I have been unsure, from the start, what the Occupy movement was...
FOLLOW BOREME
TAGS
<< Back to listing
I have been unsure, from the start, what the Occupy movement was...

I have been unsure, from the start, what the Occupy movement was...

I have been unsure, from the start, what the Occupy movement was all about, although I did suspect that it was just fatuous, anti-enterprise, left-wingery. Nigel Farage, UK Independence Party leader (b. 1964). More homepage quotes

Share this post

You can comment as a guest, but registering gives you added benefits

Add your comment
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: zodiac (1023 days ago)

what a vile little man he is!!!! the only policy he has is built around immigration........ there is no other. how do you expect this gurning incompetant moron and his worse than useless cohorts to benefit this country in any way!!!!!!!!!! there is no rationale or sensible manifesto except kick out the foreigners. and i am no liberal and also think/know that we have to stop the unaccptable levels of incoming people and get rid of a large proportion of those already here but if this f******* idiot is the way forward then may your god help us all!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!

ReplyVote up (114)down (102)
Original comment

what a vile little man he is!!!! the only policy he has is built around immigration........ there is no other. how do you expect this gurning incompetant moron and his worse than useless cohorts to benefit this country in any way!!!!!!!!!! there is no rationale or sensible manifesto except kick out the foreigners. and i am no liberal and also think/know that we have to stop the unaccptable levels of incoming people and get rid of a large proportion of those already here but if this f******* idiot is the way forward then may your god help us all!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1024 days ago)

It's shameful that a man with such divisive messages as Farage was named "Briton of the Year" by the Times.

Even Gordon Brown is more deserving. Though he was a terrible prime minister, he was instrumental in preventing the break up of the UK.

ReplyVote up (98)down (104)
Original comment

It's shameful that a man with such divisive messages as Farage was named "Briton of the Year" by the Times.

Even Gordon Brown is more deserving. Though he was a terrible prime minister, he was instrumental in preventing the break up of the UK.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WellHungarian WellHungarian (1024 days ago)

Walter, I wouldn't take The Times very seriously. Last year they awarded George Osborne that title.

ReplyVote up (121)down (106)
Original comment

Walter, I wouldn't take The Times very seriously. Last year they awarded George Osborne that title.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Casey Casey (1023 days ago)

Divisive from what? He seems to have the popular vote which means he is championing the causes that voters care about, how is that shameful?

ReplyVote up (104)down (123)
Original comment

Divisive from what? He seems to have the popular vote which means he is championing the causes that voters care about, how is that shameful?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1023 days ago)

He might be the talk of the town, but he creates division by blaming every ill on immigrants. He even managed to blame immigrants for his late arrival at a UKIP event! LINK

ReplyVote up (106)down (141)
Original comment

He might be the talk of the town, but he creates division by blaming every ill on immigrants. He even managed to blame immigrants for his late arrival at a UKIP event! LINK

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Casey Casey (1022 days ago)

It appears he have been right LINK Interestingly enough they also seem to debunk the Immigration is a net positive story too...

ReplyVote up (123)down (79)
Original comment

It appears he have been right LINK Interestingly enough they also seem to debunk the Immigration is a net positive story too...

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1021 days ago)

Thanks for your link. Bear in mind that Migration Watch is an anti-immigration think tank. They begin:

"Britain’s transport infrastructure, already one of the most congested in Europe, is set to become even more crowded in the next 25 years as a result of immigration …

At its current rate the UK population is projected to increase by around 10 million between 2008 and 2033, with around seven million of that total due to immigration. Out of this number four million will be aged 17 or over by 2033, perhaps adding nearly three million to the driving population of the UK."

Surely even you can see that coming to the conclusion that immigrants are to blame for congested roads based simply on those population growth projections, is ridiculous?

Maybe you can suggest how Migration Watch's case is oversimplified and flawed?

ReplyVote up (116)down (104)
Original comment

Thanks for your link. Bear in mind that Migration Watch is an anti-immigration think tank. They begin:

"Britain’s transport infrastructure, already one of the most congested in Europe, is set to become even more crowded in the next 25 years as a result of immigration …

At its current rate the UK population is projected to increase by around 10 million between 2008 and 2033, with around seven million of that total due to immigration. Out of this number four million will be aged 17 or over by 2033, perhaps adding nearly three million to the driving population of the UK."

Surely even you can see that coming to the conclusion that immigrants are to blame for congested roads based simply on those population growth projections, is ridiculous?

Maybe you can suggest how Migration Watch's case is oversimplified and flawed?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
dananddiana dananddiana (1021 days ago)

As much as I don't like Farage, He and they are spot on when it comes to immigration. It has nothing to do with racism, and everything to do with the fact that Britain can no longer support the huge influx of immigrants. The NHS, the welfare system, the education system have all run out of money and are not able to support the immigrants. There are line ups of ambulances at the hospitals because there is no room for people coming in, It stands to reason that Britain which is a pretty small Island is over populated and over taxed. There is no control of who is coming in, The criminal element already in the country is taxing the police forces and the courts. Someone has to put a stop to the madness before the country sinks completely!

ReplyVote up (105)down (115)
Original comment

As much as I don't like Farage, He and they are spot on when it comes to immigration. It has nothing to do with racism, and everything to do with the fact that Britain can no longer support the huge influx of immigrants. The NHS, the welfare system, the education system have all run out of money and are not able to support the immigrants. There are line ups of ambulances at the hospitals because there is no room for people coming in, It stands to reason that Britain which is a pretty small Island is over populated and over taxed. There is no control of who is coming in, The criminal element already in the country is taxing the police forces and the courts. Someone has to put a stop to the madness before the country sinks completely!

