The 2015 Popularity Contest (aka UK General Election )

[Tree13]

He tried to argue that putting a cap on EU immigration is libertarian because it would put all immigration on a level playing field, when actually any immigration cap is anti-libertarian.

LOL. So the current immigration policy, heavily skewed in favour of EU nationals, is more Libertarian? Ok mate.

He tried to argue that UKIPs support for a monculture is libertarian, which it clearly isn't, and he didn't even really give a reason.

And he justified UKIP support for the NHS on the grounds that "well, there are always exceptions", but this is a pretty effin' big one for a party that professes to be libertarian.

What about the other points he made? You know, the ones you've conveniently ignored?

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Clint, I'm interested in your thing about equality of opportunity, as the country obviously has a 'free' education system for all children, so that in itself should be equality of opportunity, but that doesn't sound like it's enough for you.

I don't believe poverty in itself is a barrier to achievement, as evidenced by the excellent school results of poor children from most migrant communities. That suggests parenting is a much bigger factor than anything, and I mean the parenting skills and attitudes rather than their wealth or resources.

You've said, I think, that no child should suffer as a result of useless parents, yet don't seem to have suggested any way around that. You said a bit earlier that the presence of private education/healthcare harms the state system by their mere presence. Do you believe that the welfare system does the same to the parenting situation in that it enables useless parents to have children? If you don't think so, what do you think will improve the parenting skills/outlook of currently useless parents?

 

[Blue 1]

LOL. So the current immigration policy, heavily skewed in favour of EU nationals, is more Libertarian? Ok mate.


What about the other points he made? You know, the ones you've conveniently ignored?

That's a non-sequitur. If UKIP is a libertarian party, they shouldn't be proposing immigration caps. The current policy doesn't matter.

I don't have to go through every point, all I'm trying to do is show that UKIP aren't a libertarian party, which those points illustrate just fine.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

LOL. So the current immigration policy, heavily skewed in favour of EU nationals, is more Libertarian? Ok mate.


What about the other points he made? You know, the ones you've conveniently ignored?

It's a bit of a red herring isn't it? As far as I can tell, most parties seem to borrow bits and pieces from all over the place. Labour for instance are seen as a party of the left, yet are socially fairly right wing.

 

[Jxg]

He tried to argue that UKIPs support for a monculture is libertarian, which it clearly isn't, and he didn't even really give a reason.

And he justified UKIP support for the NHS on the grounds that "well, there are always exceptions", but this is a pretty effin' big one for a party that professes to be libertarian.

Okay, I know I had stopped, but you're misrepresenting my argument.

Currently we are limited on how many migrants we can take in from the rest of the world because we have to have an open doors policy from the EU. Ending this open doors policy allows migrants from the entire world an equal chance to come to the UK based on their worth to the country (read: whether they are needed or not by business or state. Libertarian).

I had to Google monoculture because if I'm honest, I've never heard of it.

Monoculture is the agricultural practice of producing or growing a single crop or plant species over a wide area and for a large number of consecutive years. It is widely used in modern industrial agriculture and its implementation has allowed for large harvests from minimal resources.

Maybe try making up words that aren't already taken. Regardless, nowhere does it say that UKIP will support a single culture, but rather, end support for multiculturalism and let British culture sort itself out. Libertarian.

Yes, there will always be exceptions. Ron Paul, for example, disagrees with the common libertarian view on immigration, yet he is still classified as a libertarian.

Okay, now I really am done. Feel free to misread anything else I say.

 

[Blue 1]

OK, you got me, I should've said homogenous culture.

I'm not really sure what you mean by letting British culture sort itself out. I thought that's what it did anyway.

 

[Tree13]

That's a non-sequitur. If UKIP is a libertarian party, they shouldn't be proposing immigration caps. The current policy doesn't matter.

When judged against the current government's policy, and labour's proposed policy, the UKIP policy is more Libertarian. That isn't to say it's a true 100% manifestation of Libertarian thinking, but by choosing to ignore context and valid comparisons you are once again putting your head in the sand.

I don't have to go through every point, all I'm trying to do is show that UKIP aren't a libertarian party, which those points illustrate just fine.

Three points is a pretty small sample size. If you think that's representative enough to inform your opinions and voting decisions, that's your call. But by ignoring the other points raised in JXG's argument, you risk failing to convince others of the veracity of your position.

 

[Blue 1]

When judged against the current government's policy, and labour's proposed policy, the UKIP policy is more Libertarian. That isn't to say it's a true 100% manifestation of Libertarian thinking, but by choosing to ignore context and valid comparisons you are once again putting your head in the sand.


Three points is a pretty small sample size. If you think that's representative enough to inform your opinions and voting decisions, that's your call. But by ignoring the other points raised in that poster's argument, you risk failing to convince others of the veracity of your position.

Kinda fair. I was doing it very much in a rush as I shouldn't really be on GOT at work

 

[Clint Planet]

The underlying supposition in my post is ACTUALLY the belief that all parents SHOULD make an informed choice about having children, rather than simply having them and then expecting others to pick up the bill. I said nothing about whether or not those parents have had "fair crack of the whip", because I don't believe it is particularly relevant. The role the government has to play in a child's life is NOT greater than the role the parents should play - that doesn't ignore the government's role at all, it merely places it in a context that you don't agree with.

Nonetheless, it was simplistic and, I think, unhelpful in that it seems to yet again demonise the poor for being somehow irresponsible when we both know that many people in poverty are not irresponsible. In fact, it could be argued that it is the very wealthy and the privileged who created the economic conditions in which many peolle find themselves today.

