Liberals are the problem

[unknownj]

I've had it pointed out to me more than once that my politics are a bit.. "extreme"..? I dunno, I don't care for that word - I'm always open to debate on it, and can back up any ideologies I might support with logical, considered arguments. With those attributes in mind, I don't find "extreme" to be a helpful word since it also describes people

Comments

[tma]

What will of course happen is that competition will do what competition does - serve markets, serve itself, and do nothing to help people.

Leaving the NHS thing aside (since I'm not on board with that crap), this statement isn't true. A lot of what you talk about seems to bash capitalism, when the competitive nature of, you know, humans, is precisely what drives companies to deliver better products and services.

Of course free market competition helps people - if nobody was competitive, and wanted to gain an advantage, no inventions would have been capitalised on, ever, and we'd still barely be out of the trees.

You fundamentally don't understand how humans have evolved if you think that a society based on everyone being equal has a hope of working - people will always want to get ahead.

[unknownj]

A lot of what you talk about seems to bash capitalism, when the competitive nature of, you know, humans, is precisely what drives companies to deliver better products and services.

Perhaps in the short term, but that often doesn't translate to long term social good, especially in the case of essential services. Competition drives towards very specific goals that are money orientated, so it only creates better products and services when doing so is not only financially viable, but represents the best opportunity to generate a return

[tma]

But would you not rather we had grown more slowly, in a more morally acceptable way?

No, because if you apply that policy to the entirety of human history we'd still be fresh out of the trees, and I'm really quite a fan of my roof and central heating. As nice as it might be, if you apply such stringent controls (and I don't argue that there shouldn't be controls), you don't get the advancement required.

At some point, can we not take our feet off the gas pedal, say "we're pretty happy with where we've got to, let's not maniacally chase economic growth

But we can't stay still - without advancement we won't be able to beat the huge challenges that are facing us as a species (overpopulation, climate change). What will drive people to invest in schemes like nuclear fusion? Anticipated profits. Profits they are taxed on to pay for the rather excellent welfare state, amongst other things we take for granted.

What you're talking about is the utopian future, the Star Trek future where people don't *need* money because everything you

[unknownj]

Your first paragraph basically says it all. You're happy to have a comfortable life at the expense of others. As such, you and I are coming at politics from very different angles.

overpopulation, climate change

Overpopulation is hugely driven by poverty, climate change by unsustainable industrial practices largely arising from a thirst for economic growth. A fairer and more equitable world resolves a great deal of that. Show me a social ill, and I'll show you how the human instinct to compete is a massive contributor to it in one way or another.

You seem worryingly comfortable with the idea that people who aren't you will inevitably be exploited in order that you can maintain your current quality of life, and in order to deliver progress (which will of course first be felt in the first world, by you). As I mentioned in the start, you and I are coming at this from incredibly different angles.