Cricket Betting Site Betway
Page 4 of 12 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 174
Like Tree153Likes

Thread: What's a politics question you've always wanted to ask Cribb but haven't [...]?

  1. #46
    Request Your Custom Title Now! OverratedSanity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Elton Chicken Burrah
    Posts
    32,555
    Well this just turned uncomfortable.
    Quote Originally Posted by TNT View Post
    You need to clap a cows c**t over your head and get a woolly bull to f**k some sense into you.

  2. #47
    Request Your Custom Title Now! Spikey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    the guy's trash bro
    Posts
    48,127
    I'm asking the questions you guys are afraid to ask. Oh I'm saying it

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LYjqm9HIGtQ
    http://www.theguardian.com/sport/blo...cricket-legacy

    Brad McNamara ‏@bbuzzmc
    Will say this once and then nothing else. Defamation laws quite clear in Aus.be careful.

  3. #48
    Global Moderator Prince EWS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Cribbertopia
    Posts
    56,489
    Quote Originally Posted by Pothas View Post
    Would you actually vote for UKIP of you lived in the UK? Desoite their attitude towards immigration and new found love for a national health service.
    My position on this changes all the time.

    I'd have more of a problem with the UKIP immigration policy if I actually thought the Tory immigration policy or the Lib Dem immigration policy were good. All the parties want to heavily restrict immigration because it seems to be political suicide to say otherwise, and the pro-EU parties need to impose really strict controls over people from non-EU countries in order to keep the numbers down. The UKIP policy is at least somewhat meritocratic, even if it's more restrictive. I don't like the policy and I absolute detest the rhetoric used to support it, but the only party offering anywhere near what I'd call a good immigration policy is the Greens, and I'm pretty obviously not going to vote for them.

    It'd probably come down to who exactly the candidates in my area were to some extent (a much larger percentage of UKIP candidates are libertarianish than are UKIP members), but I ultimately I do think the fact that one party wants to abolish the most tyrannical level of government and the rest don't would make me likely to hold my nose a bit and vote UKIP.
    Rejecting 'analysis by checklist' and 'skill absolutism' since Dec '09
    'Stats' is not a synonym for 'Career Test Averages'


    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffrey Tucker
    Someone asked me the other day if I believe in conspiracies. Well, sure. Here's one. It is called the political system. It is nothing if not a giant conspiracy to rob, trick and subjugate the population.
    Before replying to TJB, always remember:
    Quote Originally Posted by TheJediBrah View Post
    Next week I'll probably be arguing the opposite

  4. #49
    Global Moderator Prince EWS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Cribbertopia
    Posts
    56,489
    Quote Originally Posted by GIMH View Post
    @Cribb do you really think the community would look after sick poor people in a libertarian society
    It depends on your definition of "libertarian society", but...

    Natural rights libertarians would say that the answer to this didn't matter, because it's more moral to let someone die than it is to use force to make someone else save them.

    Consequentialist libertarians would make two arguments; firstly arguing that this would happen to a much greater extent than people think because the government currently crowds out charity. They point to a period from the 1870s on to the early 1900s in the US where state-provided relief was abolished and replaced very adequately by private charity, and so on. They'd also argue that the state does not actually do this very effectively at the moment anyway.

    I've made variations of both these arguments on here before, but I'm not all that convinced by them. I definitely do think private charity would fill the gap to a greater extent than people realise, but unlike most consequentialist libertarians, I'm not convinced it'd be adequate. I don't think people have a right to healthcare, but unlike natural rights libertarians, I do think a society in which all people could afford basic health cover would be a freer society, even if it meant private property was respected in a lesser capacity.

    Not all libertarians oppose all welfare, though. Libertarianism's first principle as a philosophy holds that freedom is desirable, and libertarianism as a political movement holds that smaller government is an important means to achieving that freedom; these are concepts that can lend to abolishment of state welfare but don't demand it. Milton Friedman advocated a negative income tax for the poor, which is actually very similar to what the UK Greens are advocating except Friedman's version would obviously replace all welfare rather than adding to it. Friedrich Hayek, probably my favourite libertarian thinker, advocated a small welfare state to prevent infanticide and foster social mobility. These sort of arguments are very popular at the Bleeding Heart Libertarian and libertarianism.org sites these days, and I'm inclined to agree to a large extent.

