JoeChuff

Marmora Man Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > JoeChuff Wrote: > My aim in life is to persuade more people to > think libertarian and become like the exemplars > you mention. You know it makes sense! I disagree, I think it just ends up in feudalism, with the strong exploiting the weak. And some of the exemplars I mentioned are also absolute lunatics. Libertarianism is, like communism, a lovely idea on paper but a nonsense in reality. Also I have a basic philosophical issue with you basing your political philosophy on the premise "I am an individual". I find it difficult to separate "thinking libertarian" with "thinking selfishly".

haha i'm in a minority in that I openly welcome more nannying from the state - I need it! That's an interesting point about libertarians, though. I've met a few committed libertarians, and without exception (so far) they are well educated, sensible, self-disciplined and responsible people. Two have been former US marines. If everyone was like them, then minimal state intervention would probably work. But unfortunately, most people are not.

Couples don't receive a 50% discount. Also council tax isn't about paying money to receive services. Try ringing pest control if you're a private tenant - it's not available. Like most taxes, it is a bribe from the rich to the poor, to stop them from rising up and killing us.

I do, however, share MM's consternation at the anti-private-sector-except-my-local-organic-trinket-shop angle. I suggest that preferences for small over big shops is almost entirely aesthetic rather than ideological/ethical, and those who prefer smaller shops would save themselves headaches and looking a bit sanctimonious by accepting this. Nothing wrong with preferring the ambiance of W. Rose to the Sainsbury's meat counter, but don't pretend you're Mother Teresa because of it!

Disagree with all except 5). Markets sometimes provide the best solution and sometimes don't - it is inappropriate to see them as the magic bullet that solves all. It's an unpopular viewpoint perhaps, but I think we simply have to accept that the provision of public services can either be efficient or equal - it is very difficult for it to be both. Given the choice, I choose equal, even if I must pay more taxes. I am almost certainly in a minority in not preferring to be left alone by the government. I love the nanny state. Quite frankly I wish they would introduce mandatory bedtimes, so that I wouldn't feel so tired after staying up to watch Family Guy on BBC3. However even if I did prefer to be left alone by the state, I'm not sure I would prefer for everyone else to be left alone by the state. The state (when it works) protects me from the greed and duplicity of individuals. It is a repository for our best intentions, a hedge against dog-eat-dog. It may not always work, but there is no equivalent in the private sector. So I must accept some regulation of my own behaviour in order to be protected against the behaviour of others (and I'm not talking about basic criminal activity like theft and murder - I'm talking about being exploited by those with more power, like employers and landlords.)

umm, that's not true. If your mate moves into the bedsit you split the C-tax bill. i agree with you on everything else though

alachlan - dunno what you do but i also have to travel for work a lot and get similarly shafted re: travelling on Sundays etc - in fact, they even once made me stay in Houston for three extra days after a conference to save money on "stay-Saturday-night-discount" airfare (i naturally did my best to eradicate any savings to the company by going to the most expensive restaurants I could find and putting it on expenses) however in my contract, it is made explicit that I will sometimes have to work outside of the normal office hours. So I can't really complain. I imagine this might be the same for you? Whereas it won't be for a supermarket worker.

er, funnily enough I do have a similarish story, which happened on Friday, the day posted this! It's a pretty tame one - my housemate and I got back from the pub to find items of clothing had been moved between rooms. In particular one of his heavy winter coats was lying on my bed, and he found a pair of jeans in his room that weren't his. Our other two housemates were both away. I don't believe in ghosts or poltergeists or any of that, but I cannot think of any explanation at all how the coat got on my bed. Like I say, it's a tame one, but still...

Yes that was the odd thing, she wasn't begging or pleading for a roof over her hand, giving me a sob story or anything - she just asked me to put her up in a very matter-of-fact way and then calmly refused to leave when I asked.

ahmed is a legend and his chips are amazing. "I take my time over them to make sure everyone is happy," he explained to me the first time I went in there. I nearly had a heart attack when I saw the place boarded up.

At 11.20 on Friday night, a woman knocked on the door of my house on Barry Road. She was probably late 50s, grey hair, somewhat scruffy but very well spoken. She calmly said that she had been in an accident and needed to use my phone. My girlfriend led her into the living room while I rushed upstairs to get my mobile. When I came back down she had made herself at home and asked whether I could put her up for the night. I said no, and she asked why not. I explained that I don't run a homeless shelter, and offered her my phone to call an ambulance, before quickly realising that there was nothing wrong with her other than a plaster on her finger. I told her I was ringing the police, and she said "go ahead". Finally once she realised I was serious, she got up and left. has this happened to anyone else in ED?

I'll be on my hols :( keep me in mind for future games though!

agreed, being middle-class is lush.

I'm in. You should put a sign-up sheet at the CPT I reckons.

Apparently that "easy Indian food" girl off the telly lives in or near ED - they borrowed loads of furnishings from a local ED shop anyways

Thanks everyone! The Barry Road place is literally opposite my house, so if they do cut, that?s case closed.

Any DIY buffs out there? I need to build a couple of plinths for an art exhibition this weekend. I am looking for a timber/MDF merchant who can cut timber for a mitre joint onsite ? preferable open on a Saturday as well! B&Q West Norwood can?t cut on site, unfortunately. Any tips gratefully received.

The Lane Cafe is near the police station. It used to have the much better name "Top Nosh"

Well as I say, the underlying belief is there because it just seems obvious that it's true - unless smokers' lungs do filter out all of the unpleasantness. I think it's a bit paranoid to say that passive smoking and workers' rights are just tools used to bring in the ban, though, they are perfectly legitimate reasons to ban smoking in public places in their own right.

I disagree on your first point, that an MP's letter galvanises local council officials to act. Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't; depends on the issue, MP and council. In my experience, it made little difference. I agree with you on the second point, though, being both an MP and a minister will often create a conflict of interest. If all of her constituents are against the Olympics and she's the minister for the Olympics, you have a problem.

I used to work for an MP out in the West Country, it was basically my job to forward constituents' complaints to the relevant local government departments. People seem to forget that MPs have absolutely zero executive power over local matters. At best they can try to persuade local officials, and act as a kind of local ombudsman. But really, you shouldn't expect Tessa to do much for East Dulwich - although it seems counter-intuitive, it's not actually her job. That's the job of Southwark Council. Rather, you should expect her to represent your views on national issues in Parliament. Ideally, MPs would stop holding constituency surgeries altogether, and the mayor of each borough would be directly elected and responsible for dealing with local concerns.

just a small thought re: the debate around whether passive smoking is actually harmful. Most smokers accept that smoking is harmful for them, because of all the bad things in cigarettes. But to those who doubt the harmful effects of passive smoking, I ask: do you really believe that your lungs filter out all of the bad stuff in fags, and that you what you exhale is therefore harmless?

-- moved topic --

My favourite are the smokers I know who have never given a toss about human rights / civil liberties / democratic principles in this or any other country, and probably don't even vote, who have now suddenly become 18th century libertarian political philosophers, discoursing effusively on freedom and the rights of the individual, just because they can't smoke in pubs. Priceless.

I walked past it last night and there was police tape and a garden fence appeared to have been knocked over.