Catholic attitude towards embryo research

Originally Posted by rjt:
No party who stated they wanted to end the welfare state would be electable in this country so in my view your views lack any sense of reality.

Any sense? I suggest you crack open the history books or look at the specific exampls around the world today.

Originally Posted by :
Taxation is not money stolen from you, it provides essentiall services such as health and education without which your quality of life would be severly affected,

Just because the tax provides services doesn't mean it was not stolen. A robber who steals fifty pounds from you to pay for his cinema tickets has still stolen money from you.

Secondly, if they are so essential, I most certainly do not want Labour or the Conservatives in charge of them. Unlike you, Rjt, I don't have as much faith in our annointed leaders.

Originally Posted by :
thousands of people simply cannot afford private health and education ,how would you make such a thing affordable,

It is not up to me to make such things affordable. However, you are right to enquire about the cost. This country simply cannot afford to keep the current welfare state. We are already in billions of pounds of debt. Under the system you espouse, when something bad happens to the economy, we are all going down the crapper whether we like it or not. Furthermore, you assume too much. The cost of health care, as a total of GDP, will go down.

Originally Posted by :
a couple in there 80s I know through church have to pay a massive ammount in for private health care each month but the man of 84 could not have an operation recently because of the cost, the NHS provided it and he has a new lease of life. Would you have denyed that man the chance to have this?

No, because I don't believe in stripping the welfare state from under people who have paid into it for their whole lives. I would much rather gradually wean people off the system and slowly abolish it.

Originally Posted by :
What about those who cannot care for themselves, the disabled, the impoverished, the elderly?

Friends, family, charity? There are countries across the world (take Japan for example) which have far less state involvement in care for the elderly and their elderly are better cared for!

You, Rjt, support giving our elderly a poorer quality of life. Revolting.

People can be cared for without theft. I'm surprised at how many Christians in this country, like yourself Rjt, who support theft and force to pay for things that can be provided at a cheaper cost under private enterprise.

It is sick and immoral, nothing less.

Originally Posted by :
Your suggestions would turn this country into a new Zimbabwe.

How dare you. This statement obviously shows your complete ignorance on the subject of libertarianism. Not to mention that your above post contains many misconceptions.

You are the supporter lof theft and authority, not me. You are the one who is closer to Robert Mugabe.

[Rep]

Originally Posted by BonnieDundee:
Surely this hinges on the all important question of what is legitimately theirs?

So long as their wealth was justly acquired, then taxation is theft. However, if it was not justly acquired, then I still don't see taxation as being the solution, I see the law courts as the way to stop fraud and such.

[Rep]

Originally Posted by :
So long as their wealth was justly acquired, then taxation is theft. However, if it was not justly acquired, then I still don't see taxation as being the solution, I see the law courts as the way to stop fraud and such.

What I was suggesting is what is justly acquired wealth needs defining.

[Rep]

Originally Posted by BonnieDundee:
What I was suggesting is what is justly acquired wealth needs defining.

In that case, I might accept something similar to Nozick's reformation of the Lockean Proviso, for the original aquiring of property.

As for property that is already owned, that's pretty much common sense - so long as the transfer does not violate some right, then it is just.

[Rep]

Originally Posted by Smidgey:
Any sense? I suggest you crack open the history books or look at the specific exampls around the world today.

Just because the tax provides services doesn't mean it was not stolen. A robber who steals fifty pounds from you to pay for his cinema tickets has still stolen money from you.

Secondly, if they are so essential, I most certainly do not want Labour or the Conservatives in charge of them. Unlike you, Rjt, I don't have as much faith in our annointed leaders.

It is not up to me to make such things affordable. However, you are right to enquire about the cost. This country simply cannot afford to keep the current welfare state. We are already in billions of pounds of debt. Under the system you espouse, when something bad happens to the economy, we are all going down the crapper whether we like it or not. Furthermore, you assume too much. The cost of health care, as a total of GDP, will go down.

No, because I don't believe in stripping the welfare state from under people who have paid into it for their whole lives. I would much rather gradually wean people off the system and slowly abolish it.

Friends, family, charity? There are countries across the world (take Japan for example) which have far less state involvement in care for the elderly and their elderly are better cared for!

You, Rjt, support giving our elderly a poorer quality of life. Revolting.

People can be cared for without theft. I'm surprised at how many Christians in this country, like yourself Rjt, who support theft and force to pay for things that can be provided at a cheaper cost under private enterprise.

It is sick and immoral, nothing less.

How dare you. This statement obviously shows your complete ignorance on the subject of libertarianism. Not to mention that your above post contains many misconceptions.

You are the supporter lof theft and authority, not me. You are the one who is closer to Robert Mugabe.

I agree with you that I dont want Labour or Tory in charge of our services either. I am afraid if you are proposing a dismantling of the welfare state the cost is the most important thing and the cost of private health and education is more exensive than its state provision, it is the beurocracy which causes the costs and needs attacking as does the level of care the state should provide.

Again you argument is not valid about christanity, you dont even know the bible, give to caesar what belongs to caesar and give to God what belongs to God. Taxes if fairly implemnted are perfectly legitamte for christians.

