Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Is Mr Shelbrooke MP stupid? What matters more is how stupid he thinks we are. His proposal to restrict access to booze & fags for those receiving welfare benefits is insultingly worthless to achieve his stated end.


Make his proposal law, and, if If I'm on the jobseekers, and I want a drink or a smoke, all I'll have to do is buy half a dozen chicken legs for a friend, who will then buy me a bottle of own brand gin or a packet of twenty.


Also, how are shopkeepers to know who's on benefits unless we're all kitted out with ID cards that will let anyone and everyone know our employment status?


Or, if the unemployed are to be paid by giving them some kind of charge card, it will simply be another step towards the abolition of cash transactions.


Another point worth making is that being out of work or generally poor and on benefits is no fun. It's plain sadism to try blocking those on benefits from drowning their sorrows.


By all means, cut down on systematic fraud by largely foreign gangs and by those working inside the welfare system. Also, make it easier for people to get off welfare - by cutting taxes on low pay and cutting regulations on micro-businesses. But leave the genuinely helpless to enjoy the few pleasures that are still not illegal.

I'd not heard about this, but the whole putting added pressure on the unemployed in order to somehow convince them that getting a job would be a good idea is just ridiculous. Yes there are SOME people who will happily sign on, whilst earning off the book, and living quite well, but for the most part people are desperate to climb out of their situation.


The idea you outline put me in mind of Compulsory income management in Australia. Indigenous Australians treated like shit, not welcome in a lot of work places, turn to drink because life is so crap, and then get told the government are going to give you food vouchers instead of money.

To clarify - I generally take a libertarian stance. For a majority of EDF readers Libertarianism is roughly equivalent to a s wiggle eyed, right wing, carpet munching Europhobe.


I wanted to draw attention to the fact that my kind of libertarianism is the more nuanced and liberal kind that prefers small government with a minimum of state interference.

Huguenot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Never really saw libertarianism as a conservative ideal.

>

> I'm sure there are many overlapping objectivess which could make them uneasy bedfellows, but

> British conservatism is obsessed with natural order and hierarchy, authority and control.


But you could also quite easily argue that the left wing is also obsessed with authority and control, in fact more so. Which is why I argue that libertarianism transcends simple left/right politics.

As I've said, libertarianism is about freedom to behave as libertarians would like everyone too.

There's no sense of irony because they see as other behaviour as an aberration from the norm, therefore allowing it is the opposite of liberal behaviour it's specifically enabling perversion therefore against the freedom of those who wish to live free from aberration.

Funny really.


I consider myself a common or garden liberal, live and let live i say.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • So... you saw them then? In spite of them having no lights (and presumably being dressed in all black / coming out of nowhere / insert any other standard anti-cyclist trope here). I've long thought that the best way of being visible as a cyclist is to wear all black, have no lights and to ride on the pavement (or jump red lights). Not only does literally *everyone* see you, they pop onto the local forum to complain about you! On the other hand if you dress in all yellow and get T-boned, the driver will still manage to say "sorry mate, I didn't see you". 😉
    • Fine dude - you do you. I dont think you have the slightest interest in the BBC (whereas clearly HeadNun dos) other than its elimination.  If it made these mistakes against starmer/davey/greens whoever I doubt you would get as upset. It’s all very “bring a pen to Brexit referendum because they can rub out pencil  votes” (“but strafe!! Dave hasn’t said any of these things on here  and if you suggest he does elsewhere you have no proof!”  This is true! And yet here we are ) I’ll ask again. Why do you think lowe said foreigner and domestic.  Instead of just “criminals”?
    • The number of cyclists that are not wearing front and rear lights, or high visibility clothes is unreal. Add to that dangerous weaving in and out, especially on this weather. So selfish, irresponsible and dangerous. We’re just tracking a bus route through Camberwell and have seen too many cyclists inadequately dressed and breaking the law.  
    • So the standards you hold the BBC to are the "several people" are also incompetent. Great. Half a million people last year stopped paying the licence fee because of those standards.    The Trump story came out of an internal BBC memo. But it's not just Trump and Lowe and other politicians you don't happen to agree with where their standards have fallen way below what licence payers are entitled to. There are a litany of failures covered by that memo, covering such broad ranging subjects as Israel/Hams, Transgender issues, Racism, Immigration, and oversimplified or distorted narratives on historical content. It's a deep rooted problem that needs solving immediately and yesterday's follow on blunder instills no confidence. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...