The Right tighten the screw that little bit more..

[Coito ergo sum]

The Tories? Pissing on the working class? Sucking the warty johnsons of the rich? Who'd have thought it?

You still have "the rich" in G.B? I was sure I kept hearing about how egalitarian you blokes were, and all....my mistake!

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The Tories? Pissing on the working class? Sucking the warty johnsons of the rich? Who'd have thought it?

You still have "the rich" in G.B? I was sure I kept hearing about how egalitarian you blokes were, and all....my mistake!

*cough* J.K. Rowling *cough*

[Coito ergo sum]

The Tories? Pissing on the working class? Sucking the warty johnsons of the rich? Who'd have thought it?

You still have "the rich" in G.B? I was sure I kept hearing about how egalitarian you blokes were, and all....my mistake!

*cough* J.K. Rowling *cough*

Christ! I thought they got rid of all those pesky evil rich folk over there in Brittania...

...must not be paying their fair share...

[Seth]

An employer takes on a burden of care when they employ someone,

Horseshit. They take on a duty of care while the employee is working, to protect them from unnecessary injury and to pay them what they are owed, nothing more, unless it's agreed to in the labor contract.

thats a cost of employment every much as paying someone. That burden is defined by society via the state.

Horseshit. Only in a socialist society does the government impose an ongoing burden on employers to support and care for employees they no longer need. The worker gets paid the wage he agrees to accept for the work, and absent some consensual agreement to otherwise benefit the employee, like a pension or health insurance, that's where the business owner's duty ends.

I use the government to negotiate for me boo hoo lot more employees than employers so as far as I'm concerned thats a good thing.

To selfish socialists, taking other people's money that they're not entitled to is always a good thing, but that's just greed talking.

As for Seth not buying cars from government subsidised car makers well that makes sense government bailouts should be reserved for parasitical farmers than havent made any money in decades. Farming is probably the most communist industry in the entire western world

For some it may be, but not for me.

[Seth]

Seth, unions and employment rights are not the same thing as socialism. Employment law and rights exist (mostly) to protect the employee from unfair mistreatment. That's not socialism. Unions exist to give employees a collective voice when negotiating with employers. That's not socialism either.

It certainly is socialism, particularly these days, when the major labor unions in the US and elsewhere are openly aligned with the Communist Party and the Socialist Worker's Party.

Millions of workers in the UK are members of unions, and almost all of them are just ordinary voters who support the main 3 parties or don't bother voting. Only a tiny fraction support the Communist Party and the Socialist Worker's Party. I've never seen anything that would suggest the case is different in the US either.

Therein lies the problem. The union workers, who are working in states and industries where union membership, and the payment of union dues is MANDATORY, don't have a say in how their corrupt union bosses spend their money. I agree that the vast majority of union workers are just as trapped in the union scam as the employers are, and that it is the fat-cat union bosses who are the ones pulling the Marxist strings and spending the money they should be using for worker protection and wage negotiations on political contributions for leftist candidates.

[Seth]

The Tories? Pissing on the working class? Sucking the warty johnsons of the rich? Who'd have thought it?

You still have "the rich" in G.B? I was sure I kept hearing about how egalitarian you blokes were, and all....my mistake!

*cough* J.K. Rowling *cough*

Yeah, she ought to be required to turn over ALL the money she made from the Harry Potter franchise to the government, who rightfully owns the copyrights since she was in effect voluntarily "working for hire" by deliberately refusing to take a job and living on the government dole while she wrote the books.

The UK government supported her while she wrote, so the UK government should get the profits.

[MrJonno]

To selfish socialists, taking other people's money that they're not entitled to is always a good thing, but that's just greed talking

I thought being 'selfish' was the basis of libertarianism (and democracy). Its why libertarians hate democracy it gives more political power to a million people earning £/$ 10k than it does to 10 earning a billion (at least in theory anyway).

The privilege (not right) to run a company comes with costs (which are not limited to wages), if you don't like it vote for another government or time to find somewhere else to live (won't say Somalia as thats too easy, try that other libertarian paradise China no unions there!)

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The Tories? Pissing on the working class? Sucking the warty johnsons of the rich? Who'd have thought it?

You still have "the rich" in G.B? I was sure I kept hearing about how egalitarian you blokes were, and all....my mistake!

*cough* J.K. Rowling *cough*

Yeah, she ought to be required to turn over ALL the money she made from the Harry Potter franchise to the government, who rightfully owns the copyrights since she was in effect voluntarily "working for hire" by deliberately refusing to take a job and living on the government dole while she wrote the books.

The UK government supported her while she wrote, so the UK government should get the profits.

[Coito ergo sum]

The Tories? Pissing on the working class? Sucking the warty johnsons of the rich? Who'd have thought it?

You still have "the rich" in G.B? I was sure I kept hearing about how egalitarian you blokes were, and all....my mistake!

*cough* J.K. Rowling *cough*

Yeah, she ought to be required to turn over ALL the money she made from the Harry Potter franchise to the government, who rightfully owns the copyrights since she was in effect voluntarily "working for hire" by deliberately refusing to take a job and living on the government dole while she wrote the books.

The UK government supported her while she wrote, so the UK government should get the profits.

