My battle with liberal Britain

[GonZ]

A bleak but interesting article.

I think the writer of the article himself pretty much shows how it is precisely the way our society and culture - in parts of the country - is, that causes the crime. The way we have ghetto type situations for different communities and hundreds of extremely poor families forced to live in crap side by side.

Someone might be born into a ghetto, but they are not forced to stay there - as Mr Bailey proves - there are ways out. Decent parenting, a culture of personal responsibility, and the perseverance necessary to keep trying are what's needed to get out.

The writer does over exaggerate the problems in my opinion and comes to clearly wrong conclusions. But even if we take what he says the reality is in these poor areas as truth, the answer is more government aid in the form of redistribution of wealth, property and social positioning, not anything else.

The solutions always seems to be more tax payers money. It seems to me that there's already too much tax money going into these areas. Single parent families are the prefered option because it pays better! Imo that needs to stop, and soon - and be replaced with a system that benefits two parent families.

Actually I am for more investment but it needs to be very carefully targetted.

If we spent more on areas of extreme poverty like the ones he is going on about, made them habitable, provided places for the young to go and do productive / fun things, not merely hang around on the streets, you would find a lot of the problems would cease. If the parents who apparently all don't give a damn about their children, actually had the time or money to do productive / fun / educational things with their children, you would see the situation impreove greatly. I do not deny that the parenting of children is hugely important, but what those who scream at the parents of these children never admit, is that it is not only near impossible to control the children on the estates given the situation and the means of the parents, but it is also often not the parents fault that they are in the situation they are in.

It's easy to blame the parents, but as usual blame doesn't solve anything.

What the situation needs is a concerted effort to break the cycle.

Imo this is best acheived via incentive and reward rather than handouts. e.g. if crime drops in this ward/area for three consecutive years there will be funding for e.g. This new sports centre etc. If Johnney stays out of trouble for 12 months, your benefits will be reinstated.

It needs a new approach, one that encourages resposibility, teamwork and a certain amount of social (community) cohesion...

I also believe if you implement things like more rehabilitation rather than locking up and throwing away the key policies and the legalisation of drugs, you would have a society which would go a long way to solving a lot of problems.

It appears to me that you need to push the education aspect at a very early age promotiong personal responsibility. At the same time, I think punishments for crack, smack dealers should stay harsh. Rehab should be available (nay compulsary) to addicts. Importers or manufacturers of crack should be jailed (no TV) and when they've done their time they should be exciled.

The much hated Labour govt - by both those on the left and right - it has to be said has done a fair few things which correspond with exactly what I have stated. The raising of the minimum wage, the extra funds given to local councils for youth centres, the sure start centres, the better public services etc. Labour is helping the problems, they just are not going far enough.

Actually I have seen things get better in certain areas. Take Hulme in Manchester. Once a crime ridden nightmare of high rise concrete crescents, now the crescents are gone replaced by individual, well built homes - a lot of the old problems have gone (or have moved on somewhere else...). I'm not convinced that labour can take all the credit for this.

[QwertyMIDX]

I love how conservatives always talk about talk taking responsibility for one's actions and not expecting the government to fix everything for you...and then blame every on "liberal government," and demand a conservative government to fix everything.

[QwertyMIDX]

How long have you been alive?

The worst kind of state is the one that does nothing but protect the interests of the ruling elites, theorists tend to call it a 'minimal state'. Of course coming in a close second is a totalitarian state that tries to be omnipotent and omniscient and overcome economic forces through its use of coercive force. The welfare state is an attempt to take the edge of the capitalist system without really changing anything, and while its defiantly not a serious long-term solution, nor is it particularly sustainable in an economic sense, it is a lot better than either of those options.

Also, my comment about conservatives was about 70% facetious and 25% sarcastic.

[QwertyMIDX]

The Welfare state is an attempt to take the edges off of a capitalist system that is already struggling itself.

That is true, capitalism is inherently unsustainable, grow or die is an unsustainable mentality and will eventually destroy itself or destroy us (or both).

Minimal state does nothing to help the ruling elite.

A minimal state does nothing but support the interests of the ruling elite because it does nothing but protect capital. Which group has control over a massive majority of capital? That’s right, the ruling elite.

The trend towards a "People-Friendly" big government has done nothing but warp economies and will not lead towards anything good in the end.

Of course the welfare state warps the market economy, having a government at all warps the market economy.

You obviously believe that an unregulated free market will make everyone rich and happy. The biggest lie liberal capitalists have peddled in the last 30 years (and there have been a lot of them) is that the entire world can eventually become a high consumption, post-industrial economy like the one we have in the minority world. The only reason the minority world is able to sustain such an economy is because we are able to exploit the cheap labor and natural resources of the majority world.

[QwertyMIDX]

The chances of real mobility aren't that good. Under capitalism the majority of people in the world will be born poor and die poor. Somehow I don't see much beauty in that.

[Tribesman]

the ultimate power lays with the Proletariat.
I knew she had returned , but I didn't know she was that powerfull

Welcome back Prole

[QwertyMIDX]

No. Only if the government intervenes with laws against strikes and unions. Even with capitalism, the ultimate power lays with the Proletariat.

This sounds nice, but it's not true. Capitalism is a system that is geared toward capital, not labour or land. The control of capital is what creates massive inequalities, inequalities that are, to a large degree, self-perpetuating. Further, capital is far more mobile and fluid than labour or land, as such it has an inherent advantage even without government intervention to protect capital (which any minimal state would still be based on). Unless you’re advocating a minimal state that doesn’t recognize private property it will always be a tool of the capitalist class.

[Papewaio]

The thing is that the labour is also the consumer. Slaves can't consume consumer goods... so you need a healthy middle and lower 'class' that has spare cash to spend money.