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1020 days ago)

If you believe that immigration is positive overall (good for the UK economy and enriches British culture) - but does put a strain on public services, then hear me out.

We don't have austerity cuts because immigrants are sucking the economy dry - immigrants benefit the economy (£20 billion from 2000 - 2011). Our public services are falling apart because there is not enough tax money to run them properly. And, as Russell Brand pointed out, this is largely because of corruption among the elite. If corporations paid their fair share of taxes, then there should be enough money to have great public services while enjoying the economic and cultural benefits of immigration. Everybody wins, even the corporations because they would be doing business in a thriving economy.

Blaming immigration for everything, is a distraction the corrupt elite are very happy to encourage.

ReplyVote up (101)down (119)
Original comment

If you believe that immigration is positive overall (good for the UK economy and enriches British culture) - but does put a strain on public services, then hear me out.

We don't have austerity cuts because immigrants are sucking the economy dry - immigrants benefit the economy (£20 billion from 2000 - 2011). Our public services are falling apart because there is not enough tax money to run them properly. And, as Russell Brand pointed out, this is largely because of corruption among the elite. If corporations paid their fair share of taxes, then there should be enough money to have great public services while enjoying the economic and cultural benefits of immigration. Everybody wins, even the corporations because they would be doing business in a thriving economy.

Blaming immigration for everything, is a distraction the corrupt elite are very happy to encourage.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
dananddiana dananddiana (1020 days ago)

You are right, There is not enough tax money because all of it is going to support immigrants. The infrastructure in England cannot cope with the influx! Why must it keep increasing the people living in a place that has less and less space for them? How can sharing the money fix that?

Once you start quoting Russel Brand, The biggest Hippocrit on TV, I give up any hope for you! How can you take him seriously? He makes his millions, he IS one of the "Elite" but he goes out there and basically claims to be one of the people he is supposed to be fighting for. The man is a two faced idiot!!!

ReplyVote up (114)down (115)
Original comment

You are right, There is not enough tax money because all of it is going to support immigrants. The infrastructure in England cannot cope with the influx! Why must it keep increasing the people living in a place that has less and less space for them? How can sharing the money fix that?

Once you start quoting Russel Brand, The biggest Hippocrit on TV, I give up any hope for you! How can you take him seriously? He makes his millions, he IS one of the "Elite" but he goes out there and basically claims to be one of the people he is supposed to be fighting for. The man is a two faced idiot!!!

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (1020 days ago)

you brainwashed ni**er cu*t, shut your whore mouth

ReplyVote up (115)down (71)
Original comment

you brainwashed ni**er cu*t, shut your whore mouth

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1019 days ago)

I think you're basing your ideas on emotion and not reality. According to Wikipedia, the UK ranks 51st in population density. Other countries more dense include Japan (39), Belgium (35), Netherlands (30), South Korea (23), Hong Kong (4), Singapore (3). LINK

Fact: World population is growing. One estimate is that it will stabilise around 11 billion by 2050. Today we are at 7 billion. Climate change and wars will force millions to move adding extra pressure on public services and infrastructure. So everywhere is going to have to figure out how to survive an influx of new people.

The libertarian approach of minimum state involvement and everybody for themselves, will simply result in a very unpleasant, and violent dog-eat-dog free-for-all. Unless you're a mafia boss or a member of the corrupt elite, why would you want to create such a world?

Surely much better is to improve public services to cope with inceasing population, paid partly by closing tax avoidance schemes, and concentrate on how we run these services well, efficiently and free from corruption.

Would you be in favour of a super transparent government that was funded by the people, where every contract, salary, expense, etc. was available for public scrutiny on the internet, where rules are in place to prevent corruption, where the consequences of corruption are meaningful?

Or would you rather have minimum government run by corporations only interested in the earnings of their top brass, at whatever cost to everybody else?

ReplyVote up (106)down (105)
Original comment

I think you're basing your ideas on emotion and not reality. According to Wikipedia, the UK ranks 51st in population density. Other countries more dense include Japan (39), Belgium (35), Netherlands (30), South Korea (23), Hong Kong (4), Singapore (3). LINK

Fact: World population is growing. One estimate is that it will stabilise around 11 billion by 2050. Today we are at 7 billion. Climate change and wars will force millions to move adding extra pressure on public services and infrastructure. So everywhere is going to have to figure out how to survive an influx of new people.

The libertarian approach of minimum state involvement and everybody for themselves, will simply result in a very unpleasant, and violent dog-eat-dog free-for-all. Unless you're a mafia boss or a member of the corrupt elite, why would you want to create such a world?

Surely much better is to improve public services to cope with inceasing population, paid partly by closing tax avoidance schemes, and concentrate on how we run these services well, efficiently and free from corruption.

Would you be in favour of a super transparent government that was funded by the people, where every contract, salary, expense, etc. was available for public scrutiny on the internet, where rules are in place to prevent corruption, where the consequences of corruption are meaningful?

Or would you rather have minimum government run by corporations only interested in the earnings of their top brass, at whatever cost to everybody else?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1019 days ago)

Regarding Hong Kong, you do realize that is a geographic region within China, right? You should have listed the population density of China to be fair. If you want to get that granular, why don't you check cities like Manila, Titagarh, or Baranagar?

The libertarian approach is sort of like you mentioned where everyone fends for themselves. That's the whole point. If you give things away to people for free without them having to work for it, you will get people that do just that -- get free things without working for them. In a libertarian society, you get out society whatever you put into it. You can become rich or you can become poor -- it's up to you. None of your hard-earned money gets redistributed to the lazy people so they can have a nice house and fast car too.

Regarding a super transparent government, you can have that independent of the type of government such as republican, democratic, or libertarian. All of our public officials get paid and their salaries are public knowledge. Perhaps in the UK, your government is keeping that secret from you but we have laws in the USA that anyone can ask for information under the "Freedom of Information" act and get details on funding.

