Police State?

[Nebbiolo]

Having grown up in a police state (South Africa in the Apartheid era), and having spent time in the UK - not even close.

Exactly. People whinge about a lot of petty, trivial freedoms in Europe and the US. Maybe if people had tried living under military dictatorships and the like they would view things differently.

 

[Nebbiolo]

i don't think high taxes is a mark of a lacking freedom necessarily, just a necessary sacrifice to maintain society and prevent oneself from returning to a volatile state of nature.

people, especially the wealthy who contribute most of those tax dollars, always have mobility as an option. the market's that have made them rich are the products of a society maintained by that taxation, if they don't like it, they could always forfeit all their wealth and go live with the african bushmen.

Another good post. We've no choice but to agree to things like taxation and rule by the state because the alternative, the state of nature you refer to, is a place we don't want to visit. Without the state: 'Life is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.'

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Another good post. We've no choice but to agree to things like taxation and rule by the state because the alternative, the state of nature you refer to, is a place we don't want to visit. Without the state: 'Life is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.'

How does that work??

 

[Nebbiolo]

How does that work??

The state of nature is when there is no state or rule of law to govern behaviour. Without rule of law, society cannot properly exist. Essentially the view says that we would run into a world in which conflict would reign supreme. Each man would have license to do what he chooses. This leads to 'a war of all against all'. We avoid this by giving up rights to a sovereign authority for the sake of our own protection.

This is basic social contract theory. I've no time to explain more as I need to get back to my class. Look up Hobbes, and you'll get a good explanation. You might also try Socrates and social contracttheory as he also had a lot to say about our duties to maintaining the state.
.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

I've mentioned that I'm quite happy for the state to look after law and order. How does that relate to all the other things though?

 

[toffeestillidie]

It really has nothing to do with Ayn Rand or Ronald Reagan. It's a basic principle of complex systems. Evolution is a system that works without one person/organisation directing things, I think when we did try to control evolution it was called eugenics and didn't work out so well. Language is another system that has no controlling force and is left to evolve naturally. Economics is undoubtably another, the Internet another. AI uses the same principles.

It simply isn't possible for any centralised organisation to know how to direct my life better than I myself know, and that applies to each and every one of us, and it applies for the simple fact that they cannot possibly have the information that we have about our lives. Rolling out the plight of the poor is a usual tactic when arguing for state intervention but it really has nothing to do with that.

This paragon that is the state after all has given society over 50 years of so called free education yet we still get thousands of kids leaving school unable to read and write. The Dickensian insight into a future of uneducated masses roaming the streets comitting crime and debauchery is surely already here. We need another approach. Our current one has been tried for some 70 years and is failing miserably. If the kids can't read or write they take dumbed down exams that universities tell us ill equip students for the basic rigours of a degree course.

Once again, to use education as the source, we live in a society where government overtly dictates how children are educated. What if that method is wrong? Have you thought about it? Where's the innovation in how children learn? One of the great things about a market is the diffusion of ideas. There's an incentive to improve because you increase market share. It doesn't have to operate on a for profit basis, after all the private school system is operated on charitable status.

Likewise this utopian world of preventative healthcare. Where has this gone? We've had the NHS for 70 years and still people smoke themselves to an early grave. Still people eat themselves into clinical obesity. Still some 50% of all births are unplanned. Alcoholism is destroying the nations livers. Where exactly is this utopian society of unbridled state governed health? Do people not know how to put a condom on, or how eating Big Macs will be bad for their health? This system simply is not working.

It's interesting that you mention organic society Leon, and I quite agree, except by its very nature, organic systems develop from the bottom up. They don't develop from the top down. This is precisely what I'm advocating. One of the things I'm hoping to talk to the club about in the new year is this very topic. Rather than using the club as the sole source of ideas (ie top down) I want them to utilise the brains of all of us fans, the diversity of opinions and experience that we each have. Get us solving problems and providing insight because the chances are so much higher that we could do it than they could.

This isn't some missive about rich and poor, it's a dictum for the rights of man. It's about how each and every one of us has the capabilities to do great things without a nanny presence looming over us. It seems that I have faith in humanity whereas you don't. That's a shame. That's a real shame.

People control evolution quite well actually. Think about how many people with traits that make them less able to survive still make it to reproductive age? simply by living in civilized society, we ensure that the human species can never really evolve further. the same goes for language, we allow it to evolve, but still have language academies for languages to regulate and control this evolution.

i agree that the state can't know how you should best run your life, mainly because "better" is a subjective term. but the issue is that without government intervention, many individuals will lack the ability to control their own lives in the direction they want, due to lack of education or resources.

lets look at your example of education. first of all, we must consider the end goals of education, whether it is to make an individual simply more intelligent, or whether it is meant to prepare them to succeed financially. your benefits to private education, the incentive to improve, only apply if the end goal of education is the latter, in which case a purely market based approach would purge education of any elements that weren't conducive the marketability of students. i have often considered whether our education system is flawed, and one of my greatest complaints is that it kills the individual sense of creativity, because school's generally teach students that there is only one correct answer to questions. additionally, essay-based classes focus on students applying the ideas of others rather than coming up with their own. raising these concerns within a democratic government may lead to some change, as experts in charge of setting up the system may see the benefit in changing it. under a private system however, fostering creativity would most likely not improve the productivity numbers of the schools, which in turn would not fit the profit motive bottom line, and thus would be less likely to be considered.

