Political Crossfire Forums

[Lord Hargreaves]

JDnCoke wrote: Lord Hargreaves wrote: Sure, and giving bid daddy institution more power will make it all better :roll:

In your view does freedom only mean you are free in your trival pursuits of pleasure? This freedom does not include the things that matter - health, education, financial ownership and private property? You remind me of what Janet Daley calls a "pocket money liberal" - the state provides everything you need, only you're free to spend your pocket money on whatever you like and do whatever you like in the sand pit without mummy and daddy telling you off.

Awwww, we love freedom we do :)

:rotf:

If only this forum had sound! That is such a rich post, coming from you, Mr. Freedom, but only as long as you go to YOUR Church, live with YOUR definition of marriage, as long as you intergrate into YOUR morals and values and live the way YOU say, right?

Yeah the Tories are the small-government-freedom party, as long as you accept YOUR definition of freedom? Gimme a break. You Tories are more than ever like the adage says "knows what they're against but not what they're for", a prime example of ideological contradictions. Conservatives attempting to take the original Liberal stance, but it just doesn't fit with your repressive holier-than-thou attitudes.

Neither conservatives nor liberals (US sense of that word, I know how much you hate it used in this context, but its what i'm rolling with) are the unqualified partisans of freedom. Both groups believe in a certain kind of freedom. I make no bones about this - I merely inferred you do, and questioned how as a "true liberal", whatever that really means today, you can parrot leftist talking points about the US health system, which as Reason clearly pointed out, suffers from too much government interference rather than too little.

This isn't about me, its about where you truly stand. How can you justify having a JSMill quote in your signature stating the only reason power can be justified is in preventing harm to others, when it is abundantly obvious you do not fully subscribe to this? Turning it back on me is actually pretty weak, because I don't have it in my signature, do I?

Mill was one of the greatest advocates of liberty in our history, but his wife managed to turn him to socialism. It does not appear you need to get married.

[MoscowMatt]

Quote: That suggests that there is something institutionally dangerous about government, so let's not make it absurdly powerful. Being able to throw someone in jail for three months with no evidence and no trial is a great deal of power is it not?


The only people who are going to be thrown in jail are those who have been under surveillance and are suspected of terrorist activities. Keeping them locked up for 90 days will allow the police to gather evidence they need which may require cooperation from other countries which can take time. If a person is innocent I think it will take a lot less than 90 days for the police to realise that!!!

How do you propose we fight the war on terror? The civil liberty groups are quick to criticise but never have any idea of their own!!! If you think withdrawing from Iraq will solve the problem then you are naive in the extreme and obviously do not understand Al'Qaeda and their goals.

Oh and something for you civil liberty types to think about. I used to live in a country where if you stole you had your hands cut off. Crime was virtually non-existent. You could leave your car unlocked and it would still be there when you got back. Now tell me about the crime rate in civil liberty obsessed Britain!!

[antonio62]

[/quote]The only people who are going to be thrown in jail are those who have been under surveillance and are suspected of terrorist activities. Keeping them locked up for 90 days will allow the police to gather evidence they need which may require cooperation from other countries which can take time. If a person is innocent I think it will take a lot less than 90 days for the police to realise that!!![quote]

They haven't done anything yet so otherwise they could be charged straight away.

[quote]How do you propose we fight the war on terror? The civil liberty groups are quick to criticise but never have any idea of their own!!! If you think withdrawing from Iraq will solve the problem then you are naive in the extreme and obviously do not understand Al'Qaeda and their goals.[quote]

How do you think we managed to fight the IRA.

[JDnCoke]

Lord Hargreaves wrote: Neither conservatives nor liberals (US sense of that word, I know how much you hate it used in this context, but its what i'm rolling with) are the unqualified partisans of freedom. Both groups believe in a certain kind of freedom. I make no bones about this - I merely inferred you do, and questioned how as a "true liberal", whatever that really means today,

What about the Liberals that advocate, its none of our bloody business. How about that point of view of freedom? Isn't that the real freedom that we're talking about here? The US version of the word liberal is completely irrelevant here, since all the quoted in my signature are not US-sense liberal, but Liberal.

Lord Hargreaves wrote: you can parrot leftist talking points about the US health system, which as Reason clearly pointed out, suffers from too much government interference rather than too little.

And that's a given because Reason is the sole arbiter of all things true in this world? Maybe he's got a point that government bureacracy inflates prices, but why doesn't it here? Surely with our sickeningly socialist country the government would smother the NHS to death with prescriptory regulations?

Lord Hargreaves wrote: This isn't about me, its about where you truly stand. How can you justify having a JSMill quote in your signature stating the only reason power can be justified is in preventing harm to others, when it is abundantly obvious you do not fully subscribe to this? Turning it back on me is actually pretty weak, because I don't have it in my signature, do I?

Explain how I don't subscribe to this? If Mill is advocating liberty via preventing harm, then surely allowing someone the right to healthcare is preventing harm. Giving someone the right to decent food is preventing harm? Stopping discrimination against others is preventing harm?

Lord Hargreaves wrote: Mill was one of the greatest advocates of liberty in our history, but his wife managed to turn him to socialism. It does not appear you need to get married.

Even if I wanted to, I can't! It's your sig in the firing line now. :lol:

[Lord Hargreaves]

JDnCoke wrote: Lord Hargreaves wrote: Neither conservatives nor liberals (US sense of that word, I know how much you hate it used in this context, but its what i'm rolling with) are the unqualified partisans of freedom. Both groups believe in a certain kind of freedom. I make no bones about this - I merely inferred you do, and questioned how as a "true liberal", whatever that really means today,

What about the Liberals that advocate, its none of our bloody business. How about that point of view of freedom? Isn't that the real freedom that we're talking about here? The US version of the word liberal is completely irrelevant here, since all the quoted in my signature are not US-sense liberal, but Liberal.

If you're a true liberal, then even liberals in the true sense of the word are not unqualified partisans of freedom.

JDnCoke wrote: Lord Hargreaves wrote: you can parrot leftist talking points about the US health system, which as Reason clearly pointed out, suffers from too much government interference rather than too little.

And that's a given because Reason is the sole arbiter of all things true in this world? Maybe he's got a point that government bureacracy inflates prices, but why doesn't it here? Surely with our sickeningly socialist country the government would smother the NHS to death with prescriptory regulations?

The NHS is being smothered to death with regulation. Spending on the NHS has tripled since 1997 and yet to discover whether it has improved you need to fine-tooth comb through statistics. The nature of government is incompetence, and so allowing a government monopoly on anything is ridiculous. The NHS will only improve if government butts out, and the public exercise freedom of choice. The answer to the NHS's problems? Liberty. You disagree?

JDnCoke wrote:
Lord Hargreaves wrote: This isn't about me, its about where you truly stand. How can you justify having a JSMill quote in your signature stating the only reason power can be justified is in preventing harm to others, when it is abundantly obvious you do not fully subscribe to this? Turning it back on me is actually pretty weak, because I don't have it in my signature, do I?

Explain how I don't subscribe to this? If Mill is advocating liberty via preventing harm, then surely allowing someone the right to healthcare is preventing harm. Giving someone the right to decent food is preventing harm? Stopping discrimination against others is preventing harm?

Oh come on, you're using the "harm" principle so loosely that it no longer means anything. By your reasoning, I could also say I subscribe to Mill's quote, because opposing gay marriage is preventing people from "harm" - or maybe banning sex outside marriage to avoid "harm".

Government's sole role is not merely to prevent harm to others. In your eyes it must also provide the people with free healthcare. In my eyes it must also protect certain societal norms. Only by bastardising what Mill wrote can either one of us claim to adhere to it fully.

JDnCoke wrote: Lord Hargreaves wrote: Mill was one of the greatest advocates of liberty in our history, but his wife managed to turn him to socialism. It does not appear you need to get married.

Even if I wanted to, I can't! It's your sig in the firing line now. :lol:

Gays can marry like anyone else, to a member of the opposite sex. If they choose not to exercise that right that doesn't mean they don't have it.

You can marry.

[Robin Hood]

Quote: The only people who are going to be thrown in jail are those who have been under surveillance and are suspected of terrorist activities.

Of course they are, just like the anti-teror laws ....Terrorism Laws Used to Stifle Political Speech

Walter Wolfgang, an 82-year-old political veteran, was forcefully removed from the UK Labour party conference for calling a speaker, Jack Straw, a liar. (Opinions on whether Jack Straw is or is not a liar are irrelevant here.) He was later denied access to the conference on basis of anti-terror laws.

http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2005/10/terrorism_laws.html

I'm sure he was under surveillance for terrorism....

Quote: If a person is innocent I think it will take a lot less than 90 days for the police to realise that!!!

Like in Guantanamo, where people have been held for years only to be released because they are innocent?

Quote: How do you propose we fight the war on terror?

By vapourising OBL, by promoting freedom in the world, including in Britain, by conistent defence of the Enlightenment.

Quote: If you think withdrawing from Iraq will solve the problem then you are naive in the extreme and obviously do not understand Al'Qaeda and their goals.


I don't. I supported and continue to support that war.

Quote: Oh and something for you civil liberty types to think about. I used to live in a country where if you stole you had your hands cut off. Crime was virtually non-existent. You could leave your car unlocked and it would still be there when you got back. Now tell me about the crime rate in civil liberty obsessed Britain!!

Where was this crime free country? The moon? your imagination?

Quote: Maybe he's got a point that government bureacracy inflates prices, but why doesn't it here?

It does....what do you think of the service at the NHS?

Quote: If Mill is advocating liberty via preventing harm, then surely allowing someone the right to healthcare is preventing harm.

“No society in which these liberties are not, on the whole, respected, is free, whatever may be its form of government; and none is completely free in which they do not exist absolute and unqualified. The only freedom which deserves the name is that of pursuing our own good in our own way, as long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs, or impede their efforts to obtain it. Each is the proper guardian of his own health, whether bodily, or mental and spiritual”

When Mill references to harm he means harm as caused by people....
Quote:
Giving someone the right to decent food is preventing harm?

Voluntarily giving one's own food, then you are preventing starvation and not causing harm, forcibly taking abothers in order to prevent starvation is causing harm.

[JDnCoke]

Lord Hargreaves wrote: If you're a true liberal, then even liberals in the true sense of the word are not unqualified partisans of freedom.

Circular argument, let's not go there.

Lord Hargreaves wrote: The NHS is being smothered to death with regulation. Spending on the NHS has tripled since 1997 and yet to discover whether it has improved you need to fine-tooth comb through statistics. The nature of government is incompetence, and so allowing a government monopoly on anything is ridiculous. The NHS will only improve if government butts out, and the public exercise freedom of choice. The answer to the NHS's problems? Liberty. You disagree?

I don't disagree, but to the extent I agree is different. We have private healthcare already, it accounts for around 20% of spending on healthcare but only accounts for around 3% of actual procedures. I agree that a goverment monopoly is the major factor causing it's ills, your solution is complete privatisation (?), mine would be decentralisation away from central government handing power back to doctors & nurses and the people they treat.

Maybe a combination of the two would work? Can you honestly say that total privatisation will not lead to exploitation of the service, squeezing the average person out? I mean there is no way I could afford even cheap health insurance, can you?

Lord Hargreaves wrote: Oh come on, you're using the "harm" principle so loosely that it no longer means anything. By your reasoning, I could also say I subscribe to Mill's quote, because opposing gay marriage is preventing people from "harm" - or maybe banning sex outside marriage to avoid "harm".

Maybe you're using harm too rigidly (circular argument). The point is, which can we prove more? Say we allowed gay marriage, can you rationally tell me that it would cause serious harm to the family institution? Using your cute little link about defending the family, it shows that heterosexual male fathers cause the most harm to children, 'The study’s authors write in the online abstract, “We identified 149 inflicted-injury deaths in our population during the 8-year study period. ... “The majority of known perpetrators were male (71.2%), and most were the child's father (34.9%)'.

What is interesting though is your mentality, banning something outright. Name one out-right banning of a human vice that has been successful

Lord Hargreaves wrote: Government's sole role is not merely to prevent harm to others. In your eyes it must also provide the people with free healthcare. In my eyes it must also protect certain societal norms. Only by bastardising what Mill wrote can either one of us claim to adhere to it fully.

Preventing harm is providing universal healthcare, that is cheap and fair (not free, nothing is free), now I would say that in our societies today we could provide this via charity and not through taxes. Maybe we should attempt this, no harm in trying.

The difference here though is that preventing harm that is caused by disease is a solid goal, it can be done. However you cannot satisfactorially define societal norms, its far too subjective. Maybe we should give our government achievable goals instead of undefinable and unaccomplishable ones?

Lord Hargreaves wrote: Gays can marry like anyone else, to a member of the opposite sex. If they choose not to exercise that right that doesn't mean they don't have it.

You can marry.

:lol: Thanks, I feel so "accepted" and "intergrated" now that I have mutilated my soul to fit into your normal society of 1950s paradise. In anycase I wouldn't want to get married, the institution is a sham and an embarrasment to society, probably one of life's largest misery generators. Let the fools wed.

[Robin Hood]

Quote: fair (not free, nothing is free)

Except the mind - some people's at least! (Sorry, I'm just beign disagreeable since I can't find anything else to object to, except the bit below.)

Quote: In anycase I wouldn't want to get married, the institution is a sham and an embarrasment to society, probably one of life's largest misery generators. Let the fools wed.

I think marriage is often an excellent thing, I'd recomend it to some couples whether they have four x chromosomes between them; 2x, 2 y; or 1y 2x; such letters can't come close to fully defining couples. I'm not married (being a little young and financially very unsound) but I know who I want to marry...and look forward to it.

I'm not going to debate you on this properly, just to say that whatever evidence you've seen it does fairly often work wonderfully. I suppose it's not my job to do the persuading but your potential spouses'.

[Robin Hood]

Quote: Gays can marry like anyone else, to a member of the opposite sex. If they choose not to exercise that right that doesn't mean they don't have it.

You can marry.

There's no such thing as an actual right to marriage, just a right of self-ownership. If you own yourself then you and any other non-slaves (everyone, ethically) can do what you want with each other as you both consent and are capable of consenting (this excludes children). Signing a contract joining you with another in matrimony is simply a logical extension of this.

To deny people the ability to do so, is to deny self-ownership, and thus commit us all to slavery, and total communism.

[JDnCoke]

Reason wrote: I think marriage is often an excellent thing, I'd recomend it to some couples whether they have four x chromosomes between them; 2x, 2 y; or 1y 2x; such letters can't come close to fully defining couples. I'm not married (being a little young and financially very unsound) but I know who I want to marry...and look forward to it.

I'm not going to debate you on this properly, just to say that whatever evidence you've seen it does fairly often work wonderfully. I suppose it's not my job to do the persuading but your potential spouses'.

Ever heard of concubinage? No it doesn't mean prostitution, its the french term for living together in a relationship but implies more, its difficult to explain but I think it's just as good as marriage, and definately cheaper.

Reason wrote: There's no such thing as an actual right to marriage, just a right of self-ownership. If you own yourself then you and any other non-slaves (everyone, ethically) can do what you want with each other as you both consent and are capable of consenting (this excludes children). Signing a contract joining you with another in matrimony is simply a logical extension of this.

To deny people the ability to do so, is to deny self-ownership, and thus commit us all to slavery, and total communism.

:clap: Since homosexual marriage affects NO ONE bar the people actually getting marriage, there is no logical reason to deny it, though personally I couldn't get a flying f**k: it should be up to the priest/imam/rabai doing the marrying and not some overarching govermental declaration immortalised in a constitution (hint).

[Lord Hargreaves]

JDnCoke wrote:
Lord Hargreaves wrote: The NHS is being smothered to death with regulation. Spending on the NHS has tripled since 1997 and yet to discover whether it has improved you need to fine-tooth comb through statistics. The nature of government is incompetence, and so allowing a government monopoly on anything is ridiculous. The NHS will only improve if government butts out, and the public exercise freedom of choice. The answer to the NHS's problems? Liberty. You disagree?

I don't disagree, but to the extent I agree is different. We have private healthcare already, it accounts for around 20% of spending on healthcare but only accounts for around 3% of actual procedures. I agree that a goverment monopoly is the major factor causing it's ills, your solution is complete privatisation (?), mine would be decentralisation away from central government handing power back to doctors & nurses and the people they treat.

Maybe a combination of the two would work? Can you honestly say that total privatisation will not lead to exploitation of the service, squeezing the average person out? I mean there is no way I could afford even cheap health insurance, can you?

Here you are reasoning that liberty in some circumstances can be sacrificised for the common good. I believe it can also. But this is inconsistent with libertarianism, which is nothing but selfishness as a political movement.

I would prefer a nationalised emergency immedidate life/death heath service, and a privatised long term health care service, with perhaps those "deserving poor" on welfare receiving government help. That would not only help make the service more efficient, it would also eliminate the strange occurance of nationalised health in that it does not distinguish between those that deserve treatment and those that don't. Someone who has been fit all his life must wait in line with a serial alcoholic for a donor liver, for example. Perhaps then personal responsibility can play some part, so that smokers you persistently refuse to stop do not keep clogging up a universal system, for instance. Insurance could then take "bad" lifestyles into account when deciding the price, and thus become another incentive to live healthily - and if everyone did that, they'd be less need for a heath system.

JDnCoke wrote:
Lord Hargreaves wrote: Oh come on, you're using the "harm" principle so loosely that it no longer means anything. By your reasoning, I could also say I subscribe to Mill's quote, because opposing gay marriage is preventing people from "harm" - or maybe banning sex outside marriage to avoid "harm".

Maybe you're using harm too rigidly (circular argument). The point is, which can we prove more? Say we allowed gay marriage, can you rationally tell me that it would cause serious harm to the family institution? Using your cute little link about defending the family, it shows that heterosexual male fathers cause the most harm to children, 'The study’s authors write in the online abstract, “We identified 149 inflicted-injury deaths in our population during the 8-year study period. ... “The majority of known perpetrators were male (71.2%), and most were the child's father (34.9%)'.

