land of giants

[daz h]

my whole point was to highlight the way in which the big organisations manipulate our lives now
i dont think it can ever be reversed either , i mean two days ago a SUBWAY outlet was opened in ilkeston yes and i was told by my son that at dinnertime it was full of school kids
WHY?????

cant the school even make a bloody baguette now ???

i said to him i thought you was not allowed to go out of school at dinnertime , yes dad thats correct but no one ever checks up, dozens just go out.
as a parent what can you do, i want to boycott these giants but its becoming increasingly difficult

[Margarine]

Daz - that's freedom.

[CL]

Christopher I don't mind if some of my subscription goes towards funding development and navigation courses (education) even though they are no use to me personally or insurance or this website where people can say things I disagree with. I have no problem with making a contribution towards the common good. I daresay people rip the FRA off, there's always somebody. But it doesn't mean I want to disband it and only have races with my friends. It infuriates me that people rip the welfare state off. What they do is after all against the law. But I don't want to set fire to the ship I'm sailing on to get rid of the rats in the hold.

Guick the point is, you didn't join the FRA primarily to provide navigation courses for others.You joined for what you could get out of it, including the protection of insurance.It was a purely selfish act.The fact that others benefit is coincidental.Thats the nature of capitalism.

When you talk of the common good, what you really mean is the good of some Men take precedent over the good of others.If Daz H is not part of the 'common good' then that tribe can rob him to the amount of £12000.The truth is there is no such thing as 'the common good.' Good and evil are terms that apply to INDIVIDUAL living organisms only, and not some aggregate.

[CL]

They never created and produced without repression. A system of slavery was in operation.

Grouse the south did try to maintain slavery.Thats what caused the civil war.The southern states were never really capitalist, they were an agrarian society.The rest of America fought against slavery and did wipe it out.

Capitalism is incompatible with slavery, just read the bill of rights.

[CL]

so basically my company have to pay the council 12,000 per annum and then £70 a week to a private contractor to take our waste away.
[/QUOTE]

Daz H how ever do you stay in business?

With my system, you wouldn't pay that £12000.You wouldn't pay VAT, you wouldn't pay income tax either.But if you support our political system then what do you expect?

[Guick Dotto]

I guess a lot of people would just burn their waste in the street under your system Christopher.
Maybe you're right about me being selfish with regard to the welfare state. I do perceive it as a very good way of covering my needs and the needs of my family ie in a relatively safe and civilised society. That's why I keep voting for parties that support it.
Jonathan Miller talked about the return of the concept of "The Heath" back in Thatcher's era. That is "the Heath" as it is in King Lear: a dark, cold, scary place outside the ring of lights that is civilisation, conviviality, communality. Where you finish up if you get it wrong; if your luck runs out. Maggie brought "The Heath" back deliberately so as to scare the living daylights out of us all. She wanted us to sharpen up our claws so that we would sharpen up our act and start making some money. The message came through often enough "you're on your own, either cut it or be a loser ".
I never saw a beggar till Thatcher's time. For total capitalism to work we need to see beggars all around as a reminder not to fail. Nice isn't it?

[Rodders rambler]

I never saw a beggar till Thatcher's time. For total capitalism to work we need to see beggars all around as a reminder not to fail. Nice isn't it?

People have a choice and a direct link to failure.If you work hard and use a small amount of common sense there is no reason in a capitalist system that you should fail.The idea that all people not so well off have bad luck is nonsense.Why is it that most people who are low earners or rely on the welfare state also gamble,smoke and drink to excess more than anyone else ? No bad luck involved with that !

