I hate Britain [Rant thread]

**Ignoramus** · 03-06-2007, 13:00

I know that, but I hardly want the Black Death to wipe out the third of the world's population again. And yet, that's what kept the population under control; Plagues, pestilence, famine, starvation, war, and drought all controlled the population. Now while I'm glad that there are a lot fewer wars these days, there's more food around, and medicine has advanced dramatically, you begin to wonder if this really is good.

Edit: What I mean to say is that while people are living longer, are they living better off? My answer is no.

**Fisherking** · 03-06-2007, 13:41

Originally Posted by Ignoramus

....Edit: What I mean to say is that while people are living longer, are they living better off? My answer is no.

Well if I had to be poor in Briton, I would certainly choose to be poor in Briton today over 200 years ago.

**BDC** · 03-06-2007, 15:38

Originally Posted by Fisherking

Well if I had to be poor in Briton, I would certainly choose to be poor in Briton today over 200 years ago.

It's probably better to be poor today than rich 200 years ago. You'll live longer, more comfortably, and it's still probably safer. And most the issues are social anyway, if people really had the motivation and know-how to get out of the mess they're in, they could.

**Del Arroyo** · 03-06-2007, 18:08

Near my hometown people have taken to buying comfortable, beautifully landscaped, $rich$ ranch homes with big, tree-filled yards; then tearing them down, and building grotesque, tasteless McMansions which consume the lot from left to right and barely have breathing room in the front or the back.

When so many people who have that much money can be that god-****** stupid, one has to wonder how long it will be before this **** gains critical mass.

**Tribesman** · 03-06-2007, 18:47

tasteless McMansions

you wouldn't by any chance have just read this months National Geographic ?

**The_Emperor** · 03-06-2007, 18:58

We wouldn't have the need for all these new homes if the greedy yuppies didn't keep buying second third or even fourth homes pricing ordinary people out of the market.

There needs to be a limit on how many houses you can own, even if your buying to rent.

**BDC** · 03-06-2007, 19:04

Originally Posted by The_Emperor

We wouldn't have the need for all these new homes if the greedy yuppies didn't keep buying second third or even fourth homes pricing ordinary people out of the market.

There needs to be a limit on how many houses you can own, even if your buying to rent.

I don't know, I think it's more all these divorced people who buy out new homes to live on their own. So instead of a family taking up 1 4 bedroomed house, it now takes up two.

Maybe you could give tax breaks depending on how many people live in a house...

Buying to rent doesn't really cause sprawl. It just means people end up renting. Sooner or later the market is going to fall though, looking at prices there is no way even a couple can get onto the market without being investment bankers or inheriting a fortune.

**Soulforged** · 03-08-2007, 22:57

Originally Posted by BDC

It's probably better to be poor today than rich 200 years ago. You'll live longer, more comfortably, and it's still probably safer. And most the issues are social anyway, if people really had the motivation and know-how to get out of the mess they're in, they could.

That depends on how much "poor" you are. If you're indigent, you'll be an indigent on all times along the line. Also nobody would prefer to be poor on any time, it not only implies an scarcity of money, food, clothes, etc. but also a psicological and social stigma.

About the original subject, I thought that the principle of prohibition of abuse existed on Britain, even more I believed it was created there in a funny case of conflict between neighbors. In any case, I think that by now humanity has learned that there's nothing absolute nor perfect, not even the oh holy right of private property. For example if I constructed on my property a wall 20 feet tall, my neighbor will surely object, and he'll be right, he has also the right to enjoy the surroundings.

**Tribesman** · 03-08-2007, 23:41

For example if I constructed on my property a wall 20 feet tall, my neighbor will surely object, and he'll be right, he has also the right to enjoy the surroundings.

If you constucted a wall 20 feet tall on your property it wouldn't be the neighbour objecting it would be the planning authorities , I havn't worked there for some time but the old rules over there limited you to 1200 mm at the front and 1800 mm at sides and back , unless you could prove to them that you had a very good reason to exceed it .
Though unless the planning rules over there have changed you could plant them bloody awful cypress lelandi(sp?) to give you what is effectively a 20' + wall in a very short time .

**Soulforged** · 03-09-2007, 00:12

Originally Posted by Tribesman

If you constucted a wall 20 feet tall on your property it wouldn't be the neighbour objecting it would be the planning authorities , I havn't worked there for some time but the old rules over there limited you to 1200 mm at the front and 1800 mm at sides and back , unless you could prove to them that you had a very good reason to exceed it .
Though unless the planning rules over there have changed you could plant them bloody awful cypress lelandi(sp?) to give you what is effectively a 20' + wall in a very short time .

Wait Tribes, you actually worked in Argentina. When was that?

My example was only that, an example...

**Caius** · 03-09-2007, 00:18

For example if I constructed on my property a wall 20 feet tall, my neighbor will surely object, and he'll be right, he has also the right to enjoy the surroundings.

¡Pero tu vecino no puede decidir que tu no haras!

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

But your neitborhoud(sp?) cant decide what are you going to do!

**Tribesman** · 03-09-2007, 01:37

Wait Tribes, you actually worked in Argentina. When was that?

Ah you see this bit.....About the original subject, I thought that the principle of prohibition of abuse existed on Britain, even more I believed it was created there in a funny case of conflict between neighbors.

**ShadeHonestus** · 03-09-2007, 00:12

Originally Posted by Soulforged

That depends on how much "poor" you are. If you're indigent, you'll be an indigent on all times along the line. Also nobody would prefer to be poor on any time, it not only implies an scarcity of money, food, clothes, etc. but also a psicological and social stigma.

Well I'm pretty sure that some of the indigent even a century or two ago (let alone a further in the past) would have loved to see our modern soup kitchens or even the emergency health care that even the indigent aren't refused.
If I had to choose poor today as opposed to any time in history, based on services (within and across borders) to the poor alone...no brainer.

Gotta go with BDC on this one as how he meant it.