The President of the United States has an annual salary of just $400,000.

ReplyVote up (101)down (58)
Original comment

Regarding Hong Kong, you do realize that is a geographic region within China, right? You should have listed the population density of China to be fair. If you want to get that granular, why don't you check cities like Manila, Titagarh, or Baranagar?

The libertarian approach is sort of like you mentioned where everyone fends for themselves. That's the whole point. If you give things away to people for free without them having to work for it, you will get people that do just that -- get free things without working for them. In a libertarian society, you get out society whatever you put into it. You can become rich or you can become poor -- it's up to you. None of your hard-earned money gets redistributed to the lazy people so they can have a nice house and fast car too.

Regarding a super transparent government, you can have that independent of the type of government such as republican, democratic, or libertarian. All of our public officials get paid and their salaries are public knowledge. Perhaps in the UK, your government is keeping that secret from you but we have laws in the USA that anyone can ask for information under the "Freedom of Information" act and get details on funding.

The President of the United States has an annual salary of just $400,000.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (1018 days ago)

SOMALIA FTW!!

ReplyVote up (101)down (87)
Original comment

SOMALIA FTW!!

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1016 days ago)

Maybe you can help. I’m having problems in finding situations where fend-for-yourself works better than fend-for-each-other.

A football team would never play at full potential if each player was only playing for personal glory. An army would be much weaker if every soldier just looked after themselves and not their comrades. A company would not get the best from its workers if everyone in the company only cared about their salaries. A community where people fended for themselves and didn’t care about others is not a community.

The premise that if you give benefits, people will just get lazy and sponge off the state is nonsense. Sure there will always be a minority of people who will abuse the system, but in my experience, the vast majority of people I know would much rather do something with their lives than laze around on welfare. I bet that's also your experience, and the experience of everyone you know.

In the UK, 82% of welfare goes to working households. 1% goes to households with 2 generations without employment. LINK

Welfare is not a gift for the lazy. It's insurance. When you work, you pay taxes. If you're unemployed, those taxes pay you. Simplified, but that's the basic idea.

Simple question: Which group was most instrumental in the financial crash of 2008 - welfare scroungers, immigrants, or bankers?

-----------

Regarding transparency, revealing salaries is not enough. The public should have access to expenses, contracts, and anything else that is corruptible.

ReplyVote up (73)down (101)
Original comment

Maybe you can help. I’m having problems in finding situations where fend-for-yourself works better than fend-for-each-other.

A football team would never play at full potential if each player was only playing for personal glory. An army would be much weaker if every soldier just looked after themselves and not their comrades. A company would not get the best from its workers if everyone in the company only cared about their salaries. A community where people fended for themselves and didn’t care about others is not a community.

The premise that if you give benefits, people will just get lazy and sponge off the state is nonsense. Sure there will always be a minority of people who will abuse the system, but in my experience, the vast majority of people I know would much rather do something with their lives than laze around on welfare. I bet that's also your experience, and the experience of everyone you know.

In the UK, 82% of welfare goes to working households. 1% goes to households with 2 generations without employment. LINK

Welfare is not a gift for the lazy. It's insurance. When you work, you pay taxes. If you're unemployed, those taxes pay you. Simplified, but that's the basic idea.

Simple question: Which group was most instrumental in the financial crash of 2008 - welfare scroungers, immigrants, or bankers?

-----------

Regarding transparency, revealing salaries is not enough. The public should have access to expenses, contracts, and anything else that is corruptible.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1016 days ago)

“The premise that if you give benefits, people will just get lazy and sponge off the state is nonsense. Sure there will always be a minority of people who will abuse the system, but in my experience, the vast majority of people I know would much rather do something with their lives than laze around on welfare.“ You don’t have any experience in this matter whereas Mrs. Cengland0 is an expert.

In your hypothesis, is it right for someone to get disability from the state because they claim a handicap and then play racquetball for a hobby? Is it right for a single female to live off the state, get money for each of her children, and then have more children knowing that she cannot support the ones she already has? Is it right for someone to quit their job because he didn’t like the manager and then file for state welfare benefits and then never apply for a new job until the benefits run out and then quit the new job so the benefits can start over again?

“Welfare is not a gift for the lazy. It's insurance. When you work, you pay taxes.” Except the mass majority of taxes collected are from the middle class and the rich and the poor people don’t pay enough to support their own class. If it truly worked the way you say then let the people get benefits only if they paid enough taxes from their past jobs to pay for it. I’m sure you will agree that the people on the system today wouldn’t get any benefits if that was the case.

“Regarding transparency, revealing salaries is not enough. The public should have access to expenses, contracts, and anything else that is corruptible.” All that you mentioned is public knowledge. If not available on the website, you have full access by submitting a freedom of information act form to get the information.

People abuse the system that is provided. I’ve hired so many people and can tell you that nearly everyone uses every single sick day that is given to them. You give them 10 days, they are sick 10 days out of the year. Surprisingly, when we changed the policy to be 6 unplanned days instead of calling them sick days, people used a maximum of 6. Does that mean they suddenly got healthier in the following years? When we came up with a policy that people got paid for any unplanned days they didn’t use, many employees suddenly didn’t use any.

“I’m having problems in finding situations where fend-for-yourself works better than fend-for-each-other.&rdqu o; You must understand how macro the problem is. First, when speaking about a community, I have my small community that I call my immediate family. So if everyone in my immediate family is financially stable, I have a bunch of cousins, nieces, and nephews that could use my help. I call that community my extended family. The next largest community includes my friends and neighbors – people I know.

