David Cameron You are a a fucking sack of shit

[Atheist-Lite]

The problem is demographics. There are too many older people supported by too few younger people. The answer is a seventy year cap on health care and class all illnesses over that age as untreatable except for in the paliative sense. This will reduce the number of old people and solve the problem in a humane manner.

Nah, we could let old people work longer and put back retirement.

The problem is simple greed, selfishness and the desire for more toys mixed with a large spoonful of apathy. That isn't helped by the fact that the average person can decide for himself if he wants a £600 TV, but can't have any input at all in issues regarding his local hospital, library or whatever. Capitalism has made us too individualistic, so the really important social projects that will benefit us and our neighbours become too abstract, too far removed from our sphere of influence.

Everyone in the UK and Ireland could live on £15,000 per year if we really had to. We just don't want to because we are immensely greedy and selfish people.

You seem like a communist.

[Coito ergo sum]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... of-century

Yeah he feels our pain , social services must be cut , the economy cannot support them !

Is your assertion that it can, in fact, support them at their present and projected levels?

Well I wouldn't say the economy can support them, because the economy seems to be a system to give the wealthy more wealth, while keeping the poor downtrodden enough that they can't fight back.

But we certainly have the resources, technology and man-power to support them, because those things haven't been sucked into a black hole.

Well, feel free to suggest a solution to the problem. In the real world, things cost money, and you can't just snap your fingers and expect that people will work to do what you need them to do - they expect and need to be compensated for their time and effort. We can pay them in money or something else. Plus, the resources cost money too - unless you're going to use force to take it. So, when someone says the economy can't support them, it means that there isn't a feasible way to collect enough money to pay for all the people and resources you need to do X, Y, and Z. If you don't have the money, you can either go into debt and pay it back later, or cut back so you don't spend as much. Doing the former can, if not controlled, lead to complete economic breakdown in society.

It sounds nice, of course, to say "we have the manpower and technology" - but when those abstracts are brought into reality, what they mean is - there is stuff out there that people own and there are people available to do work. Is your suggestion that people just work for free and contribute resources gratis?

[Coito ergo sum]

The problem is demographics. There are too many older people supported by too few younger people. The answer is a seventy year cap on health care and class all illnesses over that age as untreatable except for in the paliative sense. This will reduce the number of old people and solve the problem in a humane manner.

And, even if an old person has some money in his pocket, just make it illegal for him to pay a doctor to cure him. It's unfair for an old person with money to receive treatment.

[klr]

The problem is demographics. There are too many older people supported by too few younger people. The answer is a seventy year cap on health care and class all illnesses over that age as untreatable except for in the paliative sense. This will reduce the number of old people and solve the problem in a humane manner.

Nah, we could let old people work longer and put back retirement.

The problem is simple greed, selfishness and the desire for more toys mixed with a large spoonful of apathy. That isn't helped by the fact that the average person can decide for himself if he wants a £600 TV, but can't have any input at all in issues regarding his local hospital, library or whatever. Capitalism has made us too individualistic, so the really important social projects that will benefit us and our neighbours become too abstract, too far removed from our sphere of influence.

Everyone in the UK and Ireland could live on £15,000 per year if we really had to. We just don't want to because we are immensely greedy and selfish people.

Hows the wine business going, Comrade Devski?

[devogue]

The problem is demographics. There are too many older people supported by too few younger people. The answer is a seventy year cap on health care and class all illnesses over that age as untreatable except for in the paliative sense. This will reduce the number of old people and solve the problem in a humane manner.

Nah, we could let old people work longer and put back retirement.

The problem is simple greed, selfishness and the desire for more toys mixed with a large spoonful of apathy. That isn't helped by the fact that the average person can decide for himself if he wants a £600 TV, but can't have any input at all in issues regarding his local hospital, library or whatever. Capitalism has made us too individualistic, so the really important social projects that will benefit us and our neighbours become too abstract, too far removed from our sphere of influence.

Everyone in the UK and Ireland could live on £15,000 per year if we really had to. We just don't want to because we are immensely greedy and selfish people.

You seem like a communist.

At heart I think I am, but I know it won't ever work because of human nature.

Consider this - for the past four years in Northern Ireland there was loads of debate about water charges. At first it was put to the people that Northern Ireland Water needed serious investment, the system was old, run down and had suffered chronic underfunding for decades. It was expected that the average annual bill would be about £400 per year. But the people were horrified. They jammed radio phone in shows - they were used to paying nothing for their water, but there was an element of their rates bill that ostensibly covered the water service, even though Northern Ireland rates are still miles lower than English council tax.

Opportunistic politicians jumped on the band wagon. Sinn Fein, the DUP and the SDLP all promised no water charges would be payable in their most recent manifestos, and so it came to pass that everyone didn't have to pay their £400 bill and they got their water for nothing. Then at Christmas 2010 there was a huge freeze and the whole water pipe system was exposed for how bad it was. Tens of thousands of people went for weeks without running water - the wailing and gnashing of teeth was truly wondrous to behold. Of course, fall guys and scapegoats were found, promises of investigations were made, but not once did anyone say...erm...why not be a bit grown up and just fucking pay for your water?

Hundreds of thousands of people in Northern Ireland happily pay £30 a month for their Sky TV subscription, for meals out, for drink, cinema tickets and all those little luxuries, but they refuse point blank to pay for their water system. Bunch of fucking babies.

[devogue]

The problem is demographics. There are too many older people supported by too few younger people. The answer is a seventy year cap on health care and class all illnesses over that age as untreatable except for in the paliative sense. This will reduce the number of old people and solve the problem in a humane manner.

Nah, we could let old people work longer and put back retirement.

The problem is simple greed, selfishness and the desire for more toys mixed with a large spoonful of apathy. That isn't helped by the fact that the average person can decide for himself if he wants a £600 TV, but can't have any input at all in issues regarding his local hospital, library or whatever. Capitalism has made us too individualistic, so the really important social projects that will benefit us and our neighbours become too abstract, too far removed from our sphere of influence.

Everyone in the UK and Ireland could live on £15,000 per year if we really had to. We just don't want to because we are immensely greedy and selfish people.

Hows the wine business going, Comrade Devski?

I know the level of my hypocrisy. But self-hatred is something I am very, very good at.

[Coito ergo sum]

The problem is demographics. There are too many older people supported by too few younger people. The answer is a seventy year cap on health care and class all illnesses over that age as untreatable except for in the paliative sense. This will reduce the number of old people and solve the problem in a humane manner.

Nah, we could let old people work longer and put back retirement.

That makes the most sense, because when most old age pension or social security/insurance provisions were created, people were only expected to live a couple-three years after retirement age. Retirement 65 - life expectancy for a male was 69 and female like 70 or 71. Now, retirement age 65, and life expectancy for a male is like 78 and female like 82. That ain't peanuts. So, up the retirement age to at least 70, if not 72.

The problem is simple greed, selfishness and the desire for more toys mixed with a large spoonful of apathy. That isn't helped by the fact that the average person can decide for himself if he wants a £600 TV, but can't have any input at all in issues regarding his local hospital, library or whatever. Capitalism has made us too individualistic, so the really important social projects that will benefit us and our neighbours become too abstract, too far removed from our sphere of influence.

Well, there is something said for living life as one pleases, rather than at the will of others. We're all individuals. Some of the "really important projects" aren't exactly indisputably beneficial, either, or they may be beneficial to some folks, but not others.

Everyone in the UK and Ireland could live on £15,000 per year if we really had to. We just don't want to because we are immensely greedy and selfish people.

Wow - the desire to live above the minimum necessary to survive is "greed?" Most people who make more than 15,000 pounds (about $23,000 I think) do so by working. Working hard and making money is not "greed." And, if I don't want to simply live life paying rent and buying daily food and sitting in an apartment sharing one bathroom with a wife and 3 kids, doesn't make me greedy.

Christ on a bicycle.

[Coito ergo sum]

The problem is demographics. There are too many older people supported by too few younger people. The answer is a seventy year cap on health care and class all illnesses over that age as untreatable except for in the paliative sense. This will reduce the number of old people and solve the problem in a humane manner.

Nah, we could let old people work longer and put back retirement.

The problem is simple greed, selfishness and the desire for more toys mixed with a large spoonful of apathy. That isn't helped by the fact that the average person can decide for himself if he wants a £600 TV, but can't have any input at all in issues regarding his local hospital, library or whatever. Capitalism has made us too individualistic, so the really important social projects that will benefit us and our neighbours become too abstract, too far removed from our sphere of influence.

Everyone in the UK and Ireland could live on £15,000 per year if we really had to. We just don't want to because we are immensely greedy and selfish people.

You seem like a communist.

At heart I think I am, but I know it won't ever work because of human nature.

And, I would add that if it did work, it would be a horrible way to live. From each according to his "ability to give" (not "willingness" - just "ability"), and to each according to his "need?" Need determined by the State, obviously - or someone else other than the individual. In free market societies people generally speaking determine what their own needs are, by and large. So, in a communist system the idea is to externalize that decision, so someone else is determining what your need is.

So - there will be an outside decision maker (I can't think of anyone other than the State doing it) that will tell you, devogue, what you will give. Doesn't matter what you want. If the factory needs another worker, and they don't feel you should be a shopkeeper, you will be a factory worker and you will work the hours you are "able" to work - someone else might only be able to work 5 hours a day - and you might be able to work 12. So, you work 12. Because you are able. And, if you object, it's because you're greedy. And, you might not need as much as the person who only works 5 hours a day. You will get what you get, though, and you should simply be happy that you get to contribute to society more because you are stronger.

You're damn right it won't work because of human nature - and I'll punctuate that with - "good thing too!"

[devogue]

Everyone in the UK and Ireland could live on £15,000 per year if we really had to. We just don't want to because we are immensely greedy and selfish people.

Wow - the desire to live above the minimum necessary to survive is "greed?" Most people who make more than 15,000 pounds (about $23,000 I think) do so by working. Working hard and making money is not "greed." And, if I don't want to simply live life paying rent and buying daily food and sitting in an apartment sharing one bathroom with a wife and 3 kids, doesn't make me greedy.

Christ on a bicycle.

Fundamentally, it is greed.

Look at the bigger picture: tens of thousands of children die from malnutrition and preventable diseases daily. Hundreds of millions of people work far harder than you and I for $365 a year or less, and just about survive. Does your effort entitle you to 70 times more money than they earn? While we live in such a world and aim to live even beyond that we can be nothing else but greedy.

[PsychoSerenity]

So, when someone says the economy can't support them, it means that there isn't a feasible way to collect enough money to pay for all the people and resources you need to do X, Y, and Z.

If you want to stick with money, then there is plenty of it, mostly in the hands of the absurdly rich. The only way to collect it is to force it from them.

I'd prefer to say fuck it, the money is an abstract value system, they can keep it and see how much good it does them. Then the rest of us could get on with doing what we do for the benefit of us all, and enjoy sharing the fruits of modern technology.

[devogue]

The problem is demographics. There are too many older people supported by too few younger people. The answer is a seventy year cap on health care and class all illnesses over that age as untreatable except for in the paliative sense. This will reduce the number of old people and solve the problem in a humane manner.

Nah, we could let old people work longer and put back retirement.

The problem is simple greed, selfishness and the desire for more toys mixed with a large spoonful of apathy. That isn't helped by the fact that the average person can decide for himself if he wants a £600 TV, but can't have any input at all in issues regarding his local hospital, library or whatever. Capitalism has made us too individualistic, so the really important social projects that will benefit us and our neighbours become too abstract, too far removed from our sphere of influence.

Everyone in the UK and Ireland could live on £15,000 per year if we really had to. We just don't want to because we are immensely greedy and selfish people.