You are quite entitled to raise the issues of other countrys as examples where things are done diffrently , but please show me where in this country and after all we should be looking to act in our national intrest if we want this freedom you talk off, show me where there is widespread support for dismatling a health service where care is free at the point of use in favour of insurance schemes, show me where dismatling a state education system is less popular than say a vouchar scheme. telll me how someone accused of a crime can get legal representation without legal aid.

You are more than entitled to your views but they are hardly realistic as regards mianstream political thinking. I am intrested in partys who have cohrent and workable programs for government.

[Rep]

Had this bookmarked for a while, interesting read.

Render unto Caesar... - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia...

[Rep]

Originally Posted by :
I agree with you that I dont want Labour or Tory in charge of our services either. I am afraid if you are proposing a dismantling of the welfare state the cost is the most important thing and the cost of private health and education is more exensive than its state provision, it is the beurocracy which causes the costs and needs attacking as does the level of care the state should provide.

Impossible; that is like putting a plaster on a broken leg. Name me one single government welfare program, in all history of civilisation, that hasn't descended into bureaucracy and chaos.

Originally Posted by :
Again you argument is not valid about christanity, you dont even know the bible, give to caesar what belongs to caesar and give to God what belongs to God. Taxes if fairly implemnted are perfectly legitamte for christians.

For a long time savages have been arguing whether the sweat of a mans brow belongs to state, society or God. I would suggest none.

Originally Posted by :
You are quite entitled to raise the issues of other countrys as examples where things are done diffrently , but please show me where in this country and after all we should be looking to act in our national intrest if we want this freedom you talk off, show me where there is widespread support for dismatling a health service where care is free at the point of use in favour of insurance schemes, show me where dismatling a state education system is less popular than say a vouchar scheme. telll me how someone accused of a crime can get legal representation without legal aid.

The collective will of people does not justify anything. Let us picture two scenarios, choose which one you would rather be in.
1) 5 men approach you, they say that you must hand over your wallet or they will kill you.
2) 5 men approach you, they say that the outcome of a popular vote in a free and fair election between all of you will decide whether or not you are shot and/or robbed.
5 vote to rob you
1 (you) votes to leave you alone

The Nazis were elected, were they not? The general population followed a hideous philosophy, does that excuse the concentration camps?

[Rep]

Originally Posted by rjt:
I agree with you that I dont want Labour or Tory in charge of our services either. I am afraid if you are proposing a dismantling of the welfare state the cost is the most important thing and the cost of private health and education is more exensive than its state provision,

This isn't true. Take for example the American healthcare system of forty yeaars ago. Currently they spend around 16% of all American tax on health (which I think, surprisingly, is more than we do). Forty years ago, the USA spent 5% on healthcare. They had one of, if not the best healthcare system in the world.

Furthermore, even at the current state, although less US citizens have access to healthcare, those that do are more likely to survive due to better standards of care.

Finally, this debate is not considering the thousands that die every year in our health service, not from poor care, but by being on waiting lists.

Originally Posted by :
it is the beurocracy which causes the costs and needs attacking as does the level of care the state should provide.

Bureaucracy is always a problem, but waiting for the 'right people' to be in charge is not going to solve the problem. The problem is the state, not the party in charge.

I was actually thinking of this quote when I wrote what I did. It's nice that you use one of the most ambiguous statements in the Bible. Many Christians, such as Henry David Thoreau used this statement as an attack by Jesus upon the state.

Could you seriously expect Jesus to offer support for Caesar, when at the same time Caesar is spending that tax money on invading the Germanic tribes, the state of Pontus and having his legions crush Jewish uprisings and slave revolts? Furthermore, Thoreau offers two points in connection with this very quote. Firstly, that it opens up the question: 'What is rightfully Caesar's?" He would obviously say, nothing that is taken by force. Secondly, Do you really think that Jesus would trample upon the rule 'Thou shall not kill'? He did come to fulfill the law did He not?

EDIT: I just noticed that this is in the Wikipedia link posted above. You can get a much better explanation of his point there than I can give with my poor explanation skills. :-)

If we cannot learn from others, then what kind of a nation are we? Are we seriously too proud to copy the good actions of other lands?

Furthermore, the rights which allow human liberty and freedom are universal. Again, bringing up the Christian connection, you seem to be espousing some kind of subjectivism. There will be plenty (probably a majority) who will argue that it is not in the Chinese self interest to free Tibet or to open up their political and economic systems.

Originally Posted by :
show me where there is widespread support for dismatling a health service where care is free at the point of use in favour of insurance schemes, show me where dismatling a state education system is less popular than say a vouchar scheme.

Might does not make right.

Originally Posted by :
telll me how someone accused of a crime can get legal representation without legal aid.

I don't want to abolish the legal system. This, in my opinion, is one of the very few functions the state should do - for the primary reason that justice should be blind and universal, otherwise it is not justice.

Originally Posted by :
You are more than entitled to your views but they are hardly realistic as regards mianstream political thinking. I am intrested in partys who have cohrent and workable programs for government.

Right back at you. :-)

[Rep]