Coming from someone who very much toes the NUT line whenever the discussion touches on private education, I find this comment a little ironic.

Do I toe the NUT line? I really don't know what the NUT's party line is. They are my own beliefs, my friend.

As the previous poster pointed out, if compassion for others is so important to you that anyone who doesn't share your views must be lambasted, then why don't you do something compassionate yourself, rather than demanding the government do it for you?

Or we could have both.

 

[Tree13]

Kinda fair. I was doing it very much in a rush as I shouldn't really be on GOT at work

I know that problem! I have got around it today by simply not going to work

 

[Clint Planet]

Clint, I'm interested in your thing about equality of opportunity, as the country obviously has a 'free' education system for all children, so that in itself should be equality of opportunity, but that doesn't sound like it's enough for you.

Do you not think that the existence of the class system and private schooling creates an unequal playing field, holding back people who are not "from the right background"?

I don't believe poverty in itself is a barrier to achievement, as evidenced by the excellent school results of poor children from most migrant communities. That suggests parenting is a much bigger factor than anything, and I mean the parenting skills and attitudes rather than their wealth or resources.

Just because a certain section of the community are able to surmount the obstacles placed befroe them, does not mean that other children are not held back. Poverty IS a barrier to achievement. It's slightly disturbing that you're trying to make out that it isnt.

You've said, I think, that no child should suffer as a result of useless parents, yet don't seem to have suggested any way around that. You said a bit earlier that the presence of private education/healthcare harms the state system by their mere presence. Do you believe that the welfare system does the same to the parenting situation in that it enables useless parents to have children? If you don't think so, what do you think will improve the parenting skills/outlook of currently useless parents?

I think it's a massive, long-term, mess of a problem which is so incredibly deeprooted that it will take a long time to ever rectify. As I've said before, the British "working class" are held in such contempt by the ruling class these days that I truly despair of this country. "Benefit Street" seems to be the oprating stereotype with which to beat them and yet I see such a different type in and around my school (along with the 'Baby Peter' types, of course). They are keen to get on and yet are somehow held back.[/quote][/QUOTE]

 

[steken1]

Do you not think that the existence of the class system and private schooling creates an unequal playing field, holding back people who are not "from the right background"?



Just because a certain section of the community are able to surmount the obstacles placed befroe them, does not mean that other children are not held back. Poverty IS a barrier to achievement. It's slightly disturbing that you're trying to make out that it isnt.



I think it's a massive, long-term, mess of a problem which is so incredibly deeprooted that it will take a long time to ever rectify. As I've said before, the British "working class" are held in such contempt by the ruling class these days that I truly despair of this country. "Benefit Street" seems to be the oprating stereotype with which to beat them and yet I see such a different type in and around my school (along with the 'Baby Peter' types, of course). They are keen to get on and yet are somehow held back.

[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

Clint, do you honestly believe that the responsibility for poor educational outcomes lays more with the government and the 'establishment' than the childrens parents?

 

[Tree13]

Nonetheless, it was simplistic and, I think, unhelpful in that it seems to yet again demonise the poor for being somehow irresponsible when we both know that many people in poverty are not irresponsible. In fact, it could be argued that it is the very wealthy and the privileged who created the economic conditions in which many peolle find themselves today.

It's simplistic only in that it goes directly to the root cause. You interpret it as demonisation, but all I'm asking is why, when money is tight, would someone choose to have children? I have a budget, so do you, so does everyone. Why are some people so quick to completely ignore budgeting when it comes to having kids? I accept that many people in poverty are not irresponsible, but this does not make it impossible that many other people in poverty are irresponsible. Irresponsibility is not the sole preserve of the middle classes.

You have a point re the causes of the current economic conditions - but people must still make decisions for themselves bearing their current circumstances in mind. You can't control what life throws at you, but you can control how you choose to respond (or indeed plan ahead).

Do I toe the NUT line? I really don't know what the NUT's party line is. They are my own beliefs, my friend.

I am fully convinced that they are your own views - you put them forward with passion and eloquence, and often back them up with evidence. I respect that regardless of the fact that I disagree with almost all of them. They also happen to tally up almost 100% with the articles in the copy of the NUT magazine that arrives every month here at Casa de Tree. It's starting to feel like you're writing a letter to me every month

Or we could have both.

In utopia? Yes.

In reality, i don't agree that public funds should be devoted forever more to simply picking up the pieces - it's akin to treating the symptoms of hayfever and then saying nothing when the person with the allergy goes rolling around on a freshly-mown lawn.

 

[Tree13]

Do you not think that the existence of the class system and private schooling creates an unequal playing field, holding back people who are not "from the right background"?

PLEASE don't start this again. Everyone is fully convinced of their own views on this topic, and no-one accepts anyone else's arguments.

 

[Clint Planet]

In utopia? Yes.

I reject the Utopia comment. I'm not saying we can build a Utopia: I am saying we should aim to make things better for everyone, not least the children who are victims of their parents' circumstances. It is not pie in the sky to wish to do so.

In reality, i don't agree that public funds should be devoted forever more to simply picking up the pieces - it's akin to treating the symptoms of hayfever and then saying nothing when the person with the allergy goes rolling around on a freshly-mown lawn.

Oh, I agree. I think you (and Bruce and just about every right wing person) equate all of this with increasing benefits and mums living on the dole with 8 kids and another on the way. It really isn't as simple as that, though. This country needs to invest in people. It needs to give back some self-respect to the working class. It needs to work at creating an atmosphere of opportunity and mutual respect. Difficult, but not impossible.

To do anything less is to punish those children below the breadline (in the United Kingdom in the 21st Century!) simply for being poor.