What's wrong with Britain 2012
Discussion
Mr Gear said:
Twincam16 said:
-The Brit will be wanting to make long-term plans in Britain. He might want to get married, start a family and buy a house - perfectly normal, natural, emotional things people do all over the world. Problem is, if he takes the low-paying job there's no way he'll be able to afford to do any of it. So what does he do? Deny himself a life for the sake of wages driven down by migrant labour and the lure of outsourcing, or do the whole benefits 'thing'?
An excellent post on the whole, but herein lies the answer. As long as "doing the benefits thing" is a lifestyle choice that is more appealing or financially agreeable than actually working, you have a problem.Because so many business models these days seem to be based around cutting down the number of employees or human input.
As the country gets more and more populated, we're finding less and less for them to do. You can't get a quart into a pint pot.
However, I actually agree with the thrust of what you're saying.
Regarding sentencing, I think there's a philosophical problem (and hence a practical problem) with sentencing either for punishment or rehabilitation. I favour far stronger prison sentences is for the very simple reason that I have never been mugged, burgled or assaulted by someone who was locked up. Take them away, out of circulation and let the rest of the world get on with our lives.
Rights aren't rights if they can be taken away by someone's take on the responsibility that goes with them. That's why it's utterly bogus to give "rights" such as free healthcare, housing and education. They put obligations on others to pay for it. Our rights ought to be free speech, freedom of association, freedom of movement and other non onerous liberties that don't impinge on anyone else, and they ought rightly to be sacrosanct, inalienable and free of any attached responsibilities.
Gain without effort is probably the crux of the matter. So long as our government exists as a facilitator of just that, then the same problems will keep cropping up.
Regarding sentencing, I think there's a philosophical problem (and hence a practical problem) with sentencing either for punishment or rehabilitation. I favour far stronger prison sentences is for the very simple reason that I have never been mugged, burgled or assaulted by someone who was locked up. Take them away, out of circulation and let the rest of the world get on with our lives.
Rights aren't rights if they can be taken away by someone's take on the responsibility that goes with them. That's why it's utterly bogus to give "rights" such as free healthcare, housing and education. They put obligations on others to pay for it. Our rights ought to be free speech, freedom of association, freedom of movement and other non onerous liberties that don't impinge on anyone else, and they ought rightly to be sacrosanct, inalienable and free of any attached responsibilities.
Gain without effort is probably the crux of the matter. So long as our government exists as a facilitator of just that, then the same problems will keep cropping up.
XCP said:
How do you get free speech without education?
Unless you are talking about lecture tours, you need a literate audience surely?
You don't prohibit people from putting forward their opinions. Unless you are talking about lecture tours, you need a literate audience surely?
There is no obligation on the intended audience to listen, understand or interpret your ramblings in the intended way. That is your job as a speaker, and doesn't impact at all on the idea of free speech as an inalienable right.
AJS- said:
You don't prohibit people from putting forward their opinions.
There is no obligation on the intended audience to listen, understand or interpret your ramblings in the intended way. That is your job as a speaker, and doesn't impact at all on the idea of free speech as an inalienable right.
So you are literally talking about the spoken ( rather than the written) word?There is no obligation on the intended audience to listen, understand or interpret your ramblings in the intended way. That is your job as a speaker, and doesn't impact at all on the idea of free speech as an inalienable right.
XCP said:
AJS- said:
You don't prohibit people from putting forward their opinions.
There is no obligation on the intended audience to listen, understand or interpret your ramblings in the intended way. That is your job as a speaker, and doesn't impact at all on the idea of free speech as an inalienable right.
So you are literally talking about the spoken ( rather than the written) word?There is no obligation on the intended audience to listen, understand or interpret your ramblings in the intended way. That is your job as a speaker, and doesn't impact at all on the idea of free speech as an inalienable right.
AJS- said:
Spoken, written, sung or tweeted, it doesn't really matter, does it?
Freedom of speech has only really existed as an idea for as long as universal education. Before then it was restricted to an educated elite few. I can't really see the point of FOS as a concept, or practically, in the absence of universal education.
ukwill said:
f
k the media, none of us voted for the likes of Toynbee or Littlejohn to shape our society.
