Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Executive Sadman

Is Leftism A Disease Of The Mind?

Recommended Posts

Leftism, social democracy, pseudo liberalism, is it only curable by lobotomy?

I can't bear listening rightists - who run around spouting free markets, every man for himself, no minimum wage, no benefits etc, survival of the fittest who have never run a business in their lives or done anything remotely entreprenurial , and indeed work in cushty dull office jobs that create no value.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Leftism, social democracy, pseudo liberalism, is it only curable by lobotomy?

it is certainly a disease................the sort of social engineering and doublespeak leftists specialise in, in reverse may also be worth a try.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this thread is pretty insulting, especially to people with diseases of the mind.

Youre just saying that to disagree with me.

But point accepted, if i had a disease of the mind, i too would be insulted to be compared to a leftist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest UK Debt Slave

Is the poll not a bit biased? :lol:

Yes! LOL LOL!

Doesn't matter though because the answer is YES

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest UK Debt Slave

What does this jargon mean?

Not much

It's just differentiating between those who think for themselves and those who believe what they are told.

The whole left wing/right wing paradigm is a bit of a red herring. Either you believe in self responsibility and running your own life or you believe in the state providing for you. The real division is the one that is isn't spoken of much in modern poitics, small versus big government. Cameron is a big government liberal masquerading as a conservative. Brown/Mandelson/Bliar were big government corporatists masquerading as (benign) socialists.

They are all the same really

They are all control freaks and they all want their hands in your pockets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not much

It's just differentiating between those who think for themselves and those who believe what they are told.

The whole left wing/right wing paradigm is a bit of a red herring. Either you believe in self responsibility and running your own life or you believe in the state providing for you. The real division is the one that is isn't spoken of much in modern poitics, small versus big government. Cameron is a big government liberal masquerading as a conservative. Brown/Mandelson/Bliar were big government corporatists masquerading as (benign) socialists.

They are all the same really

They are all control freaks and they all want their hands in your pockets.

Well said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Either you believe in self responsibility and running your own life or you believe in the state providing for you.

You've forgotten a large group: people who believe in living off the work of others.

They are the core voters of the Tories.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest UK Debt Slave

You've forgotten a large group: people who believe in living off the work of others.

They are the core voters of the Tories.

What about all the public sector workers, council officials, state bureaucrats and civil servants, many of whom earn handsome salaries and enjoy very generous final salary pensions, paid for by the productive sector of the economy.

I'd say most tory voters are just ordinary people trying to earn a crust without clinging onto the shirt tales of the state and they employ people and create wealth without being dependents. What is your problem with that?

Ah yes. You are a socialist! That explains it all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd say most tory voters are just ordinary people trying to earn a crust without clinging onto the shirt tales of the state and they employ people and create wealth without being dependents. What is your problem with that?

And you don't have a problem with that?

Seems I overestimated you.

A vote for the tories, labour or liberal is a vote for penury. I'm thinking your username is a badge of honour.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd say most tory voters are just ordinary people trying to earn a crust without clinging onto the shirt tales of the state and they employ people and create wealth without being dependents. What is your problem with that?

wishful thinking indebted one.

the roots of the tory party are landed interests.

during and just prior to, the industrial revolution, it was the tories who advocated protectionism to ensure that the return to land and agriculture exceeded that due to innovation and labour.

toryism has nothing to do with a small state - the tories were in power half the time the british empire was built, the liberals the other half.

tory versus labour is very simple when it comes down to basics: it is the interest of the landed versus non-landed sectors of the british population. simple as that. the old (19th century) liberal party was a different animal - it represented the interest of a new breed of financial and industrial elite, which has since gone global, and is therefore not directly represented in british politics any more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hate all these nampy pampy yoghurt eating lefty liberals and their vested interests.

What we need is to adopt more laissez faire thinking. We need to destroy this dangerous notion of 'society' with big government tax and spending. We need to get rid of government and tax. People should be allowed to keep what they have and not have it taxed away. We need to abolish taxes tomorrow and rid ourselves of the parasitical state sector. People are capable of banding together and looking after themselves without interference from meddling Governments.

Free marketing warlordism is the way forward. Why can't any of you see this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hate all these nampy pampy yoghurt eating lefty liberals and their vested interests.

What we need is to adopt more laissez faire thinking. We need to destroy this dangerous notion of 'society' with big government tax and spending. We need to get rid of government and tax. People should be allowed to keep what they have and not have it taxed away. We need to abolish taxes tomorrow and rid ourselves of the parasitical state sector. People are capable of banding together and looking after themselves without interference from meddling Governments.

Free marketing warlordism is the way forward. Why can't any of you see this?

