Debating the debaters

[Devonian]

Quote:I guess this mean's I'm off NR's ignore list haha.

Who said that??

[Scythe13]

(2 April 2014, 20:02)Devonian Wrote:

Quote:I guess this mean's I'm off NR's ignore list haha.

Who said that??

Yeah, that's probably too much of a long shot haha.

[River Song]

When I was a little younger, I would debate and get involved in all kinds of contentious issues
(usually on the losing side!)

Nowadays - I walk away. If there is something that I see on the forum, (and I always come back to SUK)
that I don't like or annoys me, then I just move on. I just don't have the energy left. In the words of Caroline Conran "Life's too short so stuff a mushroom".

However
To avoid unwanted surprises like The Yom Kippur war with Egypt and Syria in 1973, Israel had instituted a policy known as “the tenth man.”

It goes like this:

When nine people agree on something, it’s the tenth man’s responsibility to disagree no matter how improbable the idea.

Hmmmmmm - I really like that policy

[Steve]

I learn things from people who annoy me, perhaps they learn something from me too. I can be entirely opposed to somebodys view on one subject yet in agreement on another one. For example, I regard NRs illogical hatred of anything remotely socialist as misguided, on the other hand NR is the reason I joined this site after he expressed some sensible opinions on the PowerSwitch forum.

My "Ignore" list is unused and will remain so, it's too easy to misread someone. Another example: If you had just joined and read a post by RiverSong ending with the tag line "Why does prepper clothing look so damn ugly? Why does prepper food taste so bad? I'm wondering whether we can start a line of designer prepper stuff and gourmet food" you might conclude that her posts were not going to be important. You'd be very wrong, if you need proof look at recent posts on local phone networks, outstanding work.

[NorthernRaider]

Socialism is simply a polite term used by the left to describe their parasitic beliefs, each according to their need, state control over everything, nationalisation, the welfare state, but more importantly it is a system that does not work, has never worked and will never work, it relies upon the workers subsidising or carrying ever more dependants most of whom they are not related to.

VOLUNTARY cooperation can work, forced or compulsory cooperation will never work.

---

The NET end result of socialist policies
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...efits.html

That equates to socialists taking the food from my childrens mouths

---

Aaah the joys of socialism, I get to pay 40% tax for
Subsidised council houses
Sports Centres
Ring and ride bus services
Meals on wheels subsidies
OAP homes
Battered wife shelters
Sure start centres
Asylum seeker support centres
Gay and Lesbian Advice centres
Drug rehab centres
Alcohol abuse referral facilities
Libraries
Swimming pools
G L and trans support groups
Diversity awareness centers

ETC ETC

and though I don't and wont ever use such facilities I am expected to pay for them.

Now Steve in a FAIR and JUST society those who USE a service the most should PAY the most, and those who use a service little or not at all should not pay anything. But socialism is simply one life form living off another life for like a parasite, that Sir is immoral, perverse and wrong.

---

Yup just got an E mail from another reader who describes socialism as simply" Legalised theft"

[Steve]

And there he goes again. But, he will post something sensible again later, which is why he will never be on my "ignore" list.

[Devonian]

(3 April 2014, 22:11)Steve Wrote: And there he goes again. But, he will post something sensible again later, which is why he will never be on my "ignore" list.

Not really, his post is spot on, but then I pay $hit load tax and I also think the Bedroom Tax is fully justified.

Also bring back the Poll Tax where every individual (rather than households) pay their way. Why should households with one or two adults have to paid the same as their neighbours with say 8 adults? The house with 8 uses far more resources and so should pay more.

[Timelord]

A house with two adults uses far more resources per person than a house with 8 in. The 8 have to live somewhere and based on the two per house model, that would equal 4 houses instead of one. By this system, the two in the one house should pay more per head than the house with 8 in.
This shows that you can argue black is white and visa versa just like politicians. so who cares?

Another thing, as per NR's earlier post - in a JUST & FAIR SOCIETY (catchy last word don't you think - "SOCIETY") then the labour is not divided equally due to the presence of different specialisms within it. This allows an advancement of the society from a subsistence level. Inherently this produces discrepancies in the fair balance of labour or at any rate to the individuals perception of it. Measuring what a diverse range of individuals with varying specialisms or without any specialism actually uses and being able to quantify what is JUST & FAIR is not as simple as saying everyone pays for their share of what they use.. I presume this would be at a standardised same rate across the board. Sounds suspiciously like a general social policy to me? Isn't it weird how words can go round & round? lol, TL.[/align]

[Devonian]

When I say resources, I am talking about the public services for which Council Tax/Poll Tax is used.

So if you assume a council tax bill of £2K per property, the house with 2 adults equates to £1000 per adult (tax payer), whereas with the house with 8 adults, they are only paying £250 each.

Yet the house with 8 people has more people generating rubbish which needs to be collected; more people using council services; more people using leisure services; more people using with children needing child care; more people needing social services; more people making use of parks; more people making streets dirty; more elderly people needing support services etc etc etc.....

Whereas with the poll tax, if everyone paid say £500 each, the house with 2 people (who use proportionately fewer services) pay £1000, and the House with 8 (who use many more services) pay £4000 - that is FAIR and JUST in my opinion!!

[Timelord]

Neither is fair as both views are diametrically polarised. The scenario I suggested was just showing that. In reality it would only be fair if every individual was measured against their environmental and economic impact. Of the two views already put forward, one is taken from the ideal of the tax being based on the individual and the other view is taken from the ideal of the tax being based on the property. As shown this does not work fairly in the environmental and in the economic areas at the same time with different amounts of residents. What is needed is a system that takes into account the variables. As usual the politicians like to set one area of society against the other rather than have the attention turned in their direction. How a successful system would be worked I expect would be a minefield of conflicting interests. Regards, TL.

---

Your suggestion of £500 each as a midway figure goes some way to solving that. Maybe you should run for a local parliamentary candidate? ... Then again you probably just showed too much common sense for that. lol