chess | (no subject)

I've been finding out lately that a disturbing number of you are conservatives/Tory supporters of some stripe or another. Being somewhat of a flaming red socialist myself, I'm interested in how you guys justify the belief that the rich ought to get richer and the poor ought to fend for themselves that seems to be the Tory standpoint to me...

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Let me give you a for-instance, here, to clarify a point or two: assume somebody is a devout Jew, and the only business in the area with jobs is a pork-products factory. Not only will they have to handle unclean things, they will also probably not get enough holiday to make their religious observences, not even being allowed to work extra during the week to not have to work night shift on a Friday, for instance. Should they be forced to 'get a job'?

This is an extreme example, I know, but there are lots of similar examples of people being forced to do morally objectionable or physically overdemanding jobs, not being allowed to take care of their kids because they need to work three jobs to make ends meet, etc etc.

How do you intend to make sure people are fed, clothed and housed, and their children educated and supported so that they grow up into people who can get satisfying jobs, without 'penalising the successful' by making them pay for it?

(Also, actual current conservatives don't seem to be based on the 'isn't the government's business' model; they tend to do lots of things of the 'protecting family values' type, which aren't the government's buisiness much more than 'making sure everyone has access to what they absolutely need' isn't.)

>(Also, actual current conservatives don't seem to be based on >the 'isn't the government's business' model; they tend to do lots of >things of the 'protecting family values' type, which aren't the >government's buisiness much more than 'making sure everyone has >access to what they absolutely need' isn't.)

What? Irrelevant of the rest of the discussion, I'm not letting you get away with this. Cite your sources. The thrust of the Conservative argument currently is that the government is bloated and wasteful. They've just introduced a member of the shadow cabinet with the portfolio "deregulation".

The leading intellectual light in the Conservative party at the moment is the Rt. Hon Oliver Letwin MP, a gentleman (and, according to the secretary of the Commons Home Affairs select committee (who, yes, is a personal friend), the term gentleman is correct) who comes closer to "Gladstonian Liberal" (i.e. Libertarian) than any other politician I've seen, on either side of the House, in decades.

Actual political philosophy from me to come a bit later. Mostly I agree with

requiem_17_13, although my views are a bit stronger.

Your quoting is broken.

May I comment <blockquote>?

Certainly you may.

<blockquote>

Let me give you a for-instance, here, to clarify a point or two: assume somebody is a devout Jew[...] Should they be forced to 'get a job'?

How about the flip-side of that, then? Assuming it's optional to have to have a job one considers distasteful and an income will be guaranteed anyway, then: a) how bad a fit does a job have to be before one doesn't need to work? b) what incentive is there for anyone to work? c) who will do the messy jobs like repairing flooded sewers or working in a slaughterhouse? d) if the solution is to pay more money for unpleasant jobs then how will the resulting catastrophic inflation be dealt with? e) how much should the remaining workforce - which is too small to pay for the existing social security regime due to an aging population - pay to people who choose not to work despite being capable?

FWIW, my answer is "yes, they should be forced to get a job". If someone's conscious choices, as opposed to accidents or illness, make them unable or unwilling to earn an income then the rest of the nation does not owe them one. Which, I guess, puts me quite far to the right on this particular issue. I'm all for the government helping people who need it, but not for all those who want it.

Were they a devout jew, they could pray for guidance. they may feel led to work with the unclean products for money, or they may feel that they should trust their God to provide, through benefits or some other way. Or they may feel that he is calling them to join him (through starvation) in heaven as soon as possible. I don't think there's any need for the government to work with everyone's god, they'll have to work with the system.

Having met many people who like doing odd things, I'm still quite attached to the idea that 'nasty' jobs could be done on a rota system. I point out as examples of this the things people will do on 'working holidays', like repairing canals and stuff.

If the only business in the area is unacceptable, change areas. If one job is not enough to make ends meet, then form a union and shout at the management until either the wages are raised or the company shuts down.

The education and support of underprivileged children is a job for the government and comes under the provision of things the market won't provide correctly - it can also be done by charities, which the rich will be able to give to if they feel like doing so, because their money isn't going as much in tax. I'm not arguing against tax in general, merely against high taxes with the sole aim of redistribution of wealth.

The current Conservative Party are different from 'conservatives' by some margin. 'Protecting family values' is law, not economics - you want to argue law, go ahead, but the original post was about economics. Whether taxes are low or high, families will still fall apart. Because, as I've said before, life sucks. Laws are an attempt to make it suck less; but such is a matter for another thread.

Well, the UK has non-pork-related employment. Thus I would suggest that they *move* to somewhere that has non-pork-related employment. It exists. Someone has to do it (as long as somepeople wish to eat pork). You can't tell everyone 'you can take this job if you like, but not if you don't' then the only jobs that will get filled will be jobs that people actively enjoy doing (not that many menial tasks there...) and the menial jobs will not get done.

No, it is not fair to force someone to do work the CAN NOT do (due to illness etc.) and if there is a choice of work you should not force someone to do the more distastefull choice. But whilst I think we should give a roof and food to those who don't have work I think that there needs to be incentive to *get a job* in order that the jobs get done. Besides whilst some people can not work and thus should be supported those who will not work are just lazy and do not deserve to recieve other people's hard earned cash.

The whole 'lets pay less tax' etc. argument isn't 'stuff the poor' it's 'we shall all fight for ourselves' and OK rich people have a head start... but why do those who don't work 'deserve' non-necessary thing (like alcohol, tobacco, a car, a TV... what you *need* is food, water and a roof and possibly education.).

I am really quite fed up with the 'solution' that people should move to areas where there are more jobs. If they don't have a job, *they can't afford to move*. Especially they can't afford to move to an affluent area because the houses cost too much and the *food* costs too much.

I think there are quite a few people who would enjoy what we dismiss as 'menial' jobs, at least if we gave them a 'circuit' of jobs so they could do different 'menial' things each week, if we didn't look down upon such jobs as a society and give them such a low status. In fact, surely we should treat it like room pricing at college; the jobs everyone wants should be paid less and the jobs people don't want should be paid more. Of course we would have to have a better free education system (properly free with living grants) to do this, because otherwise people wouldn't be able to invest in training as they wouldn't be able to pay it back with their low-paid, satisfying job.

As for the last paragraph - does everybody need a computer? It certainly gives the education of those children who have one an advantage...

Well, if you own a house you can sell it - then you have money for another house, if you rent then presumably you have the money for the rent... and you were citing a case of 'work exists but I won't do it' not 'there is no work'...

Of course we should pay menials more money, however rich CEOs like to remain rich (sucky).

Computers are not required. Nope. Don't need it. Definately like it, want it, desire more... but don't *need* it. It would be good if children had access to computers - but that is what school is for, schools should have better funding to provide better resources for children to learn from.