Your five top policies (if you were granted then)

So there's no real problem, then.

You don't need to have a monopoly to get situations like that. Even if you did, the government can't always break them apart.

The right to discriminate in employment and in public / private services would be a terrible "fundamental freedom". All you're doing is just adding to people's suffering and needlessly promoting prejudice and segregation. What positives outweigh the negatives?

So you’re saying Jordan Peterson isn’t anti Semitic now.

Bernie Sanders is the American version of Magic Grandpa. Both get sh*t because of their very similar political beliefs. Not because Bernie sanders Jewish. It may have missed you by but one of Magic Grandpa’s numerous flaws was he allowed anti semitism to thrive under Labour.

1. Tougher sentencing for all crimes, especially burglary. Make life mean life.

2. Repeat offenders who have over 10 short prison terms have their sentences continually increased for repeat petty crimes. For example, the sentence doubles. These repeat offenders only harm others, are of no use to society, and bring nothing but misery to those they affect. The sooner that repeat offenders are locked up for longer, the better. Some people are better off in prison for the safety of wider society.

3. Universal basic income. Get rid of the current benefits system. Cut the ********, cut all the loops. Replace it with a UBI linked to just below the current level of inflation and living wage. Say for example that number is £13,000. Stringent checks in place to make sure that those who are jobless are looking for work, and punishments upon those who refuse to look for work, or drag their heels with the state, eventually leading to prison time if they continue to not make an effort.

you just brought up an entirely separate person and decided i believe the exact opposite of what i'm saying. Idk whether this is hilarious or sad, bye

Are you off to our safe space?

I'd assume you are probably somewhere in yours too. You're probably at home, maybe at work.
Or is that not what a safe space is? Im assuming you have some sort of stand your ground laws in the UK?

I agree with your opinion UBI, but harsher sentencing I disagree on. It's proven that tougher sentences do absolutely nothing to deter crime and if anything, they increase it. Just look at the USA, with one of the highest recidivism rates in the developed world(64% in 2019) and also the fact that it has the highest per-capita incarceration rate in the whole world.

All tougher sentences does it create a loop where inmates go in, they come out, are stigmatised and ostracised by society, can't find work or stable accommodation, then go and commit more crime. It's a vicious cycle that needs to stop. One of the main points of prison is to reform the criminal so they don't commit the act that got them there again. If we focused more on rehabilitation then punishment and torment, it would be better for both society as well as the economy since less taxpayer money would go to the prison-industrial complex. Just look at Norway for example, they reformed their system to focus on rehab and they have one of the lowest recidivism rates in the world at just 20%

Well it is from my perspective. Are you familiar with the idea of Fabianism?

Such as? Why not?

Ok but you seem to think that being able to discriminate in your home and presumably personal life is a "positive" fundamental right. What benefits are there to society by allowing a racist not to allow other races into his home?

I think you've hit the nail on the head here:

You appear to view rights as being convenient at a given time or place or/and contingent upon "positive"outcomes. If this isn't your view then please clarify why not?

we may both be the most vile hated pariahs in society but so long as we do not break the law are still subject to the same rights as everyone else even if society doesn't benefit from it.

Stand your ground laws?

What are those?

I’m proposing essentially a three strikes and your out system. And that isn’t me saying they should rot in squaller on the third time; but it’s about being honest and saying they can’t function in society and are a danger to innocent individuals which is the crux of the matter here.

Funny because places like Norway always get mentioned, but they don’t have the vast petty criminal underclasses that we have.

Tougher sentencing creates a loop, you’re right, but that’s only because in some cases some people who should be locked up for life, aren’t. What I’m proposing hasn’t been done before, apart from in dictatorships to some extent, however mine would be less humiliating than that. It’s not a case of shipping the workshy, vagrant or petty criminality in a camp.

I’m proposing essentially a three strikes and your out system. And that isn’t me saying they should rot in squaller on the third time; but it’s about being honest and saying they can’t function in society and are a danger to innocent individuals which is the crux of the matter here.

Funny because places like Norway always get mentioned, but they don’t have the vast petty criminal underclasses that we have.

It means you have the right in your "safe space" like your house or your car, to hurt a trespasser in self defense.
Basically just that you are able to use violence in self defense in your legal "safe space"

Do you feel hurt that I highlighted that you called somebody anti Semitic who isn’t?

has that truly upset you? Have you not yet realised that sometimes you may hold a wrong opinion or have been taken in by spurious facts pushed out by others you feel you can trust?

"Rights" are what you are allowed to do within law. They're not something immutable and inherent to the universe. Rights people have should be based on what they are about, their positive and negative outcomes and how realistic it would be to make laws on them. I don't think that discriminating in your home is a good thing, but it's relatively inconsequential. Discrimination elsewhere, however, has far greater consequences and hence we should have laws against it.

pivoted right on back to your argument once you realized that your ad hominem attack didn't work. why in the world would I trust a random stranger on the internet.

I’m not asking you to. I’m asking you to question and outlandish statement you made.

You’ve said that an individual is an anti Semitic. I’ve asked why you think that and asked you to provide some evidence to back up your assumption.

I’ve posted numerous lectures and interviews he’s given that clearly aren’t anti Semitic.

Have I offended you? Are you upset that I questioned a dubious statement you made?

Ok. I respectfully disagree.

I think liberty is an end in itself.

1. Bringing back the death penalty for premeditated murder, child rape, political corruption and repeated media lying.
2. Create a committee for assessing political corruption, and a super-committee to assess whether the committee is corrupt.
3. End all wars that aren't genuinely defensive.
4. Create re-education/labour camps for persistent offenders/those who make the lives of others misery without actually committing jailable offenses e.g drug addicts leaving needles in common closes/abusive neighbours.
5. The sugar tax being extended to chocolate/biscuits/crisps, while taxing cigarettes to oblivion.