So if the consumers want to have local produced goods or non-sweat shop goods it is their choice.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Very true, GC.

Capitalism drives itself because -ideally- it is free from gov't intervention, so that people are completely free to do as they choose. No human or gov't can run an economy that ecompasses millions of people, all living different lives, making billions or trillions of transactions.

Crazed Rabbit

[Papewaio]

The chances of real mobility aren't that good. Under capitalism the majority of people in the world will be born poor and die poor. Somehow I don't see much beauty in that.

Really, so how much of Asia or Africa have you been to?

Stat wise those who are uneducated and live in a country that is not a democracy are going to be born poor and die poor.

While what are called poor in the first world are generally rich compared to the rest of the world.

"You do not plan to be sick or poor. But you have to plan to be healthy or rich."

[doc_bean]

We've had nothing but Liberals (be it the big government kind, the Big Brother kind (also known as "Here are my morals, now you have to follow them."), or the just plain socialist kind) for longer than i've been alive.

I, still find it hilarious that our liberals want to downsize the governlment, lower taxes, keep immigrants out and are often arguing with the socialists

Liberalism has seriously mutated across the pond

[Kralizec]

I'm arguing against a brick wall

The student example still stands. The kid with the rich kid has an obvious advantage, because he doesn't need to throw away 20+ hours working to be able to support his study, or his wasteful lifestyle. Discipline and willpower are not necessary for him to succeed, all what's needed is an occasional kick in the ass from his father with the warning "finish your studies or else go take care of yourself!"
The other kid who needs to pay for his rent, clothes, food, university fee, books etc with his own finances- is at an obvious disadvantage. The work he has to do to be able to pay for all that will take away significant time that he oculd have spent studying, or something else.
Would you say it's reasonable for a student to have to spend 60+ hours per week on work and education? It's a matter of opinion, but I think it's unfair, and I expect some people would chose not to go to university because they know they can't handle that.

And your point is what - both still get the education, both still have the the same potential because of the education. Only one had to work harder to get it. That is not inequality. Both individuals have the same opporunity and same potential for success.

Let's see, person A having to work harder then person B to get somewhere, is not inequality?

In my coutnry students can get 4 year grants. The grant itself isn't that much and won't be enough to cover monthly expenses, so people do get jobs for a limited number of hours per week. If that's not enough or if that costs them to much time wich impairs their studies, they can loan from the government at a negligable interest rate. Wich is what I like about my system- our government makes higher education accesible for everyone.

I don't know how grants work in America, but how many homeless, parentless and cashless kids end up at a good university in America? Let me rephrase that, how many Gelatinous Cube-esqe persons end up there? I don't know, but I bet it's not much. I bet it's the democrats fault, indeed, for giving them false hopes
On the other hand, I suppose that the reason that kids with rich parents end up at Yale, Harvard and Princeton is because of their incredible ambition and hard working nature. Being born with a silver spoon up your ass must make you a better person!

Of course it's not impossible for a poor kid to end up getting a good degree, and become succesful. But only the most hardworking and determined will make it. Having to struggle to get through university is natural and I accept that some people have an easier time. But I don't think people should have to struggle just to get to university.

[Redleg]

I'm arguing against a brick wall

The student example still stands. The kid with the rich kid has an obvious advantage, because he doesn't need to throw away 20+ hours working to be able to support his study, or his wasteful lifestyle. Discipline and willpower are not necessary for him to succeed, all what's needed is an occasional kick in the ass from his father with the warning "finish your studies or else go take care of yourself!"
The other kid who needs to pay for his rent, clothes, food, university fee, books etc with his own finances- is at an obvious disadvantage. The work he has to do to be able to pay for all that will take away significant time that he oculd have spent studying, or something else.
Would you say it's reasonable for a student to have to spend 60+ hours per week on work and education? It's a matter of opinion, but I think it's unfair, and I expect some people would chose not to go to university because they know they can't handle that.

Yep its unfair for the rich kid - because he has no work ethic. Those that can handle doing both work and school are better off then those who can not.

Let's see, person A having to work harder then person B to get somewhere, is not inequality?

In my coutnry students can get 4 year grants. The grant itself isn't that much and won't be enough to cover monthly expenses, so people do get jobs for a limited number of hours per week. If that's not enough or if that costs them to much time wich impairs their studies, they can loan from the government at a negligable interest rate. Wich is what I like about my system- our government makes higher education accesible for everyone.

You can get (well used to anyway) governmental loans at a low rate here in the United States also. So your point here is mute as far as I am concerned. The potential of both still remains.

I don't know how grants work in America, but how many homeless, parentless and cashless kids end up at a good university in America? Let me rephrase that, how many Gelatinous Cube-esqe persons end up there? I don't know, but I bet it's not much. I bet it's the democrats fault, indeed, for giving them false hopes

And that is your problem right there -

On the other hand, I suppose that the reason that kids with rich parents end up at Yale, Harvard and Princeton is because of their incredible ambition and hard working nature. Being born with a silver spoon up your ass must make you a better person!

I know poor kids who work hard that go to Universities that are just as good if not better in their fields then those schools - the point is that if you want an education in the United States your ability and potential to get an education exists equally regardless of your income level. Some just have to work harder for it then others. Some can not afford the Ivy League schools but can get the same type of education and work themselves up the ladder of success.

Of course it's not impossible for a poor kid to end up getting a good degree, and become succesful. But only the most hardworking and determined will make it. Having to struggle to get through university is natural and I accept that some people have an easier time. But I don't think people should have to struggle just to get to university.

I think if you earn it yourself your degree means more then the one that gets it handed to them. Regardless of where you go to school.