service the way a private individual does. Principally because if a company screws up they lose money to the competition. The government has a great source of unlimited money, i.e. my money and yours.
    Silly argument. Obviously we can provide incentives which create all the benefits of competition with multiple state-owned firms.

    And lastly, if the only way your vision of the world can reign supreme is when all the other versions have been wiped from the face of the planet your vision of the world might suck.
    The reason is that the people who have been fortunate enough to have/acquire valuable skills can leave. It's not about the vision sucking.

    (Original post by AperfectBalance)
    If I am getting you right I totally disagree with that

    The culture of Catalonia IS different to Spain so we OUGHT to consider that when we decide if we want to Leave Spain and become independent

    We should give some land in Israel to the jews but we have to remember their culture and Muslim culture IS very different so we OUGHT to keep that in mind when we give them land

    I think that was the idea you had but if not feel free to correct me.
    The status quo is not necessarily better. If another culture is better than our culture, we should immediately completely abandon our culture and replace it with that culture.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AperfectBalance)
    There has to be a balance To little freedom is bad Too much freedom is bad
    Imagine a mad max world or something along the lines of Pure anarchy, but with more dead people.
    This doesn't mean anything, try harder.
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Harold Godwinson)
    "Arbitrary bit of land", Britain isn't the land mass or the soil or even lines on a map. Great Britain is the people, the culture and amazing history we have made over 5000 years more then the US mere 300 years if that, since European colonisation. We have unrivalled resilience in the face of unimaginable odds, the Spanish Armada, Nazi Germany, if it wasn't for Great Britain the world wipeout do be speaking German and saying "Seig Heil" to a picture of Adolf Hitler every morning.
    The people just happened to be born or live in the same place you do... That isn't some reason to suddenly worship them... Also if you are talking about tge United Kingdom then it's only 309 years old...

    Plus you keep saying we when you had absolutely nothing to do with it...
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jape)
    Anglosphere civilisations aren't the best in the world because of our genetic makeup. They're the best because of what we believe in. Liberty, the Rule of Law and Free Markets.



    I may very well be wrong on the specifics of Orwell's biography, so I'll concede that. But I insist nonetheless that Stalinism is effectively no different from any other form of socialism. Whether it be Maosim, Leninsm or whatever you call Cuba - Castrosim? It's trading in semantics. Lenin had political prisoners interned, and he took hatchets to the Royal Family including the children. Stalin had his gulags, China still disappears people into cars. Et cetera et cetera. And conflating the welfare state and/or Keynesianism with Socialism muddies the waters hugely. I don't blame you for that - people have been doing it since before my great-granddad was born - but the fact is that large state spending is not the same as a vanguard of revolutionary intellectuals. That's socialism, really. I'm anti-large state too but confusing a bloated government with Mao is unfair to the people who take the former position and deeply forgiving to the admirers of the latter.
    We don't actually have free markets, I hope you know that. Britain, like the rest of the western world has a mixed economy with regulation of the private sector. I would argue not enough regulation in at least some sectors and too small of a state owned sector, but at the end of the day we still have regulation and a state owned sector.

    You just listed three types of 'revolutionary' Marxism/Communism (and even those aren't the same). Socialism is very broad church of spanning from Marxist revolution of the proletarate into a stateless, classless society, to democratic socialism achieved through the ballot box which doesn't see the state itself as capitalist and seeks to reform capitalism into socialism through piecemeal democratic change. A view Marx himself even grew to agree with, as I understand it, in his later years as a way to his views in industrialised Countries such as Britain

    Socialism ultimately is not just revolutionary, I would say that is one of the biggest misconceptions of socialism. I would also say socialism has evolved since it formed, Keynes was after all a liberal, but his ideas are a cornerstone now of many modern socialist parties, and are at their root about addressing inequality and the flaws of capitalism, which are two things socialism is also about.

    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    And this is the problem with today's youth, you run away from history and only look at the subjectively bad stuff. "" concentration camp" is a prime example of this, they weren't what you think they are, or you're intentionally trying to make them sound worse.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I don't run away from history, I've just read about and learned what the Empire has done to my ancestors, and plenty of other people's ancestors across the globe and view it as barbaric and not something to be proud. There are of course good elements, as there are with just about anything, doesn't make it a positive thing overall. We shouldn't be sorry about it don't get me wrong it wasn't us doing it, or say sorry, or pay up to people, but we shouldn't pretend it was something it wasn't.


    (Original post by AperfectBalance)
    Its a fact and I know you are not denying it nor am I denying the facts you pointed out. And nor does this excuse us for what we did but during that time it was not uncommon and nor was it for thousands of years, but yes I agree we do need to realize what we did both good and bad.

    And mentioning history, I wouldn't say amazing unless you meant it in a way of saying interesting, or fascinating, It is precisely what I mean History is both fascinating and Interesting Through war and through peace. And all that goes in between.
    This is agreeable overall, I am happy to see the good and the bad, I personally think the bad is more than the good, but others may disagree, that's debate and life really. And I completely agree on history being fascinating and interesting.


