Reply to: Why Labour will win the next election

[sasguru]

This is exactly why you need to get back to whatever it is you do, and stop pretending you know anything about politics (or anything really).

That's why I like this site. We make the loons so comfortable they even think they can tell you off

[Lucy]

The hot bint in legal. I was just envisaging her without clothes.
HTH

This is exactly why you need to get back to whatever it is you do, and stop pretending you know anything about politics (or anything really).

[Lucy]

You're confusing the Conservative Party with Conservatism. Conservatism exists to offer economic freedom but social regulation...

Fair point. This is because the Conservative Party's primary purpose is to get into power.

Not sure why you need to make this point slave.

[BrilloPad]

Thatcher liberalised a lot, but you cannot say it was a socially liberal era. Little was done to reduce the role of the state in education and health, where it continues to perform abysmally. It was perhaps the only time in the last 100 years or so when there was some significant rollback of the state, and there is no sign in the Conservative party today of any interest in restricting the role of the state.

One reason why I intend to vote for anything other than the main parties at the next election - after 6 votes for conservatives since I was eligible to vote.

[Lucy]

Lucy, can I ask if you believe in the death penalty?

A purist libertarian doesn't approve of preventative interventionist policing, such as security cameras and ID cards, which impact on the law abiding. But the flip side is that one must have very harsh deterrents to people making seriously wrong criminal choices such as rape and murder.

To a large extent I share that philosophy. But the point I'm making is that libertarianism is not always compatible with humanitarianism. You can't have your cake and eat it!

Well some do, and some don't. Since the state makes mistakes, taking someone's life isn't something I'd risk the state doing. This is a secondary argument, the issue is not should there be a dealth penalty, but what is a crime. Libertarians would review criminal justice.

On another point, how is the death penalty and humanitarianism? Some would say - harsh penalties should equal harsh deterrants.

[DodgyAgent]

Thatcher liberalised a lot, but you cannot say it was a socially liberal era. Little was done to reduce the role of the state in education and health, where it continues to perform abysmally. It was perhaps the only time in the last 100 years or so when there was some significant rollback of the state, and there is no sign in the Conservative party today of any interest in restricting the role of the state.

well said

[TimberWolf]

You're confusing the Conservative Party with Conservatism. Conservatism exists to offer economic freedom but social regulation...

I thought that was antidisestablishmentarianism

[ratewhore]

Conservatism means to conserve the status quo, it tends not to be liberal and shows no sign of wanting to shrink the role of the state in the economy or people's lives.

You're confusing the Conservative Party with Conservatism. Conservatism exists to offer economic freedom but social regulation...

[sasguru]

Lucy, can I ask if you believe in the death penalty?

A purist libertarian doesn't approve of preventative interventionist policing, such as security cameras and ID cards, which impact on the law abiding. But the flip side is that one must have very harsh deterrents to people making seriously wrong criminal choices such as rape and murder.

To a large extent I share that philosophy. But the point I'm making is that libertarianism is not always compatible with humanitarianism. You can't have your cake and eat it!

Don't confuse her with practicalities - they're not covered in the manual.

[sasguru]

So what is your vision?

The hot bint in legal. I was just envisaging her without clothes.
HTH

[Marina]

Lucy, can I ask if you believe in the death penalty?

A purist libertarian doesn't approve of preventative interventionist policing, such as security cameras and ID cards, which impact on the law abiding. But the flip side is that one must have very harsh deterrents to people making seriously wrong criminal choices such as rape and murder.

To a large extent I share that philosophy. But the point I'm making is that libertarianism is not always compatible with humanitarianism. You can't have your cake and eat it!

[Lucy]

So the score is:

Conservative Party 1 (could do better) - Libertarian Party 0 (non-starter).

(and you say my mental age is 10!)


So what is your vision?

[sasguru]

Thatcher liberalised a lot, but you cannot say it was a socially liberal era. Little was done to reduce the role of the state in education and health, where it continues to perform abysmally. It was perhaps the only time in the last 100 years or so when there was some significant rollback of the state, and there is no sign in the Conservative party today of any interest in restricting the role of the state.

So the score is:

Conservative Party 1 (could do better) - Libertarian Party 0 (non-starter).

[Lucy]

Clearly that's what happened in the 80s

Thatcher liberalised a lot, but you cannot say it was a socially liberal era. Little was done to reduce the role of the state in education and health, where it continues to perform abysmally. It was perhaps the only time in the last 100 years or so when there was some significant rollback of the state, and there is no sign in the Conservative party today of any interest in restricting the role of the state.

[sasguru]

Conservatism means to conserve the status quo, it tends not to be liberal and shows no sign of wanting to shrink the role of the state in the economy or people's lives.

Clearly that's what happened in the 80s
Doh!