It is not so much abolition of government, but there is a need to re-balance the relationship between the state and the individual citizen. What can be provided by individuals for themselves should not be the concern of the State. Government should exist within strict spending limits and taxes should be limited to an agreed maximum (eg. not to exceed 20% of GDP), time delimited (when a tax is introduced it is always for a specified period eg. not to exceed 10 years) and renewable only by agreement. The UK's political institutions were created in an age before extension of the plebiscite beyond a small fraction of the population - not surprisingly these institutions still support self-serving interests in the way they did with the elite of two centuries ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is not so much abolition of government, but there is a need to re-balance the relationship between the state and the individual citizen. What can be provided by individuals for themselves should not be the concern of the State. Government should exist within strict spending limits and taxes should be limited to an agreed maximum (eg. not to exceed 20% of GDP), time delimited (when a tax is introduced it is always for a specified period eg. not to exceed 10 years) and renewable only by agreement. The UK's political institutions were created in an age before extension of the plebiscite beyond a small fraction of the population - not surprisingly these institutions still support self-serving interests in the way they did with the elite of two centuries ago.

Good point. There does need to be some re-balancing. But that is just the first step. What is wrong with free market warlordism I advocate? It's the perfect meritocracy. Are you one of these diseased leftists the OP is referring to?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good point. There does need to be some re-balancing. But that is just the first step. What is wrong with free market warlordism I advocate? It's the perfect meritocracy. Are you one of these diseased leftists the OP is referring to?

Can you please spell out in more detail what free market warlordism provides in the way of national defence, a stable currency, law and order and kick starting public provision in cases where there are market imperfections.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you please spell out in more detail what free market warlordism provides in the way of national defence, a stable currency, law and order and kick starting public provision in cases where there are market imperfections.

That's a fair question.

There would be no need for national defence. Once you arm the people they can look after themselves.

We don't have a stable currency now so there would be no change.

For law and order, people would band together under a warlord who would provide security.

One man's market imperfection is another man's efficient market. There would be no need for public provision or central control or tax of any sort.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a fair question.

There would be no need for national defence. Once you arm the people they can look after themselves.

We don't have a stable currency now so there would be no change.

For law and order, people would band together under a warlord who would provide security.

One man's market imperfection is another man's efficient market. There would be no need for public provision or central control or tax of any sort.

I think arming people in itself would not solve the defence problem if faced by an external enemy composed of a state-led army run on current lines. How would you determine defensive strategy for an entire country without instituting appropriate chains of command and discipline? Even the England of King Alfred's time accepted that point.

I think I was referring to an accepted and trustworthy means of exchange rather than a "stable currency" as such. Resorting to barter would be a significant step backwards.

Local policing I can accept, but it was more the provision of agreed minimal standards for prisoners awaiting trial and sentencing policies which requires some elaboration.

The reason we got saddled with so much state intervention in recent times was the fact that the market could not provide effective sanitation for major cities in the mid-19th century and so municipal authorities gained powers to build the necessary sewers and run them - taxing the local ratepayers to pay for them. This case of market failure let in the statists and there has been no stopping them ever since; Housing, Education, Social Services and Health could all have been managed through voluntary action, but instead have been monopolised by the State. Unlike you I accept that the idea of a State has some value, but its scope and influence should be significantly curtailed from what it is at present.

I hope such views don't leave me requiring treatment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't bear listening rightists - who run around spouting free markets, every man for himself, no minimum wage, no benefits etc, survival of the fittest who have never run a business in their lives or done anything remotely entreprenurial , and indeed work in cushty dull office jobs that create no value.

TBH it amuses me a bit.I am in business and have spent 34 years salting a bit away for exactly a situation like we one we find ourselves in today.It has meant that I couldn't wear a ten grand Rolex or boast that my kids went to private schools but now I love listening to the free market losers complaining that the banksters won't let them have more funds to run their poxy underfunded businesses.When they go bust I can nab their share too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

wishful thinking indebted one.

the roots of the tory party are landed interests.

during and just prior to, the industrial revolution, it was the tories who advocated protectionism to ensure that the return to land and agriculture exceeded that due to innovation and labour.

toryism has nothing to do with a small state - the tories were in power half the time the british empire was built, the liberals the other half.

tory versus labour is very simple when it comes down to basics: it is the interest of the landed versus non-landed sectors of the british population. simple as that. the old (19th century) liberal party was a different animal - it represented the interest of a new breed of financial and industrial elite, which has since gone global, and is therefore not directly represented in british politics any more.

Just when I was beginning to think the last intelligent life had left HPC. Good to see there is some still around.

Perhaps 10 years ago or so, this history lesson was just that, history. Useful but by no means reflective of the modern parties. Now that we have a victorian government back in (and with Labour heading left again), it becomes all too real once more. Even if you have no appreciation of the policy detail, a quick glance at the Coallition front bench is enough to tell you that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 311 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.