Labour in 'lowest ever' poll rating

[Bagpuss]

It sounds like you are arguing for anarchy i.e. no or little Government. Every man for themselves, the old can die, the disabled can be put in an asylum funded by charitable donations. The rich will afford education and healthcare, everyone else will serve the rich and die young.

What a society that would be

[DodgyAgent]

It sounds like you are arguing for anarchy i.e. no or little Government. Every man for themselves, the old can die, the disabled can be put in an asylum funded by charitable donations. The rich will afford education and healthcare, everyone else will serve the rich and die young.

What a society that would be

awesome, when do we start?

[Lucy]

It sounds like you are arguing for anarchy i.e. no or little Government. Every man for themselves, the old can die, the disabled can be put in an asylum funded by charitable donations. The rich will afford education and healthcare, everyone else will serve the rich and die young.

What a society that would be

I didn't say 'no state' you are just making it up.

If you think the poor can be left to die, what would YOU do about it? And you seem to despise the rich but at the same time imply that without these nasty selfish people there woulnd't be enough tax to pay for the wonderous health and education system.

My point is fundamental, why do we have to use force to show compassion? And why do we put up with bumbling inefficient/ineffective state monopolies to mishandle healthcare and have no way of opting out, and spending our tax money elsewhere?

[Bagpuss]

awesome, when do we start?

I believe that is what you and Lucy would want, a society with no opportunity. You argue against state stifflement of opportunity yet would like a society at the other extreme where luck of birth dictates your fortune i.e. little social mobility.

[DodgyAgent]

I believe that is what you and Lucy would want, a society with no opportunity. You argue against state stifflement of opportunity yet would like a society at the other extreme where luck of birth dictates your fortune i.e. little social mobility.

Just because someone argues against one end of a spectrum does not mean that they automatically support the other end of the same spectrum. Or is that a bit too difficult for you to understand?

[Bagpuss]

Just because someone argues against one end of a spectrum does not mean that they automatically support the other end of the same spectrum. Or is that a bit too difficult for you to understand?

Not at all, I thought you were in agreement with Heir Lucy who wished to turn us into a pay as you go government, where the poor are helped with charity or sent to a workhouse. This is at a time when the rest of the developed world realises a healthy and educated population benefits everyone. You are the worst kind of snobs, who delight in pulling away the ladder of self betterment. I would like to see waste cut and more choice, but I don't want to delight in blowing it all up.

[Lucy]

I believe that is what you and Lucy would want, a society with no opportunity. You argue against state stifflement of opportunity yet would like a society at the other extreme where luck of birth dictates your fortune i.e. little social mobility.

Would you like full equality of opportunity? The last time that was attempted was by (your friend) Pol Pot.

There will always be people with vast variations in opportunity largely dependent on who their parents are, it remains so today. There isn't a great deal of hope for a kid from a poor family, with violent, alcoholic parents who host parties, show no interest in reading, and who are generally negligent. The state will never fix this, at the moment what the state does is pay these people more everytime they produce a child.

What I am arguing is that all adult human interraction should be voluntary, and part of that is caring for others is a voluntary conscious act. You would be surprised to learn that in countries which have more private health and education, providers of these do a lot for people on low or no incomes. For example a GP in the USA may spend as much as one day a week helping those who don't pay a thing, and many private schools have scholarships. The vast majority of people at the bottom levels of income move from there within 10 years. Socially mobile and free.

[DodgyAgent]

Not at all, I thought you were in agreement with Heir Lucy who wished to turn us into a pay as you go government, where the poor are helped with charity or sent to a workhouse.

I havent actually read her point of view. My own point of view is that socialist welfare policies in practice imprison people within a low aspirational life, and that poverty in our society and other "western societies" is the direct outcome of the social policies adopted by governments.

[Lucy]

Not at all, I thought you were in agreement with Heir Lucy who wished to turn us into a pay as you go government, where the poor are helped with charity or sent to a workhouse. This is at a time when the rest of the developed world realises a healthy and educated population benefits everyone. You are the worst kind of snobs, who delight in pulling away the ladder of self betterment. I would like to see waste cut and more choice, but I don't want to delight in blowing it all up.

Doesn't take you long to use the tired old english stereotype. If I am not in favour of welfare then I must be a Nazi, it's boring and it's dumb. Just like you Bogpuss.

How many times do I have to say it, it isn't just about right and left, why can't you understand this?

www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html

[DodgyAgent]

How many times do I have to say it, it isn't just about right and left, why can't you understand this?

www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html

Because he is boxed into a corner, wherby he connot defend the welfare system as it is. Instead of backing down he lashes out to try and move the argument onto a new territory that he can feel more comfortable on.