ReplyVote up (101)down (93)
Original comment

“The premise that if you give benefits, people will just get lazy and sponge off the state is nonsense. Sure there will always be a minority of people who will abuse the system, but in my experience, the vast majority of people I know would much rather do something with their lives than laze around on welfare.“ You don’t have any experience in this matter whereas Mrs. Cengland0 is an expert.

In your hypothesis, is it right for someone to get disability from the state because they claim a handicap and then play racquetball for a hobby? Is it right for a single female to live off the state, get money for each of her children, and then have more children knowing that she cannot support the ones she already has? Is it right for someone to quit their job because he didn’t like the manager and then file for state welfare benefits and then never apply for a new job until the benefits run out and then quit the new job so the benefits can start over again?

“Welfare is not a gift for the lazy. It's insurance. When you work, you pay taxes.” Except the mass majority of taxes collected are from the middle class and the rich and the poor people don’t pay enough to support their own class. If it truly worked the way you say then let the people get benefits only if they paid enough taxes from their past jobs to pay for it. I’m sure you will agree that the people on the system today wouldn’t get any benefits if that was the case.

“Regarding transparency, revealing salaries is not enough. The public should have access to expenses, contracts, and anything else that is corruptible.” All that you mentioned is public knowledge. If not available on the website, you have full access by submitting a freedom of information act form to get the information.

People abuse the system that is provided. I’ve hired so many people and can tell you that nearly everyone uses every single sick day that is given to them. You give them 10 days, they are sick 10 days out of the year. Surprisingly, when we changed the policy to be 6 unplanned days instead of calling them sick days, people used a maximum of 6. Does that mean they suddenly got healthier in the following years? When we came up with a policy that people got paid for any unplanned days they didn’t use, many employees suddenly didn’t use any.

“I’m having problems in finding situations where fend-for-yourself works better than fend-for-each-other.&rdqu o; You must understand how macro the problem is. First, when speaking about a community, I have my small community that I call my immediate family. So if everyone in my immediate family is financially stable, I have a bunch of cousins, nieces, and nephews that could use my help. I call that community my extended family. The next largest community includes my friends and neighbors – people I know.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1016 days ago)

I suspect Mrs Cengland0 is not an expert in what motivates human beings to get up in the morning and do what they do.

" In your hypothesis, is it right for someone to get disability from the state because they claim a handicap and then play racquetball… " Of course not. What I'm saying is that an ideology based on 'fend-for-yourself 9;, and justified by blaming the tiny minority of welfare abusers, is so stupid it's almost weird.

Libertarianism is a pre-civilisation ideology. With civilisation came the brilliant idea of working together to build a better world, and 'fend-for-yourself 9;, like 'an eye for an eye', melted into the distant past. Or at least it should have done.

The problem with libertarianism is that it cannot deal with the huge global problems that are looming - population growth, resources, climate change etc. - that require coordinated global action.

" Except the mass majority of taxes collected are from the middle class and the rich… " The top 1% pay almost 30% of taxes. LINK Sounds unfair for the 1%… until you think more than 2 seconds about it.

Here's another angle: The top 1% could pay less tax by getting paid less, the bottom 99% could pay more tax by getting paid more. That would spread the tax burden much more fairly.

Regarding transparency, the point is to prevent corruption. So you should not be required to suspect something, and then have to jump through hoops to find out more. All that information should be permanently available for the public to browse - and the public should be encouraged to be continually checking on how their government is performing. I'm sure it's not beyond the wit of man to evolve such a system, paid for and overseen by the people.

"People abuse the system that is provided." Funny you should say that but only apply it to welfare scroungers and not the corrupt elite, for example, tax avoiding corporations.

"You must understand how macro the problem is." You've confused me now. Does libertarian ideology not apply to groups bigger than friends and neighbours?

ReplyVote up (89)down (101)
Original comment

I suspect Mrs Cengland0 is not an expert in what motivates human beings to get up in the morning and do what they do.

" In your hypothesis, is it right for someone to get disability from the state because they claim a handicap and then play racquetball… " Of course not. What I'm saying is that an ideology based on 'fend-for-yourself 9;, and justified by blaming the tiny minority of welfare abusers, is so stupid it's almost weird.

Libertarianism is a pre-civilisation ideology. With civilisation came the brilliant idea of working together to build a better world, and 'fend-for-yourself 9;, like 'an eye for an eye', melted into the distant past. Or at least it should have done.

The problem with libertarianism is that it cannot deal with the huge global problems that are looming - population growth, resources, climate change etc. - that require coordinated global action.

" Except the mass majority of taxes collected are from the middle class and the rich… " The top 1% pay almost 30% of taxes. LINK Sounds unfair for the 1%… until you think more than 2 seconds about it.

Here's another angle: The top 1% could pay less tax by getting paid less, the bottom 99% could pay more tax by getting paid more. That would spread the tax burden much more fairly.

Regarding transparency, the point is to prevent corruption. So you should not be required to suspect something, and then have to jump through hoops to find out more. All that information should be permanently available for the public to browse - and the public should be encouraged to be continually checking on how their government is performing. I'm sure it's not beyond the wit of man to evolve such a system, paid for and overseen by the people.

"People abuse the system that is provided." Funny you should say that but only apply it to welfare scroungers and not the corrupt elite, for example, tax avoiding corporations.

"You must understand how macro the problem is." You've confused me now. Does libertarian ideology not apply to groups bigger than friends and neighbours?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1016 days ago)

“I suspect Mrs Cengland0 is not an expert in what motivates human beings to get up in the morning and do what they do.” She is an expert in determining who qualifies for what social services. She has done that job for 28 years and has seen what kind of person gets the benefits. I see the motivation when they hide facts such as other people living with them and not including their income, etc. They lie to get as many benefits as possible.