This doesn't mean anything. Gays are barely 3% of the population, its absurd to think they could cause as much as child abuse as heterosexual fathers - its just a simple numbers game.

JDnCoke wrote:
What is interesting though is your mentality, banning something outright. Name one out-right banning of a human vice that has been successful

I would argue the vast majority of laws banning things have made them less frequent than they would have been if they were legal. Are you suggesting the murder rate would decline if we legalised it?

JDnCoke wrote:
Lord Hargreaves wrote: Government's sole role is not merely to prevent harm to others. In your eyes it must also provide the people with free healthcare. In my eyes it must also protect certain societal norms. Only by bastardising what Mill wrote can either one of us claim to adhere to it fully.

Preventing harm is providing universal healthcare, that is cheap and fair (not free, nothing is free), now I would say that in our societies today we could provide this via charity and not through taxes. Maybe we should attempt this, no harm in trying.

The difference here though is that preventing harm that is caused by disease is a solid goal, it can be done. However you cannot satisfactorially define societal norms, its far too subjective. Maybe we should give our government achievable goals instead of undefinable and unaccomplishable ones?

You fail to see the huge door you are leaving open by arguing this. What is to stop a marxist enacting communism to "prevent harm" that he percieves would be caused from capitalism?

JDnCoke wrote:
Lord Hargreaves wrote: Gays can marry like anyone else, to a member of the opposite sex. If they choose not to exercise that right that doesn't mean they don't have it.

You can marry.

:lol: Thanks, I feel so "accepted" and "intergrated" now that I have mutilated my soul to fit into your normal society of 1950s paradise. In anycase I wouldn't want to get married, the institution is a sham and an embarrasment to society, probably one of life's largest misery generators. Let the fools wed.

lol, exactly - i have always argued gay marriage is not about marriage but about legitimising homosexuality. Marriage is about sacrifice, about submission of individual rights ("two becoming one"), about creating an environment for pro-creation, and about sexual committment. None of these things is consistent with the prevailing "homosexual lifestyle" at large.

[Robin Hood]

Quote:
Ever heard of concubinage? No it doesn't mean prostitution, its the french term for living together in a relationship but implies more, its difficult to explain but I think it's just as good as marriage, and definately cheaper.

Like a mistress?

Quote: You fail to see the huge door you are leaving open by arguing this. What is to stop a marxist enacting communism to "prevent harm" that he percieves would be caused from capitalism?

His words in that passage are carefully chosen, they do not imply that the harm/initiation of force/aggression of taxes is ok.

Quote:
This doesn't mean anything. Gays are barely 3% of the population, its absurd to think they could cause as much as child abuse as heterosexual fathers - its just a simple numbers game.

It really doesn't matter (and I'm not saying that your reasoning is correct, but irrelevant) which particular group causes more harm. People are distinct entities, and distinctly capable of rational thought. To pre-judge someone on the basis of their group, and then to act on that and only that evidence in order to restrict their natural liberty is harm itself.

The real comparison anyway, is not between the heterosexual men and homosexual men, but between the care of the state and private means. If a child is not adopted by a homosexual couple, it will remain in the 'care' of the state. Which one would you prefer?

Quote:
Maybe a combination of the two would work? Can you honestly say that total privatisation will not lead to exploitation of the service, squeezing the average person out? I mean there is no way I could afford even cheap health insurance, can you?

Loans could cover it. Health insurance for people our age is exceptionally cheap anyway, and our age is why we can't afford basic health insurance. My montly cost for total private health care in Britain would be 33 pounds per month. THis would decrease if it were not crowded out of the budget marketplace by the goverment (it can't compete on price with free on use and so much be of a lot higher quality) etc.

http://www.hsa.co.uk/HSA/

The health care would also not have the long waiting times etc of the NHS and would involve a degree of choice and freedom in it.

[Pebble]

Quote:
Ever heard of concubinage? No it doesn't mean prostitution, its the french term for living together in a relationship but implies more, its difficult to explain but I think it's just as good as marriage, and definately cheaper.


Quote: Like a mistress?

Directly translated it means cohabitation. Just two people living togerther in an (unmarried) relationship.

[bob.appleyard]

Cohabitation is a French word.

[Pebble]

Yes, but the French form literally means 'living together', cohabitation is slightly more in English IMO.

Plus Cohabitation is really a word used widely in both languages, whereas Concubinage is only really used in French.