    (Original post by jape)
    Daily reminder that the British didn't invent slavery, but ended it on a global level for no reasons except moral ones. #RuleBritannia

    One of the good things they did I agree, although they could have done far more to stop it when they came our against it, and the second biggest bail out in British history, after the 2008 crisis, was for slave owners. I also didn't say invented, but was a flagbarrer for, and the British were certainly involved in the slave trade and slavery.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    The question isn't whether it reaches a minimal standard of 'working' (I assume you mean not causing violent death to everyone constantly). The question is how we optimise the wellbeing of the entirety of humanity. You can't point to individual instances in the past as evidence that something doesn't work - any given political system at any given point in time has an extremely low chance of being sustainable - it is pure chance, rather than intrinsic quality, that means that capitalism in its current form has been sustained.
    Pure chance? That for the last 150 years, since Adam Smith even, people living in capitalist countries have always been richer and freer and happier than people living in feudalistic and socialist societies? That is down to pure chance?

    Silly argument. Obviously we can provide incentives which create all the benefits of competition with multiple state-owned firms.
    Once again, via my money. What if I don't want to give my money away so that the government can try to replicate the success of the free market when I could instead keep my money and have the free market just do that? The whole concept of manufacturing state-owned competition is Kafkaesque in its madness.
    The reason is that the people who have been fortunate enough to have/acquire valuable skills can leave. It's not about the vision sucking.
    I don't like to lean on Ayn Rand a lot, because I think her philosophy is holey and she herself has amassed an odd cult following. But this is so perfectly the line of the cartoonishly evil and inept crony capitalists in Atlas Shrugged I can't help but point it out. If people are desperate to flee and disappear whenever your vision of the world is implemented, you can't just complain they they're harming all the other people. Do some introspection. Why would they run from your paradise?
    The status quo is not necessarily better. If another culture is better than our culture, we should immediately completely abandon our culture and replace it with that culture.
    I totally agree. But socialism isn't better, it's spectacularly worse.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    This doesn't mean anything, try harder.
    Yes it does try reading it

    and this quote

    If another culture is better than our culture, we should immediately completely abandon our culture and replace it with that culture.
    That would be near impossible to do it would take A lot of time
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    The people just happened to be born or live in the same place you do... That isn't some reason to suddenly worship them... Also if you are talking about tge United Kingdom then it's only 309 years old...

    Plus you keep saying we when you had absolutely nothing to do with it...
    The founding of the union was in 1707 yes, but British history goes back a lot longer then 309 years ago, that was the formal Union of the United Kingdom. And no I wasn't there personally, but it is part of who we are, who I am, my ancestors where there and years down the line, future generations will speak of what we did. It's our job to carry that knowledge forward and pass it on to the next generation and so on. If you hate Britain so much and patriotism, why don't you just leave then?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jape)
    Pure chance? That for the last 150 years, since Adam Smith even, people living in capitalist countries have always been richer and freer and happier than people living in feudalistic and socialist societies? That is down to pure chance?
    It is pure chance that that has happened in capitalist societies rather than in other societies (I accept the general economic sense of the free market). We have seen many failures of capitalism in the past (after all, feudalism is essentially a capitalist system).

    Once again, via my money. What if I don't want to give my money away so that the government can try to replicate the success of the free market when I could instead keep my money and have the free market just do that? The whole concept of manufacturing state-owned competition is Kafkaesque in its madness.I don't like to lean on Ayn Rand a lot, because I think her philosophy is holey and she herself has amassed an odd cult following. But this is so perfectly the line of the cartoonishly evil and inept crony capitalists in Atlas Shrugged I can't help but point it out. If people are desperate to flee and disappear whenever your vision of the world is implemented, you can't just complain they they're harming all the other people. Do some introspection. Why would they run from your paradise?
    It's only 'your money' because of the benevolence of the state. Property rights do not exist out of the law (all of the arguments that they do are borderline facetious, they are so bad). The state is entitled for this reason to place any limits on that benevolence it wishes.

    The government wants to replicate the success of the free market because the free market is utility-inefficient (as opposed to output-inefficient). In a free market, basic economics (diminishing marginal utility of wealth) teaches us that humanity is substantially worse off where the state does not adopt distributive policies.

    People are 'desperate to flee' because they are selfish. It's not people generally that want to leave, it's those that are lucky enough to receive good outcomes in a capitalist system (a tiny minority) - however, it's also clear that those people are also necessary for the success of a state because they hold many of the most important skills. That's why those people specifically would want to leave under a socialist system, but nevertheless society as a whole is better off under a socialist system where they are not permitted to leave.

    I totally agree. But socialism isn't better, it's spectacularly worse.
    And yet you haven't actually provided an argument why this is apart from 'the outcomes of one existing capitalist system are borderline tolerable whereas previous attempts at socialism have failed', despite that clearly being a pretty bad argument.
 
 
 
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.