    What you won't find any libertarians advocating though is the state actually running the health services directly as happens in the UK. Public sector monopolies devoid of price signals and accountability are never efficient, and they presuppose that there's an objective value latent in health cover. I'm very much okay with the state having a role in making sure everyone has the means to purchase health insurance, but I'm much less okay with the state running the health service or telling people that they want to buy health insurance when they don't because government knows better. Poverty is a serious problem, but people spending their money on things you don't want them to is not.
    Last edited by Prince EWS; 24-04-2015 at 06:22 AM.


  5. #50
    Global Moderator Prince EWS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Cribbertopia
    Posts
    56,489
    Quote Originally Posted by Uppercut View Post
    I don't think this argument adds up. Utility is a subjective concept, but so is Freedom. You're advocating maximising Freedom because it's a good proxy for Utility, but that's just multiplying the level of subjectivity by introducing another layer. Why not address Utility directly?
    I'm removing the layer of utility entirely rather than adding another layer on top of it.

    My position in a nutshell is that all value is subjective, and to respect this means to maximise people's potential (or 'freedom') to live by and apply their own subjective value system to its greatest extent. The state often gets in the way of this by imposing its own supposedly objective value system over the entire jurisdiction through the threat of force.
    Last edited by Prince EWS; 24-04-2015 at 06:10 AM.
    zorax and indiaholic like this.

  6. #51
    Global Moderator Prince EWS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Cribbertopia
    Posts
    56,489
    Quote Originally Posted by Spikey View Post
    Prince EWS: Was America right to drop nukes on Japan
    Nah. Killing peaceful civilians isn't cool.
    indiaholic likes this.

  7. #52
    Norwood's on Fire GIMH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    League One
    Posts
    60,075
    You do know people can use other health services yeah?

    They still have to pay for the NHS mind
    Prince EWS likes this.

    Quote Originally Posted by Axl Rose
    The internet is a big garbage can


    RIP Craigos. A true CW legend. You will be missed.

  8. #53
    Global Moderator Fusion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    12,296
    Quote Originally Posted by Prince EWS View Post
    Consequentialist libertarians would make two arguments; firstly arguing that this would happen to a much greater extent than people think because the government currently crowds out charity. They point to a period from the 1870s on to the early 1900s in the US where state-provided relief was abolished and replaced very adequately by private charity, and so on. They'd also argue that the state does not actually do this very effectively at the moment anyway.
    Out of curiosity, what evidence/citation do they provide to back this point?

  9. #54
    Global Moderator Prince EWS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Cribbertopia
    Posts
    56,489
    Quote Originally Posted by Fusion View Post
    Out of curiosity, what evidence/citation do they provide to back this point?
    It's not something I've tested the validity of myself, but as the story goes, relief was severely cut back in several American cities in the 1870s, and charity records show that these private charities picked up the slack to supply pretty much the same amount as what the relief was providing in most of those cases.

    I can't verify it myself, but given the counter-argument to this is, without fail, always something to the tune of "you can't compare the 1870s to the 2010s", the trueness of it doesn't really seem to be in question, so I have no reason to doubt it.

    I don't think it's an ultimately compelling argument myself in any rate, but I do think it's probably true. I can ask someone I know who actually believes in the argument to provide some sources if you like.

  10. #55
    Evil Scotsman
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    away from here
    Posts
    31,049
    Quote Originally Posted by Prince EWS View Post
    It depends on your definition of "libertarian society", but...

    Natural rights libertarians would say that the answer to this didn't matter, because it's more moral to let someone die than it is to use force to make someone else save them.

