[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

[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]

Not really. Most of the time I argue with Jon because I consider it a moral duty.
The way I see a lot of the left wing people I know is that they move in circles in which they rarely, if ever, meet people who are prepared to point out the fallacies in their thinking, and that leads to received wisdom and assumptions being the order of the day - not least in the view that 'right' people agree with them.
I almost see it as a moral duty to debate with people like Jon and Joe in order that they don't get complacent in their thinking.

[tooth-fairy.livejournal.com]

I knew I was right in thinking I was too braindead, have to be way more on the ball to have those sort of conversations.

Maybe I'll be awake one day, then you can try to shred me too :)

[jonnyargles.livejournal.com]

I'm more a breast than a wing man.

[jonnyargles.livejournal.com]

Well, Jeni loves me, so try to take a dive so I look cooler.

1) My point is that people are stupid, or to be kinder - naive.

For all the talk about rich people paying £8000 for a pie:
the largest markups and the biggest growth sector, is on financial products. Insurance, pensions, loans, all being thrust in the face of the minimum wage worker who's being told he needs to have a brand new shiny telly which he can't afford. That's where I think the government need to intervene, or at least regulate.

2)Thatcher's attempted abolition of the Wage Councils in '86, with a proposal to replace it with a voluntary code as proposed by the Fair Wages Resolution imposed minimum wages for the public sector, but the private sector had no such requirements. When the only job is sewing underwear in a factory, and you can't leave because you'd be ineligible for the dole for 6 months, you're pretty much in thrall to the employer. Unless, of course, there's regulation to protect the employees.

3) Again, I'm not consistent. I'm sorry for the farmers who are struggling, but not enough that I'm going to bankrupt myself to feed my family. I'm not maintaining this is a moral judgment for or against Tescos (or other supermarkets, just pure self-interest. I hate the CAP, too, as in this country its largest beneficiaries are the Duke of Westminster and Prince Charles - both of which aren't exactly short of the odd squid. Of course, Thatcher kiboshed any talk of getting rid of the CAP when she received the rebate, which we now are being forced to get rid of WITHOUT any discussion of the CAP. That's because at the time we were the third poorest country in Europe. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4721307.stm

4) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3547441.stm

Now, you could say this is down to Mr Brown's attempt to secure the annuities, but the problem was that it wasn't regulated beforehand because of the laissez-faire attitude of the government, allowing the funds to be pillaged at will.

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

Yes, people are largely dumb - or naive. I don't believe that being protected from the consequences of their actions makes people less stupid or naive - I think it makes them more so and just compounds the problems for later.

I share one major philosophy with margaret thatcher - that if you give people a chance to better themselves, to prove themselves, then they will excede your wildest expectations. I believe that if you give people a chance, then they can do it - whatever 'it' may be. I have (almost) undying optimism and belief in the human spirit and ability to acheive.
I also believe that people won't bother to do 'it' if they're not given the opportunity and will sink to the lowest common denominator given the chance. There's nothing wrong with giving people a leg up - but if you never take away crutches, they will never learn to stand.

[jonnyargles.livejournal.com]

And I share mine with William Gladstone.

Give men equality of opportunity from birth, strive to educate them and deviate them from ill, and they will make of themselves great men, and the country will be greater for it.

(I may be paraphrasing)

The trouble with what I perceive to be the Conservative viewpoint is the idea that there is no such thing as luck or circumstance. That because a few - like yourself, like Michael Howard, manage to rise beyond their beginnings, that everyone must be able to. Some people just are unable to. There's a damn sight that are unwilling too, who I reckon should be forced into volunteer work before they can claim their JSA, but a large proportion of intelligence is down to genetics, parenthood, and resolve before the age of ten.

[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.

[jonnyargles.livejournal.com]

I've been reading AJP Taylor's introduction to the Communist Manifesto, and Socialism was only supposed to involve about ten people - oh, and Marx would be their leader, and punt anyone who disagreed with him.

I'm not socialist, just a realist. I'm not trying to bring down the government, or society, or even Unilever, it just gets my goat when people say that it's a moral obligation. It's not moral - it's making yourself rich at the expense of others disposable income. Do it if you want, but don't say it's a shining ethical example. Likewise, you won't get me packing in my job to volunteer to work with AIDS orphans in Sumatra.

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

Is it moral? in a way it is, because trade and the markets have enriched humanity and improved the lives of more people than any other philosophy or system before or since. in terms of common good actually achieved, it's probably one of the most moral systems I can think of.
And as for "making yourself rich at the expense of others disposable income"? As a capitist and entrepreneur who hopes to become at least wealthy through my business, I'm interested to know how you relate that statement to myself, as the most immediate example.

[applez.livejournal.com]

Slight correction, if I take your point correctly:

it's making yourself rich at the expense of others disposable income.

Healthy capitalism would be that, but there is plenty of enrichment at the expense of others needs going on.

[(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

[jonnyargles.livejournal.com]

"Help, police; I've been burgled!"
"Ah, very clever, your burglar, madam. Leave your door unlocked, did you?"
"No; they broke in through the back door!"
"See, brute strength. That'll defeat most security measures. You have to admire him for his disregard for risk and his tenacity."
"He stole my DVD player!"
"See, if you'd locked it away, he wouldn't have had access to it, would he. Oh, well, you'll know for next time."
"What? Aren't you going to go after him?"
"He was only doing his job, madam. As a governmental organisation it's not really our place to interfere with the self-employed businessman."
"He broke into my house!"
"And you've learned a valuable lesson about home security now, haven't you? I'd advise you to acquaint yourself with the burglars' methods of operation in future."
"I don't believe this!"
"Well, it's not our fault you haven't watched To Catch a Thief on BBC 1, or read one of the many warning leaflets about stopping house crime. Just chalk it up to experience, eh?"

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

You are either a master of the non sequitur or just completely incomprehensible. I hope one day to learn which.