Politics

[Sylvester 15]

They always say you should never start off a politics (or a religion thread for that matter) because it creates more problems than it's worth.

But the problem is a big one for me...

Many of you seem to have formed political views, by that i mean that you know what you believe and you have reasons for it.

Now maybe it's because i'm too open minded for my own good, or maybe it's because i've studied political philosopy, but i find that i haven't got a clue what i believe, politically. (the views stated below change with the weather, sometimes i'm less convicted, some times moreso, plus i can see more than one side of every argument)

I've tried to see myself on a left-right lines but it just doesn't work, take this for example, I dislike privatisation immensely, because the businesses are in it for the money and screw the customers (just like my dentist, he's making people have dental work when they really don't need it, like that filling of mine which has given me more problems since, except i wasn't the only one he's done this too), negative about privatisation so that suggests i'm left wing.

However, i'm not keen on nationalisation cos i don't trust the government as far as i could throw them, look at the state of the railways the Beeching closures of the 60s, all happened under a nationalised network, and Thatcher's spending cuts (if it had been private and she hadn't held the purse strings it wouldn't have been half as bad), this suggests i'm right wing! (Nationalisation is bad)

The idea of sharing property equally is just wrong, but i do think people should have fair opportunities. But it should be awarded on merit, not on family status or on how much money you earn. Everyone should have equal chances, but everyone shouldn't be forced to be equal. (if you follow that line of argument) I.e not Communist... if you work hard enough you can have a bigger bit of land than your neighbour, but you both must have an equal chance of getting the land at the start.

I dislike the voting system too, these parties all lie and they all do what they want to do anyhow, ideally it'd be nice if we could run it ourselves, but in practice it wouldn't work. Ancient Athens had about the best system going, less beaurocracy (never could spell that word).

Also society needs to have strict morals and codes and severe punishments for those louts and loonies that step out of line. The reintroduction of the death penalty would be a good idea too.

All drugs should be legalised, as they were in the Victorian period (this is the reactionary line coming out), people have free choice whether to take them or not and if they reck themselves (as long as they don't harm others) then that is alright. (obviously if it was legalised then the under ground dealers which cause the crime associated with drugs would go out of business if the substances, like opium, were available cheaply over the counter). Obviously smoking and drug taking in public should remain banned (or be banned), but in the privacy of their own home i see no problems, unless it harms others, then the punishments for the good of the others should occur upon those causing the harm.

Plus only the idiots would do the drugging anyhow.

So politically where does that leave me, left or right? I see contradictory beliefs left right and centre.

And for the more well read members think John Stuart Mill.

Is it just classic Liberalism in practice?

[Emperor Oli 0]

I lean more towards privatisation because it takes the burden of running the concerns off the government but then again, as you say, quite a few companies are unethical i.e they don't respect the views/concerns of their very customers.

Of course everyone should have equal opportunities but I also agree titles, "family status" etc, if that can be seen an un-contradictory. Those families worked hard to get where they did, the titled ones I mean and they deserve to be rewarded. Most of the titled families are very benevolent and give a lot to charities and their local communities, plus some provide housing to people who live on their estates, if they have them. Everybody did/does have an equal chance of getting land at the start, it's just that the people who got the land established themselves and have therefore been rooted in society from the beginning.

I'm dead against communism because it doesn't reward merit or personal achievment. The people who say "Well, Communism looks good on paper" are also inherently wrong. Communism forces people to be just like everyone else, drones if you will, eroding all sense of identity. For all it's ill, at least the modern democracy which we know today grants its people the opportunity to be unique.

Just to twist your voting point a bit, I would like to see how proportional represenation worked in this country, maybe in a trial somewhere like Scotland. It gives the government more representative strata of British society, and their political views but then the problem is establishing a parliamentary majority, unless they enter into a coalition.

The thing about the "moral code" is that it changes dynamically with the passing years. Something like sex before marriage, which would have outraged people a century ago, does not even get an eyelid batted to it. So then one has the problem of defining the morals for this generation.

I support the policy of zero-tolerance policing, something that is practiced in Japan and which Mayor Giuliani introduced in New York. Both places saw a dramatic drop in crime and consequently a rise in quality of life. Reinstating corporal punishment would also be a good idea, as a visual deterrent in every town and city against crime. Like Sylvester, I would also like capital punishment to be reintroduced. For every one murderer executed, it is predicted that eighteen further murders are prevented. Surely this is good enough to merit its return? However, we then have the problem of executing the wrong people or executing them for the wrong reasons, like Ruth Ellis who shot and killed her b*****d boyfriend in a crowded London pub.

I vehemently oppose the legalisation of drugs. It would present an immense burden to the NHS which would not (as reports have shown) be recouped through taxation of the drugs. The people who are high on drugs can also cause untold damage to buildings and people. Not only does this cost money, it costs live too, the drug user's and the person who is being attacked/assaulted/whatever. Thousands of lives would be affected by drug-related accidents or deaths resulting in time being taken off work (for funerals, not to mention the staff lost to drug-related deaths) giving a net decrease in profits and therefore taxes and consequently a lower standard of life.

That's my little rant over

[Sylvester 15]

Thousands of lives would be affected by drug-related accidents or deaths resulting in time being taken off work (for funerals, not to mention the staff lost to drug-related deaths) giving a net decrease in profits and therefore taxes and consequently a lower standard of life.

That's my little rant over

Hmm time taken off work, true.

BUT!

If everyone is going to funerals then the funeral market would pick up and the funeral directing business would boom, it would reduce the population and thus create (hopefully) a labour shortage, leading to an increase in wages and living standards etc. (if you wanted to look at it from a purely methodical level)

Hmm i take your point about landed families and i agree with you to a point. But it would be nice to see Prince Charles get a real job, like a bin man or something! (just kidding, i think travelling around the world to never ending meetings would be tedious, and having to put up with the public spotlight 24/7 would be enough punishment [being a prisoner in your own palace virtually] to warrant that he is doing a real job, one that i certainly wouldn't want)

With regards to private companies it would be nice if the companies were totally private, but a government run regulatory body should be set up to keep an eye on their practices (properly i mean, like a governmental policing force to prevent unscrupulous behaviour and price fixing between companies), and that the people had some say in how the regulating body was run. Then there would be less possibility of corruption between the body and the companies. So not total government intervention, but rather minimal government intervention to keep things from falling into inscroupulous practices, but hopefully supply and demand would keep the rest sorted out.

With regards to the issue of the euro and related topics, the Pound is good enough, it's worked for us so why change it? as the good old conservative motto goes 'if it ain't broke don't fix it'.

I was going to make another point but it escapes me at the minute...

Oh erm the the drugs issue, i think the key to solving that is not in keeping it illegal (if they want to try them they'll try it whether it's legal or not, a rise may seem apparent if they did legalise drugs but this would be because it would turn from a covert practice into an overt one). I think a greater education and prevention through educating not only the children but also the parents would be benefitial. Ity's about changing social view points... it can be done they have been changed before, changing it from a "it's cool to take drugs" to a more "it'll ruin your life and it's pointless" attitude.

The problem would never be solved either way, illegalisation (suppression method) or via legalisation and education (facing it face to face and asking why? method).

But my views (i think, well for today at least), still stand [although i see your point and i agree with it to an extent Oli; about it remaining illegal and all, but i doubt it would work effectively, we've been trying it for long enough, and they say the drug problem is increasing!]

At the end of the day i believe on an individual level, if someone wants to do something or believe something, who am i to stop them? As long as they don't harm anyone else in the progress. If they do then they must be punished severely for the greater good of all the other individuals, and as a deterent to others.