Unfortunately the Media will either be free and in charge, or controlled/limited by the state, and that's not acceptable to the population.k the media, none of us voted for the likes of Toynbee or Littlejohn to shape our society. I don't have a solution. But nobody in charge can say "f
k the media", because the media control the populations opinion. Propaganda works. The education and "child raising"* systems do not at the moment and that's the only thing that can limit propagandas affect.. *child raising as in teachers being able to step in when a kid is clearly not prepared for school properly by it's parents, and actions taken to rectify that.
Blib said:
XCP said:
Politicians admitting their mistakes would be a good start.
'Yes, sorry, It's my fault and I got that wrong.'
How refreshing that would be.
That hasn't happened once AFAIR, since Whitelaw resigned immediately after Argentina invaded the Falklands.'Yes, sorry, It's my fault and I got that wrong.'
How refreshing that would be.
XCP said:
Blib said:
XCP said:
Politicians admitting their mistakes would be a good start.
'Yes, sorry, It's my fault and I got that wrong.'
How refreshing that would be.
That hasn't happened once AFAIR, since Whitelaw resigned immediately after Argentina invaded the Falklands.'Yes, sorry, It's my fault and I got that wrong.'
How refreshing that would be.
Munter said:
Unfortunately the Media will either be free and in charge, or controlled/limited by the state, and that's not acceptable to the population.
I don't have a solution. But nobody in charge can say "fk the media", because the media control the populations opinion. Propaganda works. The education and "child raising"* systems do not at the moment and that's the only thing that can limit propagandas affect.
. *child raising as in teachers being able to step in when a kid is clearly not prepared for school properly by it's parents, and actions taken to rectify that.
Fair point. But I was more alluding to Politicians running the country, not the media, which is effectively what we have today. Perhaps, with the recent Murdoch saga that may well begin to dissipate somewhat. I for one hope so.I don't have a solution. But nobody in charge can say "f
k the media", because the media control the populations opinion. Propaganda works. The education and "child raising"* systems do not at the moment and that's the only thing that can limit propagandas affect.. *child raising as in teachers being able to step in when a kid is clearly not prepared for school properly by it's parents, and actions taken to rectify that.
XCP said:
AJS- said:
Spoken, written, sung or tweeted, it doesn't really matter, does it?
Freedom of speech has only really existed as an idea for as long as universal education. Before then it was restricted to an educated elite few. I can't really see the point of FOS as a concept, or practically, in the absence of universal education.
Where does education come into it?
AJS- said:
The ideal of free speech goes back to Roman and probably even Greek times.
Where does education come into it?
Amongst educated Romans and Greeks. The illiterate peasantry wouldn't have understood the concept, nor had the time to partake. Let alone the numerous slaves, who had no rights at all. Most of the world at that time didn't even speak Latin or Greek, so wouldn't have been able to learn about free speech unless they were educated enough to read the texts.Where does education come into it?
XCP said:
AJS- said:
The ideal of free speech goes back to Roman and probably even Greek times.
Where does education come into it?
Amongst educated Romans and Greeks. The illiterate peasantry wouldn't have understood the concept, nor had the time to partake. Let alone the numerous slaves, who had no rights at all. Most of the world at that time didn't even speak Latin or Greek, so wouldn't have been able to learn about free speech unless they were educated enough to read the texts.Where does education come into it?
Putting your opinions in a form that can be understood by the intended audience is entirely the task of the person advancing the opinions, and the right itself is not in any way dependent on public education. Nor does it infer the right to be listened to or heeded.
FOS is an abstract concept that is meaningless without education.
An educated elite debating FOS whilst excluding the majority is not really much removed from the slave owning democracy of the Greeks, or 18th century America for that matter.
Neither model should be aspired to in the 21st Century.
An educated elite debating FOS whilst excluding the majority is not really much removed from the slave owning democracy of the Greeks, or 18th century America for that matter.
Neither model should be aspired to in the 21st Century.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff