Nigel Farage

[Rincewind]

Not everyone can afford the extra moose. Do you not say that people should not live beyond their means?

 

There are some people who are unaware that they can switch providers and those providers will do anything to keep customers even telling them that they cannot switch. It is not all down to 'laziness' Sometimes it is people with mental issues or learning disabilities or OAP's.

But in the main I would agree with you that there is a choice if you able to identify them.

[The God Emperor]

 

 

We don't have a true capitalist system now...if we did government bureaucrats and the leading corporations in finance and other essential resources would be a check against each other, rather than in bed with each other. 

I'm nit picking but what do you mean by 'be a check against each other'? would it not be better for them to just have nothing to do with each other unless individuals in society are committing acts of force, coercion or fraud?  

[leicsmac]

Alternative energy suppliers are available to anyone with a phone line. Likewise peer to peer finance, which can be cheaper than banks. Every town and city has alternative suppliers of food within easy reach. The choice not to drink coffee from starbucks or buy consumer products in general isn't location dependent at all. People could direct pretty much all of their spending away from big corporations if they wanted to. But they don't because it might cost a bit more and they're not so bothered by corporations that they're willing to pay the extra. That's their choice, so who is anyone else to tell them that they are wrong?

 

Absolutely no one. It is indeed their freedom of choice, as it should be.

 

However such behaviour does reinforce the status quo, and allows the big multinationals an unprecendented amount of money and therefore power - with a little help from their buddies in the media doing some advertising for them, of course.

 

Something being cheaper than something else is such a powerful motivator these days that it tends to override almost any other consideration - including some pretty fundamental ethical ones. But such is the power of money and materialism in modern society.

 

 

I'm nit picking but what do you mean by 'be a check against each other'? would it not be better for them to just have nothing to do with each other unless individuals in society are committing acts of force, coercion or fraud?  

 

That's pretty much what I meant. They wouldn't be in each others faces all the time, but if one side did something wrong the other would be able to step in and do something about it.

[The God Emperor]

 

 

 

That's pretty much what I meant. They wouldn't be in each others faces all the time, but if one side did something wrong the other would be able to step in and do something about it.

good, just needed to clarify. You'd make a good Randian Libertopian if you'd just drop your advocacy of the welfare state 

[DANGEROUS TIGER]

 Nigel Farage has lambasted his critics, in the very best way possible.   

[leicsmac]

good, just needed to clarify. You'd make a good Randian Libertopian if you'd just drop your advocacy of the welfare state 

 

I actually identify as a Libertarian in many ways.  Certainly from the point of view of personal freedom and the belief that any kind of authority and power should have as many checks and balances as is possible.

 

But I also think todays society is far too materialistic and money-greedy, and that some things are above monetary value - education and health for one thing. Also for all my belief in personal responsibility, I do think there are times when things happen that are utterly beyond a persons control, and they shouldn't have to suffer for that. Hence my belief in the principle of a sturdy welfare state.

[LCFC Rennie]

Robert Kimbell â€@RedHotSquirrel  43m

"UKIP now has an Asian/Muslim MEP, seven women MEPs and a gay MEP. Not bad for a homophobic, racist, sexist party." - Roger Da Costa

[The God Emperor]

I actually identify as a Libertarian in many ways.  Certainly from the point of view of personal freedom and the belief that any kind of authority and power should have as many checks and balances as is possible.

 

But I also think todays society is far too materialistic and money-greedy, and that some things are above monetary value - education and health for one thing. Also for all my belief in personal responsibility, I do think there are times when things happen that are utterly beyond a persons control, and they shouldn't have to suffer for that. Hence my belief in the principle of a sturdy welfare state.

I disagree on education and health care. Advocates of state ran or assisted education or health care usually say "these are too important to be privatised". I say the opposite, they're too important not to be privatised. Look at computers, one of the free-er markets, and you see constant innovation. You buy something from apple and in 6 months time it's obsolete. The quality is constantly going up and the prices falling, would't it be wonderful if our health care and education was like that? Where the brilliant people where able to just be brilliant rather than having a bureaucrat on their shoulder telling how brilliant to be and in what way.

I see no problem with being greedy and wanting more as long as people satisfy that greed by being more productive and not stealing (or getting the government to steal for them) or lying to gain wealth. People being rich is a good thing a capitalist society, people can only become rich by trading and trading is the only human act that has a win-win outcome. "no man can get rich himself unless he enriches other" Earl Nightengale. But I believe very few people become wealthy with the goal of just being wealthy, they have a passion for what they are doing and others are willing to pay for the fruits of that passion.

Not only is a welfare state incompatible with individual rights but if we had a free market it wouldn't be needed anyway. In a free market there are more jobs than people so every one who can work will be able to. Those few that are unable will be taken care of by a more discriminating and better funded private charity. For people between jobs they'll be private unemployment insurance.

[leicsmac]

I disagree on education and health care. Advocates of state ran or assisted education or health care usually say "these are too important to be privatised". I say the opposite, they're too important not to be privatised. Look at computers, one of the free-er markets, and you see constant innovation. You buy something from apple and in 6 months time it's obsolete. The quality is constantly going up and the prices falling, would't it be wonderful if our health care and education was like that? Where the brilliant people where able to just be brilliant rather than having a bureaucrat on their shoulder telling how brilliant to be and in what way.

