Home Politics & Debate

Over flowing with illegal immigrants

124

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    seeker wrote:
    Why do you think SOOOO much charity would be needed ? Look in the mirror. Do YOU need charity ? How many people do YOU know that need charity?
    If we're talking about charity to replace all the functions of government, of course I need charity. Eventually I might be a net contributer to public coffers but I haven't been up till now.
    Do you provide charity/benevolence to people that you judge as needy because of your guilt ?
    Sometimes.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kentish wrote:
    Unless you're a paid up Labour party member, you didn't pay for Cherie's hair. But would it make any difference to you that you were paying for the CEO of Oxfam to be driven and flown around or that you paid for a project that conflicted with your own views?
    Well I would imagine in that instance, you would stop giving them money, because you don't agree with how it's being spent.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Well I would imagine in that instance, you would stop giving them money, because you don't agree with how it's being spent.
    Point is (a) it's too late by then - they've taken the money and (b) there's no more reason why you'd know where the money you give to charity goes any more than the money the government takes off you.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kentish wrote:
    Point is (a) it's too late by then - they've taken the money and (b) there's no more reason why you'd know where the money you give to charity goes any more than the money the government takes off you.
    Yeah, but how long's a charity going to last if it has a long list of dissatisfied contributors? Government on the other hand......
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yeah, but how long's a charity going to last if it has a long list of dissatisfied contributors? Government on the other hand......
    Swings and roundabouts.

    You think all people who work for charities do it out of altruism?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kentish wrote:
    Swings and roundabouts.

    You think all people who work for charities do it out of altruism?
    Obviously most people who work for them tend to just be people doing a job like every other type of organisation. But then that's like asking if all McDonald's workers care really care about how well the company's doing.

    But when it come to those at the top, I'd say you're far more likely to get someone becoming a charity organiser for moral reasons, than becoming a politician for moral reasons. The one thing that seperates them (since both believe they are doing the job to help others) is that politicians have lots power, charity organisers don't (or at least only have power that people have expressly given them by voluntarily donating). Politics basically attracts people who believe they know what's best for everyone else.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Politics basically attracts people who believe they know what's best for everyone else.
    As do charities, I'd argue. A lot of charities are very dogmatic and narrow minded. They have no incentive to work together and look at the bigger picture.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kentish wrote:
    As do charities, I'd argue. A lot of charities are very dogmatic and narrow minded. They have no incentive to work together and look at the bigger picture.
    I was just about to do an edit to add that bit, but I figured you'd say this. Yes they do, but they are required to convince others that they are right. Failure to convince others will result in them having no money, and therefore no power. Perhaps the more accurate difference is that politicians are willing to impose what they believe is right on everyone else, even those who don't agree.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    So you'd end up with the glamourous charities doing very well, and the rest scrabbling around for a bit of cash to run a head office and not much else. We have too many charities as it is, but if you're suggesting a charity that has to provide what we currently regard as essential public services then it can only lead to less efficiency cos you could pick holes in any charity's brochure. Why are they giving the boss a bonus for increasing revenue, I thought he was doing it for love. Why are they emptying his bin, he never gives them any money. Why operate on her, she's old. Why is that street lit and not ours, I gave them a couple of quid last month (...never again). I didn't know my money was paying for that, I won't give them any more money. I don't need books, I won't give the library any money. I drive on the motorway, I'm not paying for country roads I hardly use. I get the bus, give to my bus charity.

    I can't see it working.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kentish wrote:
    So you'd end up with the glamourous charities doing very well, and the rest scrabbling around for a bit of cash to run a head office and not much else. We have too many charities as it is, but if you're suggesting a charity that has to provide what we currently regard as essential public services then it can only lead to less efficiency cos you could pick holes in any charity's brochure. Why are they giving the boss a bonus for increasing revenue, I thought he was doing it for love. Why are they emptying his bin, he never gives them any money. Why operate on her, she's old. Why is that street lit and not ours, I gave them a couple of quid last month (...never again). I didn't know my money was paying for that, I won't give them any more money. I don't need books, I won't give the library any money. I drive on the motorway, I'm not paying for country roads I hardly use. I get the bus, give to my bus charity.

    I can't see it working.
    Well the idea is more that you pay for yourself, with thing like health insurance run by profit-making companies (so there'd be no "why are they operating on her" because she's be paying for herself). You already have your electricity bill, your water bill. I don't think it's a huge leap to replace your council tax, national insurance and VAT, with your medical insurance, your bin emptying fee, your road maintanence fee. That way you pay companies to provide the services you want, and you know exactly what your money goes towards. The charities would only come in to give access to these services to people who genuinely couldn't afford them.

    You are mentioning several examples as to why you might be dissatified with the service. Well that's easy, if you're not getting what you payed for, you stop paying. There you are, instant consequences for someone not doing what they say. What do you do if street lights aren't working at the moment? Inform someone at the council? You might get them back on within 3 months if you're lucky. What would you do in this fictional world we're creating? You'd cut payment. Soon enough another company would come along and say "we'll do the job for you" and you have your service back.

    The bit about the library was a prime example. If there isn't the demand from people willing to pay for the service, then why should everyone have to pay for it to exist? If you choose to live in a remote area, why should everyone else subsidise your bus journey? If the demand is there, someone will provide the service.

    All theoretical of course. I'm not sure how well it'd work in practice. On the one hand I think it'll just result in the rich people having all the power. On the other hand I think, is that really so different to the current situation?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kentish wrote:
    So you'd end up with the glamourous charities doing very well, and the rest scrabbling around for a bit of cash to run a head office and not much else.
    Exactly, and the 'glamourous' charities would be the ones that had pleased their contributors the most. Remember, head office would have far less work to do, since they wouldn't have to report everything to the government or do all of the tedious paperwork that wouldn't directly benefit their cause.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I understand the principle of paying your own way.

    But the point of taxes, and of charity in this hypothetical situation, is to provide for those who cannot afford it (healthcare, education), or to provide services that would only exist if people club together and pay a little bit each (roads, street lighting).
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Exactly, and the 'glamourous' charities would be the ones that had pleased their contributors the most.
    Not at all. Kids charities would do well, drug addiction charities wouldn't.
    Remember, head office would have far less work to do, since they wouldn't have to report everything to the government or do all of the tedious paperwork that wouldn't directly benefit their cause.
    But I thought all the donors were demanding details of all your financial dealings before they contribute. That sounds burdensome.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Do you currently support a charity?

    Yep.
    But the point of taxes, and of charity in this hypothetical situation, is to provide for those who cannot afford it (healthcare, education), or to provide services that would only exist if people club together and pay a little bit each (roads, street lighting).

    You don't have to pay for roads and street lighting through charity. Currently large corporations get the taxpayer to pay for the roads that they have to have to make their profits. it. Tesco wants a new set of roads and a roundabout for it's new store?

    They go wine and dine some councillor, hand him some wedge and he dips into the council tax coffers for them. It's cheaper for them to do that and more expensive for everyone else.

    Without such taxpaying they would have to make it a business cost.

    Also, if you cannot afford it, what the hell are you doing it for anyway?

    Wile taxpayers provide there is no direct disincentive for many behaviours and a direct incentive for many others that are destructive.

    Want to be a teenage mum? No problem, taxpayers will provide. Want to pollute the atmosphere? No problem, you bribe our MP's through donations and the taxpayer can clean it up.
    Not at all. Kids charities would do well, drug addiction charities wouldn't.

    You think drugs would be as much a problem with legalisation?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    klintock wrote:
    Yep.
    Do you demand to know details of the financial transactions of that charity, and do you know, for example, how much the head of that charity gets paid?
    You don't have to pay for roads and street lighting through charity. Currently large corporations get the taxpayer to pay for the roads that they have to have to make their profits. it. Tesco wants a new set of roads and a roundabout for it's new store?

    They go wine and dine some councillor, hand him some wedge and he dips into the council tax coffers for them. It's cheaper for them to do that and more expensive for everyone else.

    Without such taxpaying they would have to make it a business cost.

    Also, if you cannot afford it, what the hell are you doing it for anyway?

    Wile taxpayers provide there is no direct disincentive for many behaviours and a direct incentive for many others that are destructive.

    Want to be a teenage mum? No problem, taxpayers will provide. Want to pollute the atmosphere? No problem, you bribe our MP's through donations and the taxpayer can clean it up.
    So there's no such thing as a public service? Just state subsidisation for lazy people?
    You think drugs would be as much a problem with legalisation?
    Who knows? I can't see levels of drug addiction decreasing.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Do you demand to know details of the financial transactions of that charity, and do you know, for example, how much the head of that charity gets paid?

    Nope.
    So there's no such thing as a public service? Just state subsidisation for lazy people?

    Oh not just the lazy! Theres the violent, the grasping, the genuinely concerned for standards within their industry but ignorant of the true nature of the state, and the state does provide the roads, the hospitals and all that good stuff.

    The fact that it does it incredibly badly, totally immorally and only for it's own ends is the only snag. It manages to become the middleman for as many transactions as it possibly can so as to hoover as much resources for itself as possible.

    They provide the roads. So there is car tax, and number plates, and speeding fines and cameras and traffic police and driving licences and yadda yadda. So in exchange for providing something that would have to be built anyway it gets a steady stream of enormous income and another method of control. It does this in all areas it can, sucking the life out of enterprise to feed itself.

    It then uses those resources to control, dominate, kill and maintain itself. It uses the funds to maintain the illusion it is needed, when of course it is not.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yeah. But the point is that a charitable system wouldn't be an improvement.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yeah. But the point is that a charitable system wouldn't be an improvement.

    Except in efficency, effect and the whole not killing millions of people thing. :rolleyes:

    Oh and you'd have freedom as well.

    Yeah but apart from that no improvement at all.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I don't share your blind faith in the charitable sector. It's touchingly naive though.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I don't share your blind faith in the charitable sector. It's touchingly naive though

    Oh it's not the fact that's it's "charity" that makes it work - it's this -

    If you do it badly you don't get paid.

    Works on absolutely everyone.

    Who are the worst workers in the world?

    Those who get paid regardless of performance.

    Take a shufti at two factories, one has people on flat wages. The second one is set up so the more productive you are, the more you get paid and if you do nothing you get nothing.

    Which factory is hardest working?

    Not even a question is it?

    Now any chance of addressing any of the other points you've wandered away from?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'll give it a go. What's on your mind now?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Ok lets start simple.

    Why do you think a system based on voluntary participation isn't better than one based on violent coercion?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Because the voluntary part makes it too easy for people to shirk their social responsibilities. It also panders to our inherent selfishness.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Because the voluntary part makes it too easy for people to shirk their social responsibilities.

    Hmm interesting.

    Why do you think -

    1) that people have social responsibilities

    2) they will shirk them if they do

    3) theres a difference between the people in government and other people

    ?
    It also panders to our inherent selfishness.

    Why do you think this is a problem?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    klintock wrote:
    1) that people have social responsibilities
    Would you called the responsibility to look after your own children a social responsibility? In the absense of parents, is it anyone elses social responsibility to look after the children, or just the nice thing to do?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    klintock wrote:
    Why do you think -

    1) that people have social responsibilities
    Humans are naturally social beings. We benefit from living in communities because the workload of that community's needs can be shared around. These days, we have more specialised roles and niche markets and are even more reliant on other people doing their jobs on our behalf.
    2) they will shirk them if they do
    A lot of the time, we fail to see the immediate benefit of public services. For example, why pay for a bus service we never make use of? Why provide free TV licences for older people? Why pay farmers for not growing crops?
    3) theres a difference between the people in government and other people
    Do I think that? :confused:
    Why do you think this is a problem?
    Basic human compassion for the needy I suppose.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    klintock apparently believes that there is no such thing as society and we are all "just individuals". I'd like to see how long he survives relying solely on himself. :D About 2 days I'd wager.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    klintock wrote:
    Hmm interesting.

    Why do you think -

    1) that people have social responsibilities

    2) they will shirk them if they do

    3) theres a difference between the people in government and other people

    Not everyone will shirk their social responsibilities, but plenty will (or give the absolute minimum, or think that those with higher incomes should pay more etc, etc). The end shot would be that a lot less money would come into dealing with social problems than would under tax.

    However few people will shirk their work responsibility for the simple reason, that do it long enough and at best you'll find yourself on the same shitty salary you were on when you were twenty one and at worst find yourself being sacked.

    If I shirked my work responsibilities (part of which is setting up systems to allow 'socially important' things to be deliveredd at less cost and more efficiently. I would get the sack - therefore its in my best interests to do my job efficiently. same for millions of others on the public pay role...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Humans are naturally social beings

    No shit. How does this create responsibilities though? I like monster munch (childish I know) but it's not like I have any obligation to it.
    We benefit from living in communities because the workload of that community's needs can be shared around. These days, we have more specialised roles and niche markets and are even more reliant on other people doing their jobs on our behalf.

    Division of labour 101. Fair enough. But my only interest is in what you can produce that is of interest to me and vice versa.

    If you have a voluntary situation and are producing stuff no one wants you have to stop and go do something they do want or you wind up broke. If you are using violence to get paid there is no real mechanism to stop you producing goods and services that no one wants/needs.
    A lot of the time, we fail to see the immediate benefit of public services. For example, why pay for a bus service we never make use of? Why provide free TV licences for older people? Why pay farmers for not growing crops?

    Good questions. Why do those things? I see no reason.
    Do I think that? :confused:

    Yes. You are claiming that people are short sighted, stupid, self interested and all the rest of it.

    So my question is what is different about the human beings who work in the state than human beings who don't?

    You have a two category system without a selection process.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    “The aim of the High is to remain where they are. The aim of the Middle is to change places with the High. The aim of the Low, when they have an aim -- for it is an abiding characteristic of the Low that they are too much crushed by drudgery to be more than intermittenly conscious of anything outside their daily lives -- is to abolish all distinctions and create a society in which all men shall be equal.”

    George Orwell
Sign In or Register to comment.