You seem like a communist.

At heart I think I am, but I know it won't ever work because of human nature.

And, I would add that if it did work, it would be a horrible way to live. From each according to his "ability to give" (not "willingness" - just "ability"), and to each according to his "need?" Need determined by the State, obviously - or someone else other than the individual. In free market societies people generally speaking determine what their own needs are, by and large. So, in a communist system the idea is to externalize that decision, so someone else is determining what your need is.

So - there will be an outside decision maker (I can't think of anyone other than the State doing it) that will tell you, devogue, what you will give. Doesn't matter what you want. If the factory needs another worker, and they don't feel you should be a shopkeeper, you will be a factory worker and you will work the hours you are "able" to work - someone else might only be able to work 5 hours a day - and you might be able to work 12. So, you work 12. Because you are able. And, if you object, it's because you're greedy. And, you might not need as much as the person who only works 5 hours a day. You will get what you get, though, and you should simply be happy that you get to contribute to society more because you are stronger.

You're damn right it won't work because of human nature - and I'll punctuate that with - "good thing too!"

That's a very particular and dark type of communism you have there. I would prefer Star Trek type communism based on consent, but consent will never happen because we are by nature aspirational and it's like trying to get shot of religion.

[Atheist-Lite]

Not greed. It is fleeing from insecurity that drives people to accumulate more than they need. Is that a bad thing? Systems that have redundancy tend to be more resiliant. Would everything becoming averaged out allow more or less resiliance within a group?

[PsychoSerenity]

You seem like a communist.

At heart I think I am, but I know it won't ever work because of human nature.

I don't think it's human nature, dev. We teach children to share and they're perfectly good at it. It's not until we teach them to take part in a value system based on competition that the "greed" comes in. Throughout most of human evolution we've lived in egalitarian societies. In today's societies we've got vast industries exploiting all manor of human insecurities to compel them to consume things they don't really want.

[Coito ergo sum]

That's a very particular and dark type of communism you have there. I would prefer Star Trek type communism based on consent, but consent will never happen because we are by nature aspirational and it's like trying to get shot of religion.

That's not really communism. Because then it's "From each according to his willingness to give, and to each according to his wishes." Absent a state of infinite plenty, that's impossible. That's why communism says, explicitly "from each according to his ABILITY, and to each according his NEED" (need and ability not determined by the individual, but by the "collective" - and nobody has ever suggested how the collective makes any decision or determination except through individuals making decisions for other individuals - ie. a State).

If you are going to have a communist society, then you will have someone else deciding for you what you are able to do. It is not in society's interest to have people chase wild geese or dreams. Someone like Barbara Walters would not be permitted to be a news anchor because of her speech impediment. She'd not be given the right to try. There'd be a need she could fill with her abilities in the factory as a seamstress, maybe. If the State deemed her ability to be that, that's what she would do.

If you factor in that each individual gets to "consent" then there is no communism. People won't consent to do stuff they don't think is worth their while. And, if they're guaranteed to get what they "need" and only what they "need" then why would anyone volunteer to do something unpalatable to them?

[Coito ergo sum]

You seem like a communist.

At heart I think I am, but I know it won't ever work because of human nature.

I don't think it's human nature, dev. We teach children to share and they're perfectly good at it. It's not until we teach them to take part in a value system based on competition that the "greed" comes in. Throughout most of human evolution we've lived in egalitarian societies. In today's societies we've got vast industries exploiting all manor of human insecurities to compel them to consume things they don't really want.

Sure, but kids are just as easily able to identify when they can gain by being the recipient of more sharing than they actually share.

Sharing is great - but as an economic system it makes no sense whatsoever. If you're at home minding your own business and someone comes over and asks you to share something - how much of what you have ought to be shared? Anything the needy person wants? Anything you deem is easy for you to give? What? People are going to invest time and energy in opening up a store and stocking inventory just on the if-come that they will share what they have and their customers will share back sufficiently in return?