"’In your hypothesis, is it right for someone to get disability from the state because they claim a handicap and then play racquetball… ‘ Of course not.” Then you should understand why I get annoyed when I go to the gym after a hard day of work and I personally know someone who is 100% disabled according to the state so gets 100% benefits but is still able to play racquetball. Once you can explain how that is possible in a fair society then I will feel more compelled to read your ideas.


“Libertarianism is a pre-civilisation ideology. With civilisation came the brilliant idea of working together to build a better world, and 'fend-for-yourself 9;, like 'an eye for an eye', melted into the distant past. Or at least it should have done.” So what you get is tribes, and countries fighting each other for resources while inside each tribe and country, everything is bliss. Right?


“The problem with libertarianism is that it cannot deal with the huge global problems that are looming - population growth, resources, climate change etc. - that require coordinated global action.” As you know, the population will stabilize soon. The resources are not limitless but there are many renewable ones that can be consumed once the cheaper ones are gone.
“The top 1% pay almost 30% of taxes. LINK Sounds unfair for the 1%… until you think more than 2 seconds about it.” It is unfair to the rich and that is what I have been saying all along. The same problem with unfairness still exists 2 seconds later.


“Here's another angle: The top 1% could pay less tax by getting paid less, the bottom 99% could pay more tax by getting paid more. That would spread the tax burden much more fairly.” That would demotivate people. If you paid doctors the same as a person that mows lawns, there wouldn’t be much incentive for people to try hard to earn a good living and have a good lifestyle. If you give the poor money without working hard for it, it also stops motivating them to work even harder so they can get the money since they are already getting it for little work.


I work very hard for my money. If I could relax and work part-time, have fewer responsibilities, and the job required fewer skills and I would get paid the same, I would take that job in a second. And, that’s where the problem is. Human nature would do the bare minimums required to get their payment and don’t tell me that’s not true because throughout all the jobs that I’ve had, I’ve had a variety of people working for me and 99% of them do the minimum. If I wanted more work out of an employee or give him/her additional responsibilities, I would need to pay them more than the rest of the group or they will not want that job.


“Regarding transparency, the point is to prevent corruption. So you should not be required to suspect something, and then have to go through hoops to find out more.“ There is a vast amount of information out of every office. We have mayors, governors, representatives, senators (at both state and national levels), presidents, vice presidents, and many support staff. It would cost billions to make every individual transaction available immediately for public viewing. So to avoid that cost, it is acceptable for people needing information to request it through the proper channels.


“for example, tax avoiding corporations.” Don’t know what you’re talking about. Corporations earning money within the USA pay income tax multiple times. The company pays taxes on the profits and any capital gains. Then the employees who receive money as salaries from those corporations pay income tax. The investors that get dividends from those profits that already had taxes paid on them, pay taxes again on those dividends. And, investors that make money off the increase in stock values, pay tax. So again I don’t know what tax avoidance you’re referring to. Maybe that happens in the UK or other countries but not in the USA.


“Does libertarianism not apply to groups bigger than friends and neighbours?” It can but since it means that there is less government in control of my money, I get to decide where I spend it instead of the government making that choice. If given the choice, I would help out my immediate family first, then my extended family, then my friends. Hope I clarified that for you.

ReplyVote up (83)down (101)
Original comment

“I suspect Mrs Cengland0 is not an expert in what motivates human beings to get up in the morning and do what they do.” She is an expert in determining who qualifies for what social services. She has done that job for 28 years and has seen what kind of person gets the benefits. I see the motivation when they hide facts such as other people living with them and not including their income, etc. They lie to get as many benefits as possible.


"’In your hypothesis, is it right for someone to get disability from the state because they claim a handicap and then play racquetball… ‘ Of course not.” Then you should understand why I get annoyed when I go to the gym after a hard day of work and I personally know someone who is 100% disabled according to the state so gets 100% benefits but is still able to play racquetball. Once you can explain how that is possible in a fair society then I will feel more compelled to read your ideas.


“Libertarianism is a pre-civilisation ideology. With civilisation came the brilliant idea of working together to build a better world, and 'fend-for-yourself 9;, like 'an eye for an eye', melted into the distant past. Or at least it should have done.” So what you get is tribes, and countries fighting each other for resources while inside each tribe and country, everything is bliss. Right?


“The problem with libertarianism is that it cannot deal with the huge global problems that are looming - population growth, resources, climate change etc. - that require coordinated global action.” As you know, the population will stabilize soon. The resources are not limitless but there are many renewable ones that can be consumed once the cheaper ones are gone.
“The top 1% pay almost 30% of taxes. LINK Sounds unfair for the 1%… until you think more than 2 seconds about it.” It is unfair to the rich and that is what I have been saying all along. The same problem with unfairness still exists 2 seconds later.


“Here's another angle: The top 1% could pay less tax by getting paid less, the bottom 99% could pay more tax by getting paid more. That would spread the tax burden much more fairly.” That would demotivate people. If you paid doctors the same as a person that mows lawns, there wouldn’t be much incentive for people to try hard to earn a good living and have a good lifestyle. If you give the poor money without working hard for it, it also stops motivating them to work even harder so they can get the money since they are already getting it for little work.


I work very hard for my money. If I could relax and work part-time, have fewer responsibilities, and the job required fewer skills and I would get paid the same, I would take that job in a second. And, that’s where the problem is. Human nature would do the bare minimums required to get their payment and don’t tell me that’s not true because throughout all the jobs that I’ve had, I’ve had a variety of people working for me and 99% of them do the minimum. If I wanted more work out of an employee or give him/her additional responsibilities, I would need to pay them more than the rest of the group or they will not want that job.


“Regarding transparency, the point is to prevent corruption. So you should not be required to suspect something, and then have to go through hoops to find out more.“ There is a vast amount of information out of every office. We have mayors, governors, representatives, senators (at both state and national levels), presidents, vice presidents, and many support staff. It would cost billions to make every individual transaction available immediately for public viewing. So to avoid that cost, it is acceptable for people needing information to request it through the proper channels.


“for example, tax avoiding corporations.” Don’t know what you’re talking about. Corporations earning money within the USA pay income tax multiple times. The company pays taxes on the profits and any capital gains. Then the employees who receive money as salaries from those corporations pay income tax. The investors that get dividends from those profits that already had taxes paid on them, pay taxes again on those dividends. And, investors that make money off the increase in stock values, pay tax. So again I don’t know what tax avoidance you’re referring to. Maybe that happens in the UK or other countries but not in the USA.


“Does libertarianism not apply to groups bigger than friends and neighbours?” It can but since it means that there is less government in control of my money, I get to decide where I spend it instead of the government making that choice. If given the choice, I would help out my immediate family first, then my extended family, then my friends. Hope I clarified that for you.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1016 days ago)

No disrespect to Mrs Cengland0, but I was hoping for a higher standard of expertise - like scientists researching the subject.

This is a really interesting video about what motivates people: LINK

Bear in mind that the research in the video has been replicated over and over all around the globe. So if it contradicts your gut feeling, then it's time to change your thinking to match reality.

Of course I understand that you get annoyed at someone abusing the system, I do to. But to base your politics on a tiny minority of people, is frankly ... so silly I can't even think of an appropriate word.

The world's ills are not created by lazy people with no money - they have ZERO power. The world's ills are created by powerful corrupt people like bankers, dictators, mafia bosses etc. Your politics should be about 'fending off corruption', not 'fending for yourself' which only encourages corruption. You are certainly not stupid, but you really need to expand your thinking a bit, actuall, quite a lot.

" I work very hard for my money... " I'm sure you do, but what does that even mean? Do you work harder than a nurse? Are you more dedicated than a nurse? Are you even more skilled than a nurse? Do you save lives? Are you more useful than a nurse? Would the world be a better place with an extra nurse, or an extra banker?

As for how you'd motivate people, take that scientific research from the video into account. It's likely to produce far better results than your gut feeling.

Talking of which, you seem to think paying high earners more motivates them, but paying low waged people more doesn't. Not only does that not make sense, research shows it's the opposite.

Your ideas about transparency lack imagination. It's as if you think the current system is perfect. The cost of corruption is far higher than the cost of transparency. The current system is corrupt, so it needs to change. Just making government smaller doesn't remove corruption. Actually it makes it worse. Do you know why?

Regarding tax avoidance, you don't seem to understand it. Try Google.

ReplyVote up (71)down (101)
Original comment

No disrespect to Mrs Cengland0, but I was hoping for a higher standard of expertise - like scientists researching the subject.

This is a really interesting video about what motivates people: LINK

Bear in mind that the research in the video has been replicated over and over all around the globe. So if it contradicts your gut feeling, then it's time to change your thinking to match reality.

Of course I understand that you get annoyed at someone abusing the system, I do to. But to base your politics on a tiny minority of people, is frankly ... so silly I can't even think of an appropriate word.

The world's ills are not created by lazy people with no money - they have ZERO power. The world's ills are created by powerful corrupt people like bankers, dictators, mafia bosses etc. Your politics should be about 'fending off corruption', not 'fending for yourself' which only encourages corruption. You are certainly not stupid, but you really need to expand your thinking a bit, actuall, quite a lot.

" I work very hard for my money... " I'm sure you do, but what does that even mean? Do you work harder than a nurse? Are you more dedicated than a nurse? Are you even more skilled than a nurse? Do you save lives? Are you more useful than a nurse? Would the world be a better place with an extra nurse, or an extra banker?

As for how you'd motivate people, take that scientific research from the video into account. It's likely to produce far better results than your gut feeling.

Talking of which, you seem to think paying high earners more motivates them, but paying low waged people more doesn't. Not only does that not make sense, research shows it's the opposite.

Your ideas about transparency lack imagination. It's as if you think the current system is perfect. The cost of corruption is far higher than the cost of transparency. The current system is corrupt, so it needs to change. Just making government smaller doesn't remove corruption. Actually it makes it worse. Do you know why?

Regarding tax avoidance, you don't seem to understand it. Try Google.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1016 days ago)
Latest comment:

“No disrespect to Mrs Cengland0, but I was hoping for a higher standard of expertise - like scientists researching the subject.” I would trust someone that has done that job for 28 years over your opinion on the matter and a random youtube video. Show me a scientific paper — not a youtube video or wikipedia article — that shows poor people currently living off the system want to get off the welfare and work instead.

“But to base your politics on a tiny minority of people, is frankly ... so silly I can't even think of an appropriate word.” If such a tiny minority of people are on the system then there is no problem. Let’s keep capitalism exactly the way it is then.

“The world's ills are not created by lazy people with no money - they have ZERO power. The world's ills are created by powerful corrupt people like bankers, dictators, mafia bosses etc.” Anyone can become a banker. It was not my first job but I wanted a change in career and applied for a low level position and got it. I showed the company I had initiative and progressed higher up the ranks. Poor people have the same voting power as a rich person. It’s still one person = one vote. I agree about dictators and we don’t have dictators in a libertarian government. Mafia bosses run criminal organizations and should be stopped. I suspect you listed bankers along with dictators and mafia bosses to get an emotional reaction from me. You should have included Hitler and murderers too then.

“Do you work harder than a nurse?” Yes.

“Are you more dedicated than a nurse?” Yes.

