[Politics] It isn't easy being Blue.

[davywavy]

Whilst out on the town a few weeks ago, I got talking to a girl in a bar. After a while, for reasons I can't recall, the conversation came round to politics. Suddenly she stopped short and looked at me quizzically.
"You're right-wing, aren't you?"
"Yup", I replied.
"Well, I don't think we should let homeless people starve to death on the street", she said, smugly ensuring her moral superiority over me and my homeless-starving ways whilst necking the booze I'd just bought her like there was no tomorrow.

A friend of mine who shares my political opinions once told me they didn't really like going to social events with many of my friends, because they knew that they would be belittled and insulted for holding their political beliefs. They found it upsetting that they would be insulted by people they barely knew not even for their beliefs, but for what those people considered their beliefs to be without even taking the time to find out the reality of the situation. In other circumstances this sort of behaviour would be considered 'prejudice'. When you're dealing with a lot of people I run into, it's called 'informed debate'. Sometimes it's nice to open LJ and read the wise words of the mind-numbingly gorgeous vulgarcriminal, who is political voice of reason.
The irony of the intellectual intolerance of many people amuses me in a bleak sort of way; most of the people on my friends list consider themselves to be tolerant, understanding and non-judgemental; however this just highlights the basic dichotomy of many people's political views - they're tolerant of any kink, perversion, social attitudes and outre behaviour which they happen to agree with. Their tolerance doesn't extend so far as being polite to people who think that, oh, say, civil liberties have been undermined quite a lot by the current government or that spending thirty-seven billion quid which we don't have every year in a slowing economy might lead to trouble later.
raggedhalo recently made a post in which he compared prejudice against vegetarians to homophobia, and presented himself as being a persecuted minority. Personally I think it's a bit difficult to be a persecuted minority when you're a socialist vegetarian in a student union, but that's just me.
Re-reading his post, it's interesting to me just how much of his argument I can apply to my own point. After all, if he can compare prejudice against sexualities with his own political views, so can I - to object to that would be prejudiced, wouldn't it? Back in the 1980's, being gay would get you socially ostracised and sometimes insulted in public, whilst being Conservative would get you social acceptance and congratulations on your snappy dress sense. And now...?
There's a comparison to be made here, I think...

Of course, I think Joe's comparison is as nonsensical as mine. But it's funny nevertheless.

Comments

[chrisvenus]

There's a comparison to be made here, I think

Gay is the new conservative?

Conservative is the new gay?

I wonder if this means you can be conservative-curious...

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

Well, just by claiming to be a persecuted minority any group can get special treatment and immunity from 'abuse'. I want me some of that action.

[tooth-fairy.livejournal.com]

claim they are oppressing you and start crying

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

That's my plan. I wonder if the government will give me an outreach worker? To make the community more aware of my needs as a Libertarian?

[tooth-fairy.livejournal.com]

Maybe they can give you funding for a car...so you can avoid abuse on public transport

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

And nits, which everyone who uses busses has.

[tooth-fairy.livejournal.com]

I use buses, are you oppressing me?

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

No, I'm oppressing nits.

[tooth-fairy.livejournal.com]

Yeah but I use buses and you said that everyone who uses buses has nits.

I don't have nits

I feel oppressed

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

Okay, I'll get you some nits then. Just wait there.

[tooth-fairy.livejournal.com]

I don't want your conservative nits, if I go on the bus with conservative nits they'll start abusing me as well

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

Ah, that's where you're wrong - to get some nits for you I shall have to take them off other people and 'redistrubute' them to you.
And, as we all know, taking people's property off them and giving it to others just because they want it and won't want to have to work for it is Socialism.

[tooth-fairy.livejournal.com]

see now you've pushed me into a corner. I either have to agree with you, thereby condemning socialism or I have to argue the corner for socialism.

As it is I can't do the first and am too braindead to do the second...you win

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

I know - the intolerable or the indefensible! How will you cope?

[tooth-fairy.livejournal.com]

I know you're trying to provoke me into arguing with you, normally it would work but I am just too tired.

I will just say, it is not indefensible, my brain just isn't working right now.

[jonnyargles.livejournal.com]

Whereas Capitalism would pay someone a penny for their nits and then sell them on to another person for a pound.

It's more the fact that vast mansions in the Algarve shouldn't be funded by poor uneducated people staring dumbfounded at something they shouldn't really have bought, and is actually useless to them, and that businesses shouldn't be able to build a cartel of wage-fixing that forces the worker to take a bare stipend in order to feed his family with enough for a lottery ticket in the end.

Socialism, admittedly designed in an age before Ipods and XBoxes and other letters followed by snappy words, when the only possessions of the working man were his clothes, his cooking utensils, a bed, a table and a bible, removes the opportunity for hideous markups by ascertaining a fair day's wage for a fair day's work.

Ultimately, Tescos is Capitalism writ large. They outprice and close down smaller stores who can't compete, and thus there is no choice for the consumer but to give them their business, regardless of cost or quality, and no choice for the supplier but to sell to Tescos, regardless of price or quantity. Do you support the march of the Cohen empire?

Of course, that has changed somewhat with the take-up in share schemes (despite suffering during Black Wednesday) and to a lesser extent pension schemes, which suffered by not being ring-fenced and thus allowing failing businesses to dip into them to keep them limping along for a couple of years at the expense of its stakeholders. Not such an equitable life after all, Henry.

[tooth-fairy.livejournal.com]

I love you, you're my hero

sorry

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

You seem to be making several points at once, some of which don't necessarily follow. I'll try and tackle them one at a time.

1) It's more the fact that vast mansions in the Algarve shouldn't be funded by poor uneducated people staring dumbfounded at something they shouldn't really have bought, and is actually useless to them,

I'm not sure what this relates to; is your point that people shouldn't be allowed to buy things which aren't any use to them? Obviously, I disgree with that, as I feel that people should be able to dispose of their property in those ways which please them. Or are you saying that they bought things because they are uneducated? In which case, that is a question for the education system to tackle, not the businesses - you might have seen a report fromt eh CBI recently objecting to governement suggestions that companies teach their employees to read and write because the education system had failed to do so. That's an entirely different question which I'm not getting into here because I don't have time.

2) by ascertaining a fair day's wage for a fair day's work.
How is this ascertained? Market forces ascertain what is a fair day of wages for a fair day of work because if you aren't paying fair wages then you don't get employees and go out of business - as a general rule. I'll concede to exceptions, but in this country excepts are relatively few. The state has historically demonstrated both in the Macrocosmic level (Fully socialist states) and the microcosmic level (our own public sectro) that it is incapable of ascertaining what fair wages for a fair day of work actually are.

3) Ultimately, Tescos is Capitalism writ large. They outprice and close down smaller stores who can't compete, and thus there is no choice for the consumer but to give them their business, regardless of cost or quality, and no choice for the supplier but to sell to Tescos, regardless of price or quantity. Do you support the march of the Cohen empire?

Yes, in the social structure they use, I do. They are simply taking advantage of the governmental structures that allow them to pursue those business practises and I cannot blame them for that; as we all know, the Common Agricultural Policy means that farming is unrealistically subsidised to an extent that price gouging becomes possible - as farmers can and will make up the difference through european money. I've long hated the CAP not just for its effect on the farming industry of this country, but also for its effects overseas. The agricultural subsidies recieved so unbalance the industry from being a fair market that it is inevitable that widescale abuse of the system will occur.
In a globalised market, large-scale production food farming for the supermarket chains does not have a future in this country - the quicker it's moved offshore to benefit farmers in the developing world the happier I will be. As the_mendicant will tell you, the future of food farming in this country is organic, high quality, and not bounden to the supermarket chains.
Have you ever been to a proper market? There's quite a few of them.

4) failing businesses to dip into them to keep them limping along for a couple of years at the expense of its stakeholders. Not such an equitable life after all, Henry.

Eh?

[tooth-fairy.livejournal.com]

you're really bored aren't you?

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

ultimately, however, I am pleased that you acknowldge that Socialism was designed with a world long past in mind. Perhaps now we can consign it to history, where it belongs with the world it once pretended to represent.

[(Anonymous)]

Frankly, if someone is prepared to pay a pound for nits, they deserve to end up staring at them in disillusioned silence ... if not worse.

And if they bought the nits because they're "uneducated", all I can say to that is, they had access to exactly the same free State education that I did; the teachers were there, the books was there, from the amount of tax I pay now I assume they're there in even greater abundance these days - but, if these Victims of Society are expecting the State to do their learning for them as well, tragically, for them, they will find themselves buying overpriced nits indefinitely.

H

[christ1974.livejournal.com]

You could always come out and see what special treatment you get? then nip back in again once you have tasted it.

Not that your in the closet or anything....you know what I mean

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

When Joe posted his gay/vegetarianism comparison rant, I was tempted to offer to come out if he voted Conservative - you know, to see if we both enjoyed it.

I'm not sure he would have taken me upon the offer, mind. And I would have been the most celibate gay man ever.

[christ1974.livejournal.com]

What would you offer to the Gay Conservatives?

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

A handshake and a pint, same as I offer most people :)