Not if the UK government didn't secure a contract in that regard from JK Rowling, right? The UK government may have been satisfied with receiving taxes from Rowling's earnings. If the government failed to demand all Rowling's profits, then the snoozed and losed, right?

[Coito ergo sum]

To selfish socialists, taking other people's money that they're not entitled to is always a good thing, but that's just greed talking

I thought being 'selfish' was the basis of libertarianism (and democracy). Its why libertarians hate democracy it gives more political power to a million people earning £/$ 10k than it does to 10 earning a billion (at least in theory anyway).

I never heard libertarians say they hated democracy. I have only heard them say that when it comes to fundamental rights, the majority opinion ought not to restrict the individual. So, like, when it comes whether you worship a god, or not, if the majority says you should, the majority can fuck off. If that's "hating democracy" then so be it.

The privilege (not right) to run a company comes with costs (which are not limited to wages), if you don't like it vote for another government or time to find somewhere else to live (won't say Somalia as thats too easy, try that other libertarian paradise China no unions there!)

Freedom of association, it would seem, makes it a right to run a "company" - ie a group of people. The day it's not a right for a group of people to get together, and plan to do things, and then do them, would be a sad day indeed.

China is not libertarian, and neither is Somalia. China is communist. And, Somalia is run by theocratic tribal dictators.

[JimC]

Swings and roundabouts...

When the Tories tighten the screws on the working class to much, at the behest of their backers in the big money end of town, the electorate will rebel, and vote in the other mob...

A primitive form of political thermostat is at work...

[MrJonno]

I never heard libertarians say they hated democracy. I have only heard them say that when it comes to fundamental rights, the majority opinion ought not to restrict the individual. So, like, when it comes whether you worship a god, or not, if the majority says you should, the majority can fuck off. If that's "hating democracy" then so be it.

You hear it commonly here the pure hatred for democracy as its not 1 dollar one vote.
There is no such thing as fundamental rights they are a product of the society you live in which have to be paid for financially and/or personal responsibility.

If you want to live in any society pay for it and obey the law, if you want to work or employ someone you pay for that . If you even want to own personal property you pay for as well (no government and legal system no personal property).

China is the most capitalist society on Earth, free market with no worker rights or restrictions. Its certainly far less communist than anyone who is a farmer in the western world

[Seth]

To selfish socialists, taking other people's money that they're not entitled to is always a good thing, but that's just greed talking

I thought being 'selfish' was the basis of libertarianism (and democracy). Its why libertarians hate democracy it gives more political power to a million people earning £/$ 10k than it does to 10 earning a billion (at least in theory anyway).

This demonstrates a gross misunderstanding (probably deliberate) of Libertarianism. And yes, Libertarians hate "democracy" in its pure form (as did the Founders of the US) and wisely so because "democracy" is nothing more than the tyranny of the majority. That's why the Founders here eschewed democracy for a Constitutional Republic that uses limited democratic processes (elections), but which is NOT a democracy. Democracy, you see, disrespects individual rights, which is why it's the rallying cry of Marxists, who like "democracy" because it allows the tyrannous majority to steal what belongs to the minority by virtue of a "democratic" vote for theft.

Libertarianism, on the other hand, believes in the right of private property, the right of contract, the right of freedom of association (and disassociation), individual responsibility and accountability, and that the initiation of force or fraud is a grave social wrong. It's only "selfish" in the sense that it values the individual and the individual's rights over that of the collective, and it eschews collectivist involuntary redistribution of wealth that is an essential function of Marxism and socialism of every stripe.

The privilege (not right) to run a company comes with costs (which are not limited to wages), if you don't like it vote for another government or time to find somewhere else to live (won't say Somalia as thats too easy, try that other libertarian paradise China no unions there!)

We did vote for another government, that's why we kicked King George's sorry ass right back across the Atlantic 230 years ago.

[Seth]

Swings and roundabouts...

When the Tories tighten the screws on the working class to much, at the behest of their backers in the big money end of town, the electorate will rebel, and vote in the other mob...

A primitive form of political thermostat is at work...

And they'll likely get away with stealing stuff from others because their government disarms everyone. Won't work here, because those of us who don't want our stuff stolen by Marxists will simply shoot them dead when they come calling.

[Seth]

The Tories? Pissing on the working class? Sucking the warty johnsons of the rich? Who'd have thought it?

You still have "the rich" in G.B? I was sure I kept hearing about how egalitarian you blokes were, and all....my mistake!

*cough* J.K. Rowling *cough*

Yeah, she ought to be required to turn over ALL the money she made from the Harry Potter franchise to the government, who rightfully owns the copyrights since she was in effect voluntarily "working for hire" by deliberately refusing to take a job and living on the government dole while she wrote the books.

The UK government supported her while she wrote, so the UK government should get the profits.

Not if the UK government didn't secure a contract in that regard from JK Rowling, right? The UK government may have been satisfied with receiving taxes from Rowling's earnings. If the government failed to demand all Rowling's profits, then the snoozed and losed, right?

Probably, but I'd argue that anyone who is unemployed and living on the government dole is a government employee for the purposes of making a profit from work done while unemployed.