Wednesday, 15 May 2013
David's Failings - do these sound democratic or EU-Sceptic?
1) Broken promise of a referendum on the EU Constitution/Lisbon Treaty.
David Cameron calls for referendum on EU constitution (Telegraph 2/6/2009)
Tories rule out treaty referendum (BBC 3/11/2009)
2) Three line whip against EU referendum demanded in a public petition.
EU referendum: Cameron to impose three-line whip (BBC 20/10/2011)
3) Ignores debate on private members bill calling for EU exit.
MPs debate case for UK pulling out of European Union (BBC 26/10/2012)
4) Letting an EU referendum bill run out of time in 2012.
Referendum (European Union) Bill (HoC 29/5/2012)
5) Forced to reintroduce EU referendum bill - but with no action required regardless of the result!
Conservatives publish EU referendum bill (BBC 14/5/2013)
Tuesday, 30 April 2013
Reductio ad Absurdum - Seeing through political lies - migrants create jobs, government can borrow to invest.
1) Uncontroled immigration from the EU creates jobs.
If this is true, then Spain (unemployment 27.2%) and Greece (unemployment 27.2%) could fix their unemployment problems by exchanging their unemployed! As migrants, they would create jobs in their new country and each country would have 100% employment!
Believe that? No? Then you can see that the original statement is bogus,
2) Governement can borrow monry to 'invest', it isn't 'spending'.
If the government can borrow money and 'invest' it so getting a 'return' that more than covers the interest payments, well then none of us need ever work again! The government just needs to borrow money and 'invest' it and we cal all live off the excess returns!
Believe that? No? Then you can see that the original statement is bogus.
Thursday, 18 April 2013
It is being proposed that Brighton (council? NHS?) look at providing 'safe houses' (or at least rooms) for drug users to take their (own) drugs in a clean environment under medical supervision.
While this sounds like a motherhood/apple-pie proposal - it is potentially hugely expensive and it really isn't clear what it actually offers addicts that they don't already have access to. I believe clean syringes/needles are freely available and an ambulance is only a 999 call away from anyone in an emergency.
I understand the expense and quality of drugs are the biggest problem for drug users - risking themselves to get money for their habit and getting impure (random strength, contaminated) doses.
Unless the service will provide quality control on the drugs used it seems pointless.
However, even this is fraught with problems, if the users drus were tested would staff allow a user to take a dose known to be contaminated? Surely not, and If not what is the addict to do? Be told to take it elsewhere (so much for being safe!)? Have it confiscated so they have to go and try to find another dose (if they have the money...)?
The only 'solution' to avoid contaminated drugs would be for pure drugs to be made available in the drug-room itself. Then the question is whether they are 'sold' to users by the medics (state becomes monopoly narcotics dealer - what if the addict has no money?), or whether the drugs are simply given free to users (state issues free drugs for all, from huge menu, on demand!).
This doesn't even start to address addicts and dealers being attracted to the area (unless it is an EU wide scheme).
So simply providing a 'venue' seems to solve nothing, but creates a whole new raft of problems... but it does provide more jobs and 'prestige' for medics etc 'working' in the area of drugs and addiction... so you can see why they would like it.
Wednesday, 17 April 2013
Socialisms useful fools. If you don't like your job, that is your problem, nobody elses - farmers included.
I am sure there are farmers who are happy with their lot - but the public rarely of ever hear from them. What the public, the tax payer and consumer, actualy hear is complaint after complaint from farmers and the farming lobby about how unfair everything is, and why it is everybody elses fault and 'society' needs to change, needs to adapt, so farmers can have everthing just as they want it. For 'change' and 'adapt' read 'pay us more'.
For socialism to win, and deliver the public into serfdom under the thumb of the party bosses, the public must be impoverished and made dependent. On the basis that many people would 'choose' serfdom if starvation was the only other option - those that wouldn't, wouldn't be around for much longer.
So, again they cry goes up that "the consumer isn't paying enough, they are getting something for nothing, make them pay more, it is 'the right thing to do', 'its only fair'". Of course, for these people, nothing is ever enough - if they win once they won't be satisfied, they will simply push all the harder for another wealth grab, and another - until they have it all.
While the vested interests fight this battle, the government are happy for their income from taxes and duty's (being percentage based) to rise with the prices. 20% tax/duty on 'a lot' is more than 20% tax/duty on 'a little'.
It isn't just farming/food - the activists here are just useful fools, as are activists for other vested interests. We are told that we have some 'moral duty' to pay more for our food, pay more to run our cars, pay more to heat our homes, pay more to use public transport, pay more to drink alcohol, pay more to smoke tobacco, pay more for spurious 'progressive' posts in the public sector, pay more to foreign governments, pay more for just about everything.
It is said 'time is money', but more importantly, for many of us (the non-rich) 'money is time' - our money represents the limited and precious hours of our lives that we have sold to someone else simply to survive and get by.
Every call for us to pay more is a call to give up a bit more of out lives, sacrifice a bit more of our time here - simply because someone else thinks they have more right to our limited existance than we, ourselves, do.
In the end people will only pay others for things if they cannot do those things for themselves, more cheaply (based on the value they choose to give their own time). Doing things for yourself usually has the additional benefit that no tax is payable - that would be a tax on your very existance! (Only the most evil of people would support that - as it amounts to slavery).
The farming lobby, public health campaigners and greens are in the vanguard of the socialists states 'useful fools' in pushing us towards a horrible, totalitarian, socialist society. Don't be taken in by their moaning and nagging and bogus 'real cost of...' arguments - if they are unhappy, then it is for them to sort out themselves, without dumping on the rest of us.
Wednesday, 3 April 2013
There is a group of people claiming to be libertatian, who have perversly come out in favour of open-door, unlimited, unfettered immigration.
The central plank to their argument is that - in total - a higher proportion of immigrants are employed than UK born, implying that they create more wealth than they consume, so increase GDP so they are a benefit to the UK.
My first challenge to this argument is that it could justify some imigration, but it there is nothing there to support open-door immigration. Why shouldn't we expect 100% empoyment among immigrants? After all we are in a position to choose who to admit and who to allow to stay - unlike native citizens, who are here for better or worse...
But a bigger question comes back to Maggies 'no such thing as society', society is not an entity in its own right, it is a term that refers to individual men and women. So what does it even mean for a 'country' to be better off? Countries don't have minds, souls, feelings, thoughts... the government/state may be 'better off' with a higher GDP to tax, but a man on minimum wage is still on minimum wage regardless.
If the argument is that the average person in the UK is better off, well again - the UK citizen on minimum wage is still on minimum wage even if a new migrant is in the UK earning a fortune - is the open-door-libertarians argument that UK citizens have some duty to share their birthright simply for the benefit of non-citizens? This is a clasic utilitarian argument - 'the greatest greatest good for the greatest number through redistribution'.
These foolish young 'libertarians' have thought themselves through libertarianism, righ in to utilitarianism (a socialist philosophy) but not noticed (or don't want to admit it) so cling to a trendy 'libertarian' label they no longer deserve.
Friday, 22 March 2013
Every UK citizen is entitled to a living by their own labour
A UK citizen maybe called up to fight to defend the country - this gives them a right to a share in the land we stand on.
The UK is about 60 million acres, there are about 60 million UK citizens - so each UK citizen is nominally entitled to one acre of land.
Farming 6 acres can provide self-sufficiency for 6 people (without huge physical effort) - so each citizen has the (theoretical) ability to be self-sufficient by their own (relatively light) labour. In practice not all land can be farmed, but I haven't included the sea and fishing resources so I am still comfortable with the principle.
This gives a nominal default condition for UK citizens and the ownership of the land they stand on.
It is this that, I believe, should be the logical underpinning of a citizens income and citizenship itself - the right for each UK citizen to the use of, or receive rental income from, a nominal acre of UK land. This is in return for being prepared to defend the country, this should be as of right and untaxable.