What does "far right" mean anyway?

[skinz]

Look, if your argument is that some people do it I agree. Great.

 

If your argument is that it's a widespread problem then I don't agree because there is no evidence.

 

So what do you believe? You think disabled people are conning the system en masse? Do you really think millions of people are pretending to be disabled?

 

Of course he does, he's provided personal evidence of two. If everyone in the country provided the same evidence then you do the maths.

 

It's no difference to you claiming that the majority of Muslims are hard working individuals and me coming along to make a false argument by stating I know two, when in fact it isn't necessary as you've already acknowledged that they do exist by pointing out the "majority" which by default accepts there's a minority.

 

Considering his personal claim I wonder if angos has reported both incidents. Personally I doubt it, personally I don't think they exist. Personally I think it was a typically "far right " wing attempt at dodgy figures in order to light up the ovens.

[angos]

Look, if your argument is that some people do it I agree. Great.

That about sums up what I said.

 

They talk about the ill and disabled as if they've made a lifestyle choice.

 

I know a couple of people that have done just that, one of my neighbours moves round her back garden with ease, but on the front she limps with a stick, very odd unless she's pretending to be disabled.

 

I expect to receive some abuse from the lefties now, but I won't reciprocate.

If your argument is that it's a widespread problem then I don't agree because there is no evidence.

What evidence would you expect there to be?

 

 

 

So what do you believe? You think disabled people are conning the system en masse? Do you really think millions of people are pretending to be disabled?

I wouldn't have clue how many are conning the system, I know people that have conned the system and have been caught, I know people that are conning the system that haven't been caught, presumably because it can't be proven. I know people that are genuinely disabled that aren't conning the system.

 

When someone tells me they know someone fiddling the system, I have no reasons to disbelieve them because I also know people that conning the system, when ATOS tell me that a third are capable of work, I have no reason to disbelieve them because I know some that are capable of work.

I also understand that anything to do with government is going to be seriously flawed, because they can't do much of anything right.

 

So that brings us back to some people fiddle the system and other people are entitled to talk about them because their so called disability is a lifestyle choice.

[I1L2T3]

That about sums up what I said.

 

 

 

 

What evidence would you expect there to be?

 

 

 

 

I wouldn't have clue how many are conning the system, I know people that have conned the system and have been caught, I know people that are conning the system that haven't been caught, presumably because it can't be proven. I know people that are genuinely disabled that aren't conning the system.

 

When someone tells me they know someone fiddling the system, I have no reasons to disbelieve them because I also know people that conning the system, when ATOS tell me that a third are capable of work, I have no reason to disbelieve them because I know some that are capable of work.

I also understand that anything to do with government is going to be seriously flawed, because they can't do much of anything right.

 

So that brings us back to some people fiddle the system and other people are entitled to talk about them because their so called disability is a lifestyle choice.

 

OK, so what you are really saying that some people pretend to be disabled as a lifestyle.

 

In terms of evidence, if you are going to vilify the whole disabled community, you need something better that unverifiable anecdotes and Atos stats.

[angos]

OK, so what you are really saying that some people pretend to be disabled as a lifestyle.

 

 

Yes and I supplied proof to you that some people do.

[chem1st]

I'm wondering if the "right" has become defined only by reference to the "left".

The popular left is confused about whether they are authoritarian or libertarian. Removing restrictions in one place e.g. treating homosexuals better, and imposing them elsewhere e.g. fox hunting.

Perhaps the right is just everybody who is not a socialist.

 

I'm by no means in favour of fox hunting by the way and have never had anything to do with it. If anybody asked me if they should go fox hunting I would tell them that it is cruel and I wouldn't do it. But saying as much was always enough for me. Banning it seems authoritarian.

 

It does not seem authoritarian to the fox...

 

To remove a restriction is to give a right...

 

I'm not suggesting we give rights to yeast and plants, but foxes are a bit closer to human, similar to dogs. Perhaps stray dogs should be game for food. Not that much different to foxes...

[buck]

Any evidence of that? Hitler's biggest admirers were in the aristocracy including the Royals.

A massive British Fascist Party led by Oswald Mosley was goosestepping around right up to the start of the war. As for the Royals, the Duke of Windsor was a big supporter of Adolf Hitler. Adolf had promised to put him back on the throne, when he had beaten Britain. But I never heard anything else about other royals.

[chem1st]

Politics is basically property rights. The right exist to protect the property rights of an elite, the left seek to extend them to others.

 

The left fails because it does not extend them to others.

 

The right suceeds because it extends them to others.

 

Both levy taxes.

 

But if you pay taxes to the right you get richer, and to the left you get poorer.

 

One sells you rights, the other does not.

[I1L2T3]

Yes and I supplied proof to you that some people do.

 

So people become disabled so they can claim benefits?

 

My original statement was about people talking about the ill and disabled as if they made a lifestyle choice. That is different from people pretending, which few people do.

 

Read back.

[unbeliever]

It seems to me that everyone these days is working on improving everybody's standard of living, but we have a basic disagreement about the best way to achieve this. I know that's not the way everybody sees it.

 

I often ask socialists what the goal is of their policies. Is it to make the poor better off relative to the rich, or just to make them better off in absolute terms.

My own opinion is that it doesn't matter all that much if a few people are very wealthy as long as the lot of everybody is improving.

Does taking the wealth from the most successful actually achieve the goal of making the poor better off in absolute terms, or does it serve them better in the long term for the wealthy to be left with more of their own money which they tend to invest in businesses which employ people?

 

Sometimes I get the impression that the socialists think that there is a fixed amount of wealth and that it morally must be divided more equally. That would be fine if it was true, but the amount of wealth is not fixed and behaving as if it is is just bad maths.

 

Is the government the best means of getting money from the wealthy to the poor, or would the poor and the wealthy do a better job working it out between themselves? The wealthy want to be more wealthy and they also want to spend their wealth on things that they enjoy. More wealth comes from investing in business that employ people (sometimes indirectly). The things the wealthy enjoy have to be built or in some way provided by a workforce.

If we get into a state of affairs where the competition to attract workers to your business is fierce, where there is a genuine shortage of labour, then competition for workers will drive wages up much more effectively than a national minimum wage ever could.

In contrast, if the government soaks up too much of the wealth of the successful, there is a disincentive to become successful. There is also a lack of investment in businesses which means fewer jobs and workers competing for whatever jobs they can get rather than employers competing for workers. This naturally drives wages down.

 

As I say, the goals are not all that different. The disagreement is about the best way to achieve them.

 

The "left" like to classify anybody who doesn't agree with redistribution as evil and heartless. This is unhelpful at best. I'm sure that there are some anti-socialists who are selfish and lack empathy, but there are far more who just genuinely disagree with the socialists about the best way to forge a better future for everybody.

For me, the socialists insistence all too often on demonising their well intentioned political opponents, is what convinced me that they are not properly engaging in the debate and without such engagement they cannot contribute to building up collective wisdom on which of the two basic approaches is better.

 

Just on this thread there were very quickly posts attempting to undermine my points and questions not by countering them directly but by ad hominem. I'm not somebody set in my views and I'm a great fan of evidence based decision making; convince me that I'm wrong and I won't hesitate to back down.

On the other hand, if you insist on playing the man rather than the ball, I'm just going to assume that you already know that you're wrong and you're acting out of desperation.

[skinz]

<snip>.

 

Can we have your opinion on business tax? I run a business, I pay my taxes. My taxes are used in order for the good of the state (you, me, everyone) Why can't I be exempt from paying that tax?