you mention that the system doesn't have to operate on a for-profit basis, but if this is the case, then where does this incentive to change come from? would you really want to hinge something as important as education on the volitility of charity? where is this outpouring of charity to educate a nation going to come from. i'd rather have compulsory taxes fund education then cross my fingers and hope people are nice enough to pay for it.

you say this not about a rich versus poor scenario, but that is ultimately the effect of privatization. if we put a price on affective education, the rich can pay for it, and the poor cannot, which would kill any notion of class mobility. even if education would be better in the private sector (which i'm not admitting, but that certainly is arguable), it would be concentrated amongst the wealthy, i don't see how you can view this as a positive outcome.

the issue of dumbed down exams is a pragmatic flaw, but not an inherent flaw within the notion of public education. what is more likely the issue is a lack of public concern over the issue. if people don't demand from their politicians that their children are educated to high enough standards to let them succeed at uni, what makes you think that in a private system there will be any incentive to make standards any higher. to me it seems the same apathy over results would occur.

as for healthcare, you seem to be holding it to an unfair standard. noone (atleast no one credible) claims that it will create a perfect system, just that it is comparatively better than the alternative. in the absence of state run healthcare, you end up with misaligned incentives. why cure a disease when you can treat it and make way more money? i live in the united states, and cannot watch 30 minutes of television without seeing atleast 3 drug commercials, so much money is spent convincing people that they're sick. as for people who's actions damage their own health, this seems a much greater argument for nationalization. the private sector has no incentive to stop people from buying cigarettes or alcohol or big macs, and the health care industries wouldn't want to stop this when they're making tonnes of money treating the resulting conditions. the state on the other hand, would have an incentive to keep costs down, as they wouldn't be making money off these treatments, plus the state's purpose is to look out for the general welfare, so they can launch campaigns to educate people about these issues. the problem isn't that the state is running the show, but rather that the particular states we're discussing have misplaced their priorities.

its funny how you should mention your faith in humanity. liberals (atleast in america) are generally seen as the more naiive people, those who's views are based on their hearts rather than their heads. maybe liberals do have too much faith that things like welfare programs won't be abused and that people will work hard if they have a helping hand, but considering magnitude alone, i'd much rather a system where the poor can exploit it for minimum personal benefit at minimal expense to the state, rather than one where the rich can exploit the rest of society for immense personal benefit.

i too believe this issue is about the rights of man, and i believe that to excersise one's rights, one needs certain capabilities. one must have the education to be able to think critically and formulate one's own ideas, one must be able to live, and have the resources to act. giving you the right to eat does you know good if you can't afford food.

it seems easy for you to say that you have faith in humanity. how often have you been exposed to humanity's dark side? have you had to struggle to feed your children, not even trying to feed yourself while people not to far away live in excessive opulence? have you been the victim of genocide? have you been cheated out of your life savings by a deceptive corporation or been cheated out of coverage by an HMO for a life threatening condition based on a technicality? thankfully, i can say that i've never had to deal with any of these, but i can sympathize with those who have, and i realize that while humanity has been good to me, others have not been so fortunate. i have faith in the goodness of humanity, but i also take notice of those who have suffered in its absense. to forget them, and to establish a system that leaves them ever vulnerable to those who wield the wealth and control the strings, that my friend is the real shame.

 

[Bluelass]

Having grown up in a police state (South Africa in the Apartheid era), and having spent time in the UK - not even close.

Spot on.
We have much to learn from the past and no, we shouldnt allow our freedoms to become eroded by intervention from Government but surely it's not just about the police, or the free market?

'One man's freedom is another man's shackels'

One man's 'freedom' to make vast sums of money through commerce could well mean supporting child labour in a far off place which, who cares, they're grateful for the chance to earn a few pennies anyway....(that's not ME saying that)

One man's freedom to convince young people that it's okay to steal and kill, is another families misery.

Freedom is a relative concept.

I too can remember the Thatcher years, the hours I spent in the miners soup kitchens - never a bit of lamb or veg from the farmers by the way, which is why I still spit when I see 'support British farmers' stickers or posters. They [Poor language removed] well never helped British workers in their hours of need, driving around in their Subarus and Hondas. Now they're all moaning about the lack of subsidies - shame - get on your bikes and find another job just like Uncle Norman told the rest of us to do. [Poor language removed] parasites.

Sorry about the language chaps but we have to stop for a minute and cast our minds back to those truely awful days of the early 80's when millions of manufacturing jobs just disappeared and went overseas and the futures of our children disappeared with them.

Generations of lads from around here worked in the steel industry or down the pit - gone, virtually everything has gone. At least then they had something to aim for, what exactly is on offer these days?
Please don't say that if they want a job they'll find one, yes some will but there just arent enough to go around and quite frankly, some of the young people are already 'lost' but that's for another thread.
Airbus is still here but that too will be hit with the global recession on the way.

All of those young people who perhaps couldnt make it in an academic profession at least had an apprentiship to aim for or at the very least a job of some sorts before that bloody woman came to power. She took away the working man's dignity, she broke the working class and made us feel like the scum of the earth.
She made people ashamed of who they were and where they came from.
If anyone wants an answer to why Liverpool has the reputation it has, the Thatcher years play a big part.

I don't deny that some change was needed but the speed at which it was introduced gave no one any chance to manage it mentally or financially or any other way.

I dodged the bullet of redundancy and am blessed with having worked all my adult life.
I really am fortunate, a good education, a career, a roof over my head and food on the table as well as loving parents and loyal friends. Some hard times along the way but never the abject misery that I saw around me in those years, the despair and the hopelessness of it all.

Quite simply - that is and has always been my freedom.



I make no apologies for my show of vitriol towards that woman and I won't apologise if it offends, ban me if you wish.
I hate her with every ounce of my being for what she did to us and will dance on her grave.
Those of you who are too young to remember those years should sit for a moment with someone who lived through it in Merseyside, perhaps they will back up what I have said.

Rant over

 

[atrottel]

I've mentioned that I'm quite happy for the state to look after law and order. How does that relate to all the other things though?

Why does the nanny state theoretically act in a better manner in law and order than in health or education?

 

[Whitebootman]

Spot on Bluelass. As one of 'uncle norms' cycling team now living away from the place I call home your comments echo my thoughts.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Why does the nanny state theoretically act in a better manner in law and order than in health or education?

I'm kinda throwing you a bone with that one I think however that law and order is much slower to change and the rule of law can more widely be applied to a mass populous.

In both health and education we need both innovation and unique products offered to people depending on their circumstances. Both require a variety of service providers to enable this to happen.

 

[Nebbiolo]

I've mentioned that I'm quite happy for the state to look after law and order. How does that relate to all the other things though?

The state creates the order that we flourish under. It provides the famework from which society operates. It is the state that has organised our education, from which you have clearly personally benefited. It provides health care and, importantly, has provided the money and resources in which many deadly diseases have been eradicated. It is the state that organised our roads. The state creates an atmoshere in which the arts can floursih. Science without the state would be tin pot affair. Everything good that we have in society is because of the formation of the state. Try and see the state as a moral enterprise rather than at best an evil that is tolerated. If we went down the minimalist road that you recommend, I'm convinced that society would cease to be workable.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

That's just it though Neb, my schooling was rubbish. I left school with a C, D and E at A-Levels. Pretty darn poor and I left knowing next to nothing about anything. It was much the same during my undergrad degree. It wasn't until I saw the light and started reading widely and deeply that my understanding of things grew. Having worked within the education system my disdain for it grew still further.

 

[coyney]

Having grown up in a police state (South Africa in the Apartheid era), and having spent time in the UK - not even close.

I went there to do a job for my employer at the time and was appalled at it and have to agree as bad as ours is (and it is bad I was assaulted by police for assisting a injured miner during the struggle years ago)We were told where we could drink as you know bars were segregated and as I had mates of different skin tones and nationalities I felt I had betrayed them going.I saw a black guy kicked to death outside a shop in Jo-burg and people just walked past as if it was someone getting a parking ticket.I was told as a guest in the country to mind my own business we finished our job that week and I refused to ever go back as the company wanted us(3man team)to return later neither of the guys with me went either.

 

[Nebbiolo]

That's just it though Neb, my schooling was rubbish. I left school with a C, D and E at A-Levels. Pretty darn poor and I left knowing next to nothing about anything. It was much the same during my undergrad degree. It wasn't until I saw the light and started reading widely and deeply that my understanding of things grew. Having worked within the education system my disdain for it grew still further.

I didn't say it would be perfect, but the fact that you did A levels and could then go onto university kinda of proves my point. The books that you went on to read after your formal education were also written under conditions in which academic excellence was being allowed to flourish. Without the state, it is hardly likely that academic books would even be available to your average Joe, or that he would be capable of reading them anyway.

 

[coyney]

The state creates the order that we flourish under. It provides the famework from which society operates. It is the state that has organised our education, from which you have clearly personally benefited. It provides health care and, importantly, has provided the money and resources in which many deadly diseases have been eradicated. It is the state that organised our roads. The state creates an atmoshere in which the arts can floursih. Science without the state would be tin pot affair. Everything good that we have in society is because of the formation of the state. Try and see the state as a moral enterprise rather than at best an evil that is tolerated. If we went down the minimalist road that you recommend, I'm convinced that society would cease to be workable.

John during the miners strike I went to some of the places to help out with getting the aide and although there never joined in with the violence but in Yorkshire I was hit with a batton for dragging a injured miner away from the mayhem the policeman that did it knew I was not part of it as I had spoke to him before it started.they were taunting the miners with remarks like thanks to you my family are getting a nice holiday this year and others were singing were in the money this in the end caused a lot of the miners to react which was what the police wanted and no mention of this reached the papers so was there censorship?as reporters witnessed the same as I did.