“Are you even more skilled than a nurse?” Depends on what level of nurse. Also, the skill sets are not compatible for comparison. I’m 100% positive a nurse could not do my job.

“Do you save lives?” Irrelevant. With that logic, you can say farmers save lives by producing food so they are the most important people on the planet and should be paid the highest salaries. Salaries and saving lives are not related. Think a lifeguard on the beach should get paid more than a CEO of a major corporation just because he/she saves lives? If so then you are crazier than I thought.

“Are you more useful than a nurse?” Yes. Keep in mind if there were no banks, people wouldn’t be able to buy houses, cars, and more expensive items that require financing. All their money would be kept at home and get stolen.

“Would the world be a better place with an extra nurse, or an extra banker?” Depends on where the demand is. Hospitals hire nurses as they are needed. Banks hire bankers as they are needed. Maybe you are referring to your NHS where it is overloaded and your nurses and doctors under paid so there is a massive shortage. Our doctors and nurses are appropriately compensated so we don’t have a shortage. Because we are capitalistic, if we did have a shortage, we would increase the pay to encourage more people to go into the nursing field and to retain them as employees.

“you seem to think paying high earners more motivates them, but paying low waged people more doesn't. Not only does that not make sense, research shows it's the opposite.” If you’re trying to tell me that I can pay a garbage man twice his pay, he/she will suddenly collect the trash faster and maintain that throughout their career? I think you have no idea what you are talking about. I also don’t say paying high earners more motivates them. I say the possibility of earning more money for hard work is a motivation. If you knew you would get paid the same regardless of how much work you do, you would do the minimum. You can see this throughout many government jobs where everyone gets paid the same. Look at the DMV for an example. They could care less about the customer and how many people are waiting for service. Then you can look at a CEO where his/her pay is dependent on the profitability of the company. You can see how much more motivated the CEO is to do a good job making money for the business.

“The current system is corrupt” That is your speculation. If you find corruption in the system, let us know where it is so it can be taken care of. Unfortunately you’re all talk and no proof so there is nothing we need to do to change anything. All known corruption has already been addressed.

“making government smaller doesn't remove corruption. Actually it makes it worse. Do you know why?” Please tell me your opinion on that.

“Regarding tax avoidance, you don't seem to understand it. Try Google.” Why can’t you just tell me? Because you cannot give any examples, that’s why. I’ve heard them all before from people in the UK saying that Apple pays no taxes when it’s been shown they pay more taxes than any company in the USA. People talk about coffee shops moving components overseas so they don’t need to pay taxes in the USA. That might be true but only until that money comes back into the USA and they would still pay taxes within the country the operation exists in. If that country doesn’t charge taxes, that’s not the problem of the USA (like I said in my previous comment). It becomes a company outside the USA and we don’t have jurisdiction over those companies. Do you want to start paying USA income tax on your business in the UK? Doubtful.

ReplyVote up (101)down (98)
Original comment
Latest comment:

“No disrespect to Mrs Cengland0, but I was hoping for a higher standard of expertise - like scientists researching the subject.” I would trust someone that has done that job for 28 years over your opinion on the matter and a random youtube video. Show me a scientific paper — not a youtube video or wikipedia article — that shows poor people currently living off the system want to get off the welfare and work instead.

“But to base your politics on a tiny minority of people, is frankly ... so silly I can't even think of an appropriate word.” If such a tiny minority of people are on the system then there is no problem. Let’s keep capitalism exactly the way it is then.

“The world's ills are not created by lazy people with no money - they have ZERO power. The world's ills are created by powerful corrupt people like bankers, dictators, mafia bosses etc.” Anyone can become a banker. It was not my first job but I wanted a change in career and applied for a low level position and got it. I showed the company I had initiative and progressed higher up the ranks. Poor people have the same voting power as a rich person. It’s still one person = one vote. I agree about dictators and we don’t have dictators in a libertarian government. Mafia bosses run criminal organizations and should be stopped. I suspect you listed bankers along with dictators and mafia bosses to get an emotional reaction from me. You should have included Hitler and murderers too then.

“Do you work harder than a nurse?” Yes.

“Are you more dedicated than a nurse?” Yes.

“Are you even more skilled than a nurse?” Depends on what level of nurse. Also, the skill sets are not compatible for comparison. I’m 100% positive a nurse could not do my job.

“Do you save lives?” Irrelevant. With that logic, you can say farmers save lives by producing food so they are the most important people on the planet and should be paid the highest salaries. Salaries and saving lives are not related. Think a lifeguard on the beach should get paid more than a CEO of a major corporation just because he/she saves lives? If so then you are crazier than I thought.

“Are you more useful than a nurse?” Yes. Keep in mind if there were no banks, people wouldn’t be able to buy houses, cars, and more expensive items that require financing. All their money would be kept at home and get stolen.

“Would the world be a better place with an extra nurse, or an extra banker?” Depends on where the demand is. Hospitals hire nurses as they are needed. Banks hire bankers as they are needed. Maybe you are referring to your NHS where it is overloaded and your nurses and doctors under paid so there is a massive shortage. Our doctors and nurses are appropriately compensated so we don’t have a shortage. Because we are capitalistic, if we did have a shortage, we would increase the pay to encourage more people to go into the nursing field and to retain them as employees.

“you seem to think paying high earners more motivates them, but paying low waged people more doesn't. Not only does that not make sense, research shows it's the opposite.” If you’re trying to tell me that I can pay a garbage man twice his pay, he/she will suddenly collect the trash faster and maintain that throughout their career? I think you have no idea what you are talking about. I also don’t say paying high earners more motivates them. I say the possibility of earning more money for hard work is a motivation. If you knew you would get paid the same regardless of how much work you do, you would do the minimum. You can see this throughout many government jobs where everyone gets paid the same. Look at the DMV for an example. They could care less about the customer and how many people are waiting for service. Then you can look at a CEO where his/her pay is dependent on the profitability of the company. You can see how much more motivated the CEO is to do a good job making money for the business.

“The current system is corrupt” That is your speculation. If you find corruption in the system, let us know where it is so it can be taken care of. Unfortunately you’re all talk and no proof so there is nothing we need to do to change anything. All known corruption has already been addressed.

“making government smaller doesn't remove corruption. Actually it makes it worse. Do you know why?” Please tell me your opinion on that.

“Regarding tax avoidance, you don't seem to understand it. Try Google.” Why can’t you just tell me? Because you cannot give any examples, that’s why. I’ve heard them all before from people in the UK saying that Apple pays no taxes when it’s been shown they pay more taxes than any company in the USA. People talk about coffee shops moving components overseas so they don’t need to pay taxes in the USA. That might be true but only until that money comes back into the USA and they would still pay taxes within the country the operation exists in. If that country doesn’t charge taxes, that’s not the problem of the USA (like I said in my previous comment). It becomes a company outside the USA and we don’t have jurisdiction over those companies. Do you want to start paying USA income tax on your business in the UK? Doubtful.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
dananddiana dananddiana (1019 days ago)

None of what you just said addresses the space problem in the UK. It is an Island, The population is currently 63.5 Million. That is a 5 Million increase since 2001. Where do you think they are going to build more houses, Schools, Hospitals? I am saying that... Not only is the country running out of money to fund these things, (Brits already pay very high taxes) They are also running out of space. There has to be control of immigration. X amount leaving, That same amount allowed in. Unlimited immigration is just plain irresponsible of any government, Plus the fact that they are not vetting anyone, so there are many criminals jumping the boat, plane, train to the UK because it is an easy target and they can get paid all kinds of benefits while they ply their trade. The UK is no longer the UK that I grew up in, When I went back a few years ago there were huge ares of one ethnicity or another. There were "No go" areas unless you were Muslim. The Immigrants are NOT assimilating into the British society, They are bringing their own culture and setting up little "Pakistan's, Somalia's, etc etc. The British way of life is disappearing. Many Muslims are calling for Sharia Law. The British government has already allowed Sharia courts to be set up. The UK is bending over backward to "Include everyone" To be "Multicultural" but the immigrants are not doing anything to make themselves part of British society. The country is becoming more and more divisive! At what point do you say enough is enough?

ReplyVote up (101)down (95)
Original comment

None of what you just said addresses the space problem in the UK. It is an Island, The population is currently 63.5 Million. That is a 5 Million increase since 2001. Where do you think they are going to build more houses, Schools, Hospitals? I am saying that... Not only is the country running out of money to fund these things, (Brits already pay very high taxes) They are also running out of space. There has to be control of immigration. X amount leaving, That same amount allowed in. Unlimited immigration is just plain irresponsible of any government, Plus the fact that they are not vetting anyone, so there are many criminals jumping the boat, plane, train to the UK because it is an easy target and they can get paid all kinds of benefits while they ply their trade. The UK is no longer the UK that I grew up in, When I went back a few years ago there were huge ares of one ethnicity or another. There were "No go" areas unless you were Muslim. The Immigrants are NOT assimilating into the British society, They are bringing their own culture and setting up little "Pakistan's, Somalia's, etc etc. The British way of life is disappearing. Many Muslims are calling for Sharia Law. The British government has already allowed Sharia courts to be set up. The UK is bending over backward to "Include everyone" To be "Multicultural" but the immigrants are not doing anything to make themselves part of British society. The country is becoming more and more divisive! At what point do you say enough is enough?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Guesting (1020 days ago)

WalterEgo, your're in a different league than most of those commenting here.

" You are right, There is not enough tax money because all of it is going to support immigrants." Sigh.

Reminds me of the lovely video with John Cleese about stupidity.

ReplyVote up (84)down (121)
Original comment

WalterEgo, your're in a different league than most of those commenting here.

" You are right, There is not enough tax money because all of it is going to support immigrants." Sigh.

Reminds me of the lovely video with John Cleese about stupidity.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
dananddiana dananddiana (1020 days ago)

Are you going to tell me that Britain has a never ending supply of space? That the NHS has never ending funds? That there will always be enough hospitals with a never ending supply of beds? That there is lots of space for building houses? That the hundreds of thousands of children leaving school every day have all got jobs to go to? Saying that the constant influx of immigrants is good for the country is ignoring the basic fact that Britain is an Island with limited ability to support them! You can sigh all you want to, That doesn't mean that what I say is wrong!

ReplyVote up (137)down (94)
Original comment

Are you going to tell me that Britain has a never ending supply of space? That the NHS has never ending funds? That there will always be enough hospitals with a never ending supply of beds? That there is lots of space for building houses? That the hundreds of thousands of children leaving school every day have all got jobs to go to? Saying that the constant influx of immigrants is good for the country is ignoring the basic fact that Britain is an Island with limited ability to support them! You can sigh all you want to, That doesn't mean that what I say is wrong!

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
dananddiana dananddiana (1020 days ago)

I meant..... Every year.

ReplyVote up (92)down (105)
Original comment

I meant..... Every year.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
RELATED POSTS
Gwyneth Paltrow on Harvey Weinstein (1998)
Gwyneth Paltrow on Harvey Weinstein (1998)
Pop-up cards designed by Peter Dahmen
Pop-up cards designed by Peter Dahmen
God, heaven and dirt
God, heaven and dirt
Human puppet
Human puppet
Seth Meyers - Harvey Weinstein, Donald Trump and systemic sexism
Seth Meyers - Harvey Weinstein, Donald Trump and systemic sexism