[Guick Dotto]

Their kids don't have a choice.
Capitalism may work in terms of the growth of wealth. But people want and need more from life than cash. Capitalism cannot thrive in countries where people generally can't be trusted. Corruption ruins the equilibrium that is supposed to come about naturally. The west is desirable and strong because it is organised and civilised. It has systems for the well running of society. It works, albeit imperfectly.
People; situations, are too complicated for simplistic, mechanistic philosophies to be given their head. They might work as statistical projections but life isn't lived in a glass jar. Grown ups know that in order to safeguard the common good they need to plan for eventualities and work cooperatively, pooling resources; sharing. It starts with not pushing other toddlers over and progresses through sharing your toys all the way to good government.
Greed isn't good, it's a sin.

[Trimm Trab]

People have a choice and a direct link to failure.If you work hard and use a small amount of common sense there is no reason in a capitalist system that you should fail.The idea that all people not so well off have bad luck is nonsense.Why is it that most people who are low earners or rely on the welfare state also gamble,smoke and drink to excess more than anyone else ? No bad luck involved with that !

Surely you can see that this isn't true? I have an acquaintance who was doing very well for himself as a result of his hard work and application of common sense, but due to no fault of his own (and due very much to a drunk driver), he is now incapable of carrying out his trade, is totally reliant on state aid, and is a shadow of the person he once was. By saying that you can't fail if you work hard and use common sense you imply that there's no such thing as bad luck. Are you therefore implying that this person's predicament is somehow his own fault?

As for your statement that 'the idea that all people not so well off have bad luck is nonsense'; I agree, and I'm sure Guick does too. You're misrepresenting Guick's position to make it seem weaker, and then refuting that misrepresented position. You haven't actually addressed his original argument at all. It's called a straw man argument and it's no way to win a debate!

I should make it clear that I'm not a rabid anti-capitalist; I believe Smith's invisible hand does have a role to play in the organisation of people and capital, but also that it should not operate unchecked by the state. Our positions on this aren't totally opposed, but I don't think we'll ever agree either!

[CL]

I guess a lot of people would just burn their waste in the street under your system Christopher.
Maybe you're right about me being selfish with regard to the welfare state. I do perceive it as a very good way of covering my needs and the needs of my family ie in a relatively safe and civilised society. That's why I keep voting for parties that support it.
Jonathan Miller talked about the return of the concept of "The Heath" back in Thatcher's era. That is "the Heath" as it is in King Lear: a dark, cold, scary place outside the ring of lights that is civilisation, conviviality, communality. Where you finish up if you get it wrong; if your luck runs out. Maggie brought "The Heath" back deliberately so as to scare the living daylights out of us all. She wanted us to sharpen up our claws so that we would sharpen up our act and start making some money. The message came through often enough "you're on your own, either cut it or be a loser ".
I never saw a beggar till Thatcher's time. For total capitalism to work we need to see beggars all around as a reminder not to fail. Nice isn't it?

Guick I never said you were selfish in regard to the welfare state.The comments were made in reference to the FRA.

In fact the opposite is true.By supporting the Welfare state, you're actually sacrificing yourself and your family.At the moment you're paying vast sums in tax.Money that could have been spent on a better education for your children,or better health care,or even a savings fund for their future.

Instead you'd prefer to finance and support the lives of total strangers.People who mean nothing to you, and whom you have no way of knowing, whether they deserve to be in the position they're in or not.That is the evil of Altruism-sacrificing one's own family for complete strangers.Or do you value strangers and family equally?And don't tell me you get more, or the same amount back, from the system than you put in.As you're working that would be nonsense.

Now I'm not a fan of Margaret Thatcher.She was a strong leader, but she also gave unearned benefits to some businesses at the expense of others, through subsidies etc.She was also responsible for the council tax.But she stood up for us and she didn't ban the beggars from the streets, like the labour party(the real reason you don't see beggars any more).

One last point:The least well off person in America, was actually better off than most middle class Men and women in the former Soviet Union.That country actually practised Altruism fully and without compromise.Not like the hypocrites in this country, who advocate selflessness and then do everything they can, to make sure it's not them being sacrificed.The heath you described is the 6 hour bread queues in Socialist Russia!