The Unknown Ideal

[DS3R]

AJS- said:

Why though? Is that a good thing in itself or a means to a better outcome? Why is a smaller state good?

AJS- said:

Tartan Pixie
If you start and build a business then you own 100% of it. You are entitled to it because you took the risk and made the investment to set it up. Is that controversial?

Most people who bemoan entitlement culture are getting at the apparent situation whereby people feel entitled to things without having to put anything in themselves. Being entitled to what you actually legitimately own is just basic property rights.

Smaller state = less requirement to take cash out of your pocket, ie lower taxation, individuals have more money to make choices with, and state does not offer sole means of receiving any service that may not be considered "essential".

Private sector then has the choice; it can use cash in its own pocket to provide services that compete with each other, resulting in either lower cost or improved service.

[PugwasHDJ80]

AJS- said:

What is the ideal? What is the positive case for a right leaning government, such as many seem to desire but no-one seems able to express in a vernacular that appeals to the voter? What is your vision for Britain?

it all revolves around whether you beleive people should be personally responsible for their own futures. A right leaning government says- ok if you work hard, and are dedicated then you will be able to earn in direct proportion to that work. On the other hand if you choose not to work hard and be dedicated then you have a crap life. What this means is that a right wing government will reward those who try to well for themsevles and society, and penalise those that don't.

A true libetarian government doesn't neglect those who can't look after themselves (or who have given service to their country), but will have enough money to PROPERLy look after this section of society- rather than a lefty government who subsume the genuinely needy into a class of needy with no particular work ethic.

The above will leave people in general happier- people will be more fulfilled, better off, and have a strong sense of self worth.

The absolutely key point of right wing politics is that it actually functions- solcialism and communism can, and do, only ever end in compelte failure of the financial, political and social strcutures (there aren't any communist or socialist countries that have been "succesful" by any measure without asopiting righty wing ideals).

So if you want to be unhappy, poor and unhealthy, vote left, if you want to be happy and rewarded for working hard, then vote right.

simples.

[martin84]

Tartan Pixie said:

@martin84

I've read a few of your posts and would be intrigued to know your reaction to the following statement:


Many right wingers complain about entitlement culture (benefits) while entitling themselves to complete and full ownership of a company regardless of how much effort their employees put it.

Do you regard this as hypocrisy?

Well if somebody owns a company then its their company isnt it?

[davepoth]

speedy_thrills said:

davepoth said:

It's not the government's job to make the population happy. Libertarianism says the exact opposite: Government's role is to ps off the populace, so should be minimised as much as possible to aid in the pursuit of happiness.

See I think of happiness and contentment are the only reasons to have a government.

And that sir is the big difference between Libertarianism and Socialism.

speedy_thrills said:

Not so much that they "make" people happy but that they provide the structure for a society which allows all people to live without fear (like losing their job, falling ill or becoming the victim of a crime). People indirectly derive satisfaction and happiness from the services government distributes like law, education, healthcare, social security, infrastructure, research, military protection etc. The trick for government is to strike a balance between the extent of providing these services and the distribution model of the costs of these service.

But Libertarianism would ask "why should the government be involved in those services?" Every time a government engages in an activity, almost universally, it is substantially more inefficient at that activity than a private enterprise. I can't think of anything where that isn't the case, but I'd be happy for you to prove me wrong.

speedy_thrills said:

The problem I can see with many extreme Libertarian ideals is that they essentially advocate a social regression in society. They fail to appreciate we don't live in a society where many people are completely self reliant even in small communities. Industrialisation raised the standard of living but it also destroyed those close communities of people where where dependent and reliant on each other. As industrialisation progressed we realised there was a need for collective actions at times and so a modern government emerged to fulfil those needs.

Self reliance is not the Libertarian ideal, more of an Anarchist one. Libertarianism generally promotes co-operation on a local enough level that everybody is personally accountable for their actions rather than having someone further up the chain to blame.

speedy_thrills said:

Now there are some ideals of Libertarianism I applaud such as women's rights or the rights of individuals to fair judicial process. However, like most people, I'd not benefit from extreme libertarianism.

Much like Dr. Pepper, I think you have to try it to like it. What's the worst that can happen?

[mattnunn]

AJS- said:

Following on from this thread where I correctly pointed out that Cameron has no real case to make for conservatism as a political ideology, I would love to hear PHers moral, intellectual and ideological arguments for a conservative-libertarian government.

Don't feel the need to chime in with our pressing need to cut the deficit - we all know that. Nor need you feel obliged to point out the obvious reality that having lower taxes than our neighbours attracts investment. It's obvious. In fact no need for "not", no need for negatives at all. No need even for pragmatism.

What is the ideal? What is the positive case for a right leaning government, such as many seem to desire but no-one seems able to express in a vernacular that appeals to the voter? What is your vision for Britain?

Something about oak trees isn't it? And markets, that's right, Oak markets on the right, bamboo sales one the left, oak right, bamboo left. Left, right, left, right, better know you're class, left class, right class, raise your glass, watch you're centre line, nationalism, arghh, scary scary foreigners and relax.... and vote...

[PugwasHDJ80]

Tartan Pixie said:

@martin84
Many right wingers complain about entitlement culture (benefits) while entitling themselves to complete and full ownership of a company regardless of how much effort their employees put it.

Do you regard this as hypocrisy?

umm no no business owner is entitled to any company. and out of the hundreds of business owners i know and meet regularly- none of them expect to own the company with doing the following:

a: taking a massive risk financially, emotionally and in time AND
b: working your socks off far harder than anyone else will (including those in the company) AND
c: by being able to live in a world that doesn't have any supports (you aren't guaranteed a job/wage packet/final salary pension scheme) AND
d: Making sure that the business runs effeciently and productively AND
e: realising that you somehow end up getting complained at by people like you who don't seem to like having job oppotunities.....

whats brilliant is that you've somehow equated being a highly productive and profitable seciotn of the society (by creating a company that employs a very large % of the working population- yes SMEs employ more than anyone else), with someone who is in effect a parasitic drain on the economy. Well done you.

What you really really need to do is obtain a grip of basic economics and sociology before starting to create a blinkered view on the world.

My question would be this:

"many left wingers fell that everyone should be equal to everyone else, yet aren't willing to take any risks, or work hard, yet denigrate their employers who on 99% of have been willing to take those risks and work hard."

do you not regard this as rank hypocrisy?