I see no problem with being greedy and wanting more as long as people satisfy that greed by being more productive and not stealing (or getting the government to steal for them) or lying to gain wealth. People being rich is a good thing a capitalist society, people can only become rich by trading and trading is the only human act that has a win-win outcome. "no man can get rich himself unless he enriches other" Earl Nightengale. But I believe very few people become wealthy with the goal of just being wealthy, they have a passion for what they are doing and others are willing to pay for the fruits of that passion.

Not only is a welfare state incompatible with individual rights but if we had a free market it wouldn't be needed anyway. In a free market there are more jobs than people so every one who can work will be able to. Those few that are unable will be taken care of by a more discriminating and better funded private charity. For people between jobs they'll be private unemployment insurance.

 

Health care and education are both (almost totally) privatised in the USA, and I don't want either of those systems anywhere near here - especially the healthcare one. 

 

Your idea bespeaks of a totally unfettered capitalist society, and the principle is sound...however humans can't operate that way because any system that produces wealth in that way also produces corruption. Because money buys power in today society, this lends itself to those who have it staying there for a long time.

When people become wealthy (sorry, but I don't agree that people don't pursue wealth for its own sake, I think that's almost every human in a nutshell) the most important thing to them becomes holding on to it or getting more of it - and with the power money buys they no longer have to give their consumers a fair deal as they can bribe/intimidate/hostile takeover to reduce competition/buy off a group of politicians and media moguls to pass legislation which means they no longer have to do so. 

 

Truly unregulated capitalism, in short, would work if most humans weren't absolute cvnts to each other as per the evolutionary principle. Sadly, most of them are.

[Guest MattP]

 

Robert Kimbell â€@RedHotSquirrel  43m

"UKIP now has an Asian/Muslim MEP, seven women MEPs and a gay MEP. Not bad for a homophobic, racist, sexist party." - Roger Da Costa

 

 

 

Can hear the head scratching from Barbara Roache from here.

[The God Emperor]

Health care and education are both (almost totally) privatised in the USA, and I don't want either of those systems anywhere near here - especially the healthcare one. 

 

Your idea bespeaks of a totally unfettered capitalist society, and the principle is sound...however humans can't operate that way because any system that produces wealth in that way also produces corruption. Because money buys power in today society, this lends itself to those who have it staying there for a long time.

When people become wealthy (sorry, but I don't agree that people don't pursue wealth for its own sake, I think that's almost every human in a nutshell) the most important thing to them becomes holding on to it or getting more of it - and with the power money buys they no longer have to give their consumers a fair deal as they can bribe/intimidate/hostile takeover to reduce competition/buy off a group of politicians and media moguls to pass legislation which means they no longer have to do so. 

 

Truly unregulated capitalism, in short, would work if most humans weren't absolute cvnts to each other as per the evolutionary principle. Sadly, most of them are.

education in the USA is mainly nationalised. and Health care most certainly isn't either, for every dollar that's spent on health care, over 50 cents is government money. Post Roosevelt USA is not an example of free market capitalism in action, you need to look at 19th century USA for that (minus the slavery in the first half of course).

money buys power in today's society, like you said we do not have a capitalist society today. The rich would not be able to buy politicians and political favours because the state would have nothing to do with the economy. there would be no one to bribe, intimidation would result in being jailed as that is using force and there is nothing wrong with buying out a competitor as long as both parties agree to the trade. 

Money may be part of the motivation, but to be good enough at something to become rich doing it you need to have a passion for it. Steve Jobs, David Beckham, Bill Gates etc where all passionate about what they did. The money they made was a product of them pursuing their values. When I think of someone who just cares about money, I think of people like Bernie Madoff and John Gotti. People who would be put in prison in a capitalist society and today's.

I also don't think most people are horrible cvnts. Take this forum, how many people on here are horrible cvnts? What about in your place of work? The majority of the people I work with aren't and even the people at work who I clash with aren't horrible cvnts.

A capitalist society would work because the societies that have been closest to a pure capitalist society have worked.  

[ADK]

I don't agree with unchecked capitalism at all. I think the role of capitalists is only going to diminish as well.

[The God Emperor]

I don't agree with unchecked capitalism at all. I think the role of capitalists is only going to diminish as well.

If the role of capitalists (whatever they are? advocates of capitalism or do you mean entrepreneurs and business men?) is to diminish then I weep for humanity. History shows that nations that have more capitalism and individualism are prosperous and the opposite, well I don't think of prosperity when I think of feudalism, communism, Fascism, Theocracy or any other collectivist society. 

[ADK]

By capitalists I mean people with capital. I think we'll find capital becomes much less important with further evolution of the internet and cheaper and accessible methods of production.

[The God Emperor]

By capitalists I mean people with capital. I think we'll find capital becomes much less important with further evolution of the internet and cheaper and accessible methods of production.

I wouldn't say less important, just cheaper and easier to get hold of due to more efficient production and distribution methods.