    Consequentialist libertarians would make two arguments; firstly arguing that this would happen to a much greater extent than people think because the government currently crowds out charity. They point to a period from the 1870s on to the early 1900s in the US where state-provided relief was abolished and replaced very adequately by private charity, and so on. They'd also argue that the state does not actually do this very effectively at the moment anyway.

    I've made variations of both these arguments on here before, but I'm not all that convinced by them. I definitely do think private charity would fill the gap to a greater extent than people realise, but unlike most consequentialist libertarians, I'm not convinced it'd be adequate. I don't think people have a right to healthcare, but unlike natural rights libertarians, I do think a society in which all people could afford basic health cover would be a freer society, even if it meant private property was respected in a lesser capacity.

    Not all libertarians oppose all welfare, though. Libertarianism's first principle as a philosophy holds that freedom is desirable, and libertarianism as a political movement holds that smaller government is an important means to achieving that freedom; these are concepts that can lend to abolishment of state welfare but don't demand it. Milton Friedman advocated a negative income tax for the poor, which is actually very similar to what the UK Greens are advocating except Friedman's version would obviously replace all welfare rather than adding to it. Friedrich Hayek, probably my favourite libertarian thinker, advocated a small welfare state to prevent infanticide and foster social mobility. These sort of arguments are very popular at the Bleeding Heart Libertarian and libertarianism.org sites these days, and I'm inclined to agree to a large extent.

    What you won't find any libertarians advocating though is the state actually running the health services directly as happens in the UK. Public sector monopolies devoid of price signals and accountability are never efficient, and they presuppose that there's an objective value latent in health cover. I'm very much okay with the state having a role in making sure everyone has the means to purchase health insurance, but I'm much less okay with the state running the health service or telling people that they want to buy health insurance when they don't because government knows better. Poverty is a serious problem, but people spending their money on things you don't want them to is not.
    That'll be why the NHS is 2nd only to Switzerland in terms of providing value for money, and is far more efficient than the US health service.

    'No right to healthcare.' ****ing mentalist.
    Flem274* and indiaholic like this.

  11. #56
    Request Your Custom Title Now! Burgey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    The Castle
    Posts
    65,851
    Quote Originally Posted by Pratters View Post
    For millions of years we had followed this system of nations which has lead to vast inequalities in regions. So if we just disallow it instantly, people will throng to the places they deem will give them more opportunities. This will affect the dynamics of the region which is doing well. Just take the case of Calcutta and Bangladesh. Illegal immigrants just add to the burden of the current tax payers and countries already exhausted by resources like say India.
    So it has been ok for India to sea itself out of the **** economically and to have a growing middle class, but it isn't for Bangladesh?

  12. #57
    International Captain Riggins's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    6,258
    im becoming more and more pro libertarianism/cribbanism
    The sort of general malaise that only the genius possess and the insane lament.

  13. #58
    Norwood's on Fire GIMH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    League One
    Posts
    60,075
    Quote Originally Posted by Riggins View Post
    im becoming more and more pro libertarianism/cribbanism
    Dude this doesn't help the #VoteRiggins campaign

  14. #59
    Request Your Custom Title Now! Spikey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    the guy's trash bro
    Posts
    48,127
    in a libertarian world injustices such as https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k4MXMCkwHSM will occur all the time

  15. #60
    International Captain Riggins's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    6,258
    Quote Originally Posted by GIMH View Post
    Dude this doesn't help the #VoteRiggins campaign
    haha. i don't think it will have much steam regardless.

Page 4 of 12 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 283
    Last Post: 11-05-2015, 11:04 PM
  2. Now only two teams haven't been whitewashed!!
    By WindieWeathers in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 147
    Last Post: 27-03-2013, 10:22 PM
  3. Haven't been able to access CW for the past week
    By wellAlbidarned in forum Cricket Web Downtime
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 11-11-2012, 10:04 PM
  4. Is Cribb a bot?
    By sledger in forum Testing Forum
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 30-11-2011, 05:32 AM
  5. Politics Question
    By Manee in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 13-01-2010, 02:44 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •