|
United States44033 Posts
On April 09 2013 02:24 Iyerbeth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2013 02:15 KwarK wrote:On April 09 2013 02:10 Rossie wrote:
A toxic, inhumane woman whose world view was typified by the statement: "There is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families."
Everything that went wrong with the UK (housing crisis, banking crisis, lopsided dependence on the City, de-industrial revolution and the stricken communities created by it) was the direct result of her policies.
The only good thing I can say about her is that David Cameron is twice as evil. Taken out of context as you would know if you'd looked into her history and politics at all before repeating such a often misquoted statement. Here it is in full "They're casting their problem on society. And, you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first. It's our duty to look after ourselves and then, also to look after our neighbour. People have got the entitlements too much in mind, without the obligations, because there is no such thing as an entitlement unless someone has first met an obligation" What it means is that saying that something is "society's problem" or an obligation of society doesn't mean anything because society isn't a real person who can come in and fix everything for us. It's made up of individual men and women. You should take your meaningless, superficial and ultimately idiotic critique back to youtube comments where they belong. I think it's somewhat misleading to suggest that that is the quote in full there. Show nested quote +
What is wrong with the deterioration? I think we have gone through a period when too many children and people have been given to understand “I have a problem, it is the Government's job to cope with it!” or “I have a problem, I will go and get a grant to cope with it!” “I am homeless, the Government must house me!” and so they are casting their problems on society and who is society? There is no such thing! There are individual men and women and there are families and no government can do anything except through people and people look to themselves first. It is our duty to look after ourselves and then also to help look after our neighbour and life is a reciprocal business and people have got the entitlements too much in mind without the obligations, because there is no such thing as an entitlement unless someone has first met an obligation and it is, I think, one of the tragedies in which many of the benefits we give, which were meant to reassure people that if they were sick or ill there was a safety net and there was help, that many of the benefits which were meant to help people who were unfortunate—“It is all right. We joined together and we have these insurance schemes to look after it”. That was the objective, but somehow there are some people who have been manipulating the system and so some of those help and benefits that were meant to say to people: “All right, if you cannot get a job, you shall have a basic standard of living!” but when people come and say: “But what is the point of working? I can get as much on the dole!” You say: “Look” It is not from the dole. It is your neighbour who is supplying it and if you can earn your own living then really you have a duty to do it and you will feel very much better!”
And you don't agree that there is a disconnect in the mind of the people between demanding that their neighbour subsidise their income when they want a government grant and putting the burden on 'society'? Because I think there is. I think things would be an awful lot better if there was a genuine awareness of people that while we have this safety net in place, and we should have it, it is paid for by individuals and families. When you go on the dole there is a family that might be scraping by that is being forced to add your expenses into their weekly budget because you are telling society that you cannot support yourself. When people take money from the state they don't think about it in those terms because the idea that society is a person who is very rich and has money to spare is much more comforting. But it's not true, society doesn't exist, when you become a burden on society you are becoming a burden on real people and on real families.
|
On April 08 2013 21:29 Jockmcplop wrote:
I will refrain from posting my opinions about her here, but will leave sincere condolences to her family
x
There is a debate to be had about her, but not here and not now.
RIP Baroness
|
On April 09 2013 02:24 Iyerbeth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2013 02:15 KwarK wrote:On April 09 2013 02:10 Rossie wrote:
A toxic, inhumane woman whose world view was typified by the statement: "There is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families."
Everything that went wrong with the UK (housing crisis, banking crisis, lopsided dependence on the City, de-industrial revolution and the stricken communities created by it) was the direct result of her policies.
The only good thing I can say about her is that David Cameron is twice as evil. Taken out of context as you would know if you'd looked into her history and politics at all before repeating such a often misquoted statement. Here it is in full "They're casting their problem on society. And, you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first. It's our duty to look after ourselves and then, also to look after our neighbour. People have got the entitlements too much in mind, without the obligations, because there is no such thing as an entitlement unless someone has first met an obligation" What it means is that saying that something is "society's problem" or an obligation of society doesn't mean anything because society isn't a real person who can come in and fix everything for us. It's made up of individual men and women. You should take your meaningless, superficial and ultimately idiotic critique back to youtube comments where they belong. I think it's somewhat misleading to suggest that that is the quote in full there. Show nested quote +
What is wrong with the deterioration? I think we have gone through a period when too many children and people have been given to understand “I have a problem, it is the Government's job to cope with it!” or “I have a problem, I will go and get a grant to cope with it!” “I am homeless, the Government must house me!” and so they are casting their problems on society and who is society? There is no such thing! There are individual men and women and there are families and no government can do anything except through people and people look to themselves first. It is our duty to look after ourselves and then also to help look after our neighbour and life is a reciprocal business and people have got the entitlements too much in mind without the obligations, because there is no such thing as an entitlement unless someone has first met an obligation and it is, I think, one of the tragedies in which many of the benefits we give, which were meant to reassure people that if they were sick or ill there was a safety net and there was help, that many of the benefits which were meant to help people who were unfortunate—“It is all right. We joined together and we have these insurance schemes to look after it”. That was the objective, but somehow there are some people who have been manipulating the system and so some of those help and benefits that were meant to say to people: “All right, if you cannot get a job, you shall have a basic standard of living!” but when people come and say: “But what is the point of working? I can get as much on the dole!” You say: “Look” It is not from the dole. It is your neighbour who is supplying it and if you can earn your own living then really you have a duty to do it and you will feel very much better!”
Full quote is even better for her, the idea that people on entitlements have an obligation to get off entitlements if they are able rather than simply demanding handouts indefinitely is an idea that is very much needed and is very much lacking in our times. Apparently it's heartless and evil to expect people who take to also give back or get into a position at least where they are not simply taking and taking anymore.
All she's saying is that a society is made up of individuals and individuals can't make the ideal amount of contributions to society if they are either jumping on other people's backs and contributing nothing or have people on their back so they are motivated to hold on to what they have harder and give out less.
|
Opinions are obviously divided about the woman, I wasn't really old enough to care about politics when she was in power. If anything I think its a shame that someone of her obvious intellect and ability had such an awful end. All of her faculties gone.
|
On April 09 2013 02:06 Hitch-22 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2013 00:04 hzflank wrote:
I am a little disgusted that Thatcher still gets so much support. She did more to harm the UK than any other single person since Hitler.
User was warned for this post Do please add some content to that statement, maybe a little less on the ridiculous hyperbole and some substance; seems both the moderator and myself (and probably many people) seemingly think making statements of comparison between Thatcher and Hitler deserves a smack down but perhaps we're all wrong and you can show us the way. I'm kind of surprised to see so many people who are such valiant economically inclined people claiming Thatcher relatively destroyed Britain's unionism and pushed crippling blows on the middle class... Don't get me wrong, unions are great in theory but let's look no further then the United States to see how terrible unionism can corrupt itself inward. You can ask the majority of the community within economics and political finances regarding Britain's near economic collapse and see who they mention as the polarizing figure that turned their course, that would involve some studying though and most people today read a single quote on Facebook about the terrible corporations and clap their hands together with that perspective without any actual research of their own.
I cannot comment on the moderation here, but it seems some people think that I compared Thatcher to Hitler, when I clearly did not. I genuinely cannot think of a person since 1945 who has done more harm to the UK than Thatcher.
The reason that I think Thatcher was so bad is due to the change in economic policy that started with Thatcher (in the UK at least). I do not like unregulated capitalism and think that it is and will continue to cause us big problems. I am a Keynesian so I think that employment of the masses is more important than privatization of industry and services. I think anyone has to agree that if someone believes that Keynes was correct then what Thatcher did was very wrong.
|
United States44033 Posts
DeepElemBlues,
And yet people repeat "there is no such thing as society" over and over as they heap condemnation upon her. Such is the state of popular political dialogue. Reading context is pretty hard.
|
She is/was extremely unpopular among the working class and really all northern people to this day.
|
On April 09 2013 02:30 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2013 02:24 Iyerbeth wrote:On April 09 2013 02:15 KwarK wrote:On April 09 2013 02:10 Rossie wrote:
A toxic, inhumane woman whose world view was typified by the statement: "There is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families."
Everything that went wrong with the UK (housing crisis, banking crisis, lopsided dependence on the City, de-industrial revolution and the stricken communities created by it) was the direct result of her policies.
The only good thing I can say about her is that David Cameron is twice as evil. Taken out of context as you would know if you'd looked into her history and politics at all before repeating such a often misquoted statement. Here it is in full "They're casting their problem on society. And, you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first. It's our duty to look after ourselves and then, also to look after our neighbour. People have got the entitlements too much in mind, without the obligations, because there is no such thing as an entitlement unless someone has first met an obligation" What it means is that saying that something is "society's problem" or an obligation of society doesn't mean anything because society isn't a real person who can come in and fix everything for us. It's made up of individual men and women. You should take your meaningless, superficial and ultimately idiotic critique back to youtube comments where they belong. I think it's somewhat misleading to suggest that that is the quote in full there.
What is wrong with the deterioration? I think we have gone through a period when too many children and people have been given to understand “I have a problem, it is the Government's job to cope with it!” or “I have a problem, I will go and get a grant to cope with it!” “I am homeless, the Government must house me!” and so they are casting their problems on society and who is society? There is no such thing! There are individual men and women and there are families and no government can do anything except through people and people look to themselves first. It is our duty to look after ourselves and then also to help look after our neighbour and life is a reciprocal business and people have got the entitlements too much in mind without the obligations, because there is no such thing as an entitlement unless someone has first met an obligation and it is, I think, one of the tragedies in which many of the benefits we give, which were meant to reassure people that if they were sick or ill there was a safety net and there was help, that many of the benefits which were meant to help people who were unfortunate—“It is all right. We joined together and we have these insurance schemes to look after it”. That was the objective, but somehow there are some people who have been manipulating the system and so some of those help and benefits that were meant to say to people: “All right, if you cannot get a job, you shall have a basic standard of living!” but when people come and say: “But what is the point of working? I can get as much on the dole!” You say: “Look” It is not from the dole. It is your neighbour who is supplying it and if you can earn your own living then really you have a duty to do it and you will feel very much better!”
And you don't agree that there is a disconnect in the mind of the people between demanding that their neighbour subsidise their income when they want a government grant and putting the burden on 'society'? Because I think there is. I think things would be an awful lot better if there was a genuine awareness of people that while we have this safety net in place, and we should have it, it is paid for by individuals and families. When you go on the dole there is a family that might be scraping by that is being forced to add your expenses into their weekly budget because you are telling society that you cannot support yourself. When people take money from the state they don't think about it in those terms because the idea that society is a person who is very rich and has money to spare is much more comforting. But it's not true, society doesn't exist, when you become a burden on society you are becoming a burden on real people and on real families.
I absolutely agree that people need to be aware of the cost to real people, I certainly wouldn't argue otherwise. My issue with her statement that there is no such thing as society was that she was specifically dismissing the concerns of real people, many of who she was actively causing severe disruption to (severe enough that its effects are still apparent today) for an ideological class war. She specifically disliked the idea of everyone in it together, which is why she was dismissing society.
Her concern, even in the quote, isn't deteriation of society, isn't that work should pay decently, that housing should be built and available (see: Liverpool especially) or even a concern for people in general. Her statement that society doesn't exist really is an attack on society, in favour of personal greed. She merely obfuscates it well behind her language, the message is unmistakable.
|
On April 09 2013 02:30 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +A country needs a strong, healthy, and motivated workforce as much as it needs low taxes, if not more. Britain had a strong, healthy, motivated workforce during the 1970s?
Yes, to a degree they did, and Maggie didn't appreciate them -- or do you think British people in the 1970's were just inherently lazier for no real reason? She used idiotic rhetoric to simply segregate people from each other -- to tell use that we're not responsible for anyone else. Her rhetoric was as wrong and stupid as it is cruel.
I must admit, Argentina and the USSR were fine countries doing no wrong and it's shameful how the Baroness bullied them, and how she was a violent imperialist [snort] and didn't care about innocent people [snigger] and had 'antiquated' [roflmao] views about 'Old England.' [don't get the vapors now!]
Surely, you're not an Argentinian, and even more surely, you didn't lose anyone due to her military actions. "Innocent people [snigger]?" Right... Surely everyone who died from Maggie's military strikes were completely guilty and deserved to be executed.
|
On April 09 2013 02:36 KwarK wrote:
DeepElemBlues,
And yet people repeat "there is no such thing as society" over and over as they heap condemnation upon her. Such is the state of popular political dialogue. Reading context is pretty hard.
We live in a world where everyone has a microscopic attention span, leading to tons of misinformation, misquotation and misconstruance, all of which are owed to laziness and the lack of a desire to do research and form an opinion of one's own. This is hardly surprising...
|
Argentina attacked and invaded British soil, yet "Maggies military strikes" make her a villain?
|
United States44033 Posts
On April 09 2013 02:39 Iyerbeth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2013 02:30 KwarK wrote:On April 09 2013 02:24 Iyerbeth wrote:On April 09 2013 02:15 KwarK wrote:On April 09 2013 02:10 Rossie wrote:
A toxic, inhumane woman whose world view was typified by the statement: "There is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families."
Everything that went wrong with the UK (housing crisis, banking crisis, lopsided dependence on the City, de-industrial revolution and the stricken communities created by it) was the direct result of her policies.
The only good thing I can say about her is that David Cameron is twice as evil. Taken out of context as you would know if you'd looked into her history and politics at all before repeating such a often misquoted statement. Here it is in full "They're casting their problem on society. And, you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first. It's our duty to look after ourselves and then, also to look after our neighbour. People have got the entitlements too much in mind, without the obligations, because there is no such thing as an entitlement unless someone has first met an obligation" What it means is that saying that something is "society's problem" or an obligation of society doesn't mean anything because society isn't a real person who can come in and fix everything for us. It's made up of individual men and women. You should take your meaningless, superficial and ultimately idiotic critique back to youtube comments where they belong. I think it's somewhat misleading to suggest that that is the quote in full there.
What is wrong with the deterioration? I think we have gone through a period when too many children and people have been given to understand “I have a problem, it is the Government's job to cope with it!” or “I have a problem, I will go and get a grant to cope with it!” “I am homeless, the Government must house me!” and so they are casting their problems on society and who is society? There is no such thing! There are individual men and women and there are families and no government can do anything except through people and people look to themselves first. It is our duty to look after ourselves and then also to help look after our neighbour and life is a reciprocal business and people have got the entitlements too much in mind without the obligations, because there is no such thing as an entitlement unless someone has first met an obligation and it is, I think, one of the tragedies in which many of the benefits we give, which were meant to reassure people that if they were sick or ill there was a safety net and there was help, that many of the benefits which were meant to help people who were unfortunate—“It is all right. We joined together and we have these insurance schemes to look after it”. That was the objective, but somehow there are some people who have been manipulating the system and so some of those help and benefits that were meant to say to people: “All right, if you cannot get a job, you shall have a basic standard of living!” but when people come and say: “But what is the point of working? I can get as much on the dole!” You say: “Look” It is not from the dole. It is your neighbour who is supplying it and if you can earn your own living then really you have a duty to do it and you will feel very much better!”
And you don't agree that there is a disconnect in the mind of the people between demanding that their neighbour subsidise their income when they want a government grant and putting the burden on 'society'? Because I think there is. I think things would be an awful lot better if there was a genuine awareness of people that while we have this safety net in place, and we should have it, it is paid for by individuals and families. When you go on the dole there is a family that might be scraping by that is being forced to add your expenses into their weekly budget because you are telling society that you cannot support yourself. When people take money from the state they don't think about it in those terms because the idea that society is a person who is very rich and has money to spare is much more comforting. But it's not true, society doesn't exist, when you become a burden on society you are becoming a burden on real people and on real families. I absolutely agree that people need to be aware of the cost to real people, I certainly wouldn't argue otherwise. My issue with her statement that there is no such thing as society was that she was specifically dismissing the concerns of real people, many of who she was actively causing severe disruption to (severe enough that its effects are still apparent today) for an ideological class war. She specifically disliked the idea of everyone in it together, which is why she was dismissing society. Her concern, even in the quote, isn't deteriation of society, isn't that work should pay decently, that housing should be built and available (see: Liverpool especially) or even a concern for people in general. Her statement that society doesn't exist really is an attack on society, in favour of personal greed. She merely obfuscates it well behind her language, the message is unmistakable.
I agree that she was ideologically motivated but you cannot divorce her from the context in which she operated in. Class war was upon her and the country was falling apart. The post war economic consensus had led to a lack of investment in British industry, complacency, British products becoming uncompetitive on the world market and increasingly large sectors of money losing business becoming part of the public sector until eventually the state became literally bankrupt. The working class fired the first salvo in the impending class war when they brought the country to its knees with strikes at the suggestion that the state could not afford to subsidise their lifestyles forever when their produce was worth less than their pay. Heath fell to the working class attacks and Thatcher rose to take the fight back at them, a fight which was subsequently won and saw a significant increase in the standard of living of the general population compared to that which would have been had the class war been lost.
Again, context defines her actions.
|
Surely, you're not an Argentinian, and even more surely, you didn't lose anyone due to her military actions. "Innocent people [snigger]?" Right... Surely everyone who died from Maggie's military strikes were completely guilty and deserved to be executed.
I'm just gonna say it the vibe I'm getting here is that it doesn't matter that Argentina attacked unprovoked, the Western, capitalist side was just plain wrong. Because.
Yes, to a degree they did, and Maggie didn't appreciate them -- or do you think British people in the 1970's were just inherently lazier for no real reason? She used idiotic rhetoric to simply segregate people from each other -- to tell use that we're not responsible for anyone else. Her rhetoric was as wrong and stupid as it is cruel.
1. Britain's economy in the late 1970s was an absolute shambles. Fact.
2. As already explained, she did not say that we are not responsible for anyone else.
3. It is typical of the Left to accuse the Right of idiocy, dividing people, being wrong and stupid and cruel. And yet, we see the most idiotic of ideas (communism/socialism) come from the left, we see the most cruel and divisive and wrong rhetoric come from the Left (the hatred expressed for the rich, or for Christians, or for whites, etc.), and we've seen that their ideas are simply wrong (list all communist countries here, crashed and burned every one except NK and Cuba) (also list the social democratic countries crashing and burning ((save Germany)) in Europe right now) (also list the massive failures of countries like Argentina to improve their economies). So really, just keep throwing out the typical agitprop line straight from the Kremlin circa 1949.
|
On April 09 2013 02:45 Aristodemus wrote:
Argentina attacked and invaded British soil, yet "Maggies military strikes" make her a villain?
She called Nelson Mandela a terrorist and sided with Pinnochet and the Khymer Rouge. There's no defending that.
|
Rest in peace, she was a great and influential leader. Shame that people are ripping on her at her death.
|
I am ambivalent on the topic of Thatcher, but RIP nonetheless. I think the world needs its Thatchers and Friedmans, but that doesn't mean I like their ideas.
I must say though, lol at DEB channeling William F. Buckley as though Firing Line were still on the air. 
|
On April 09 2013 02:49 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +Surely, you're not an Argentinian, and even more surely, you didn't lose anyone due to her military actions. "Innocent people [snigger]?" Right... Surely everyone who died from Maggie's military strikes were completely guilty and deserved to be executed. I'm just gonna say it the vibe I'm getting here is that it doesn't matter that Argentina attacked unprovoked, the Western, capitalist side was just plain wrong. Because. Show nested quote +Yes, to a degree they did, and Maggie didn't appreciate them -- or do you think British people in the 1970's were just inherently lazier for no real reason? She used idiotic rhetoric to simply segregate people from each other -- to tell use that we're not responsible for anyone else. Her rhetoric was as wrong and stupid as it is cruel. 1. Britain's economy in the late 1970s was an absolute shambles. Fact. 2. As already explained, she did not say that we are not responsible for anyone else. 3. It is typical of the Left to accuse the Right of idiocy, dividing people, being wrong and stupid and cruel. And yet, we see the most idiotic of ideas (communism/socialism) come from the left, we see the most cruel and divisive and wrong rhetoric come from the Left (the hatred expressed for the rich, or for Christians, or for whites, etc.), and we've seen that their ideas are simply wrong (list all communist countries here, crashed and burned every one except NK and Cuba) (also list the social democratic countries crashing and burning ((save Germany)) in Europe right now) (also list the massive failures of countries like Argentina to improve their economies). So really, just keep throwing out the typical agitprop line straight from the Kremlin circa 1949.
I'm not sure why you think left and extreme left are the same thing. You should probably look at that.
|
On April 09 2013 02:49 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2013 02:45 Aristodemus wrote:
Argentina attacked and invaded British soil, yet "Maggies military strikes" make her a villain? She called Nelson Mandela a terrorist and sided with Pinnochet and the Khymer Rouge. There's no defending that.
Hasn't Mandela said she helped him to be released?
|
On April 09 2013 02:30 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2013 02:24 Iyerbeth wrote:On April 09 2013 02:15 KwarK wrote:On April 09 2013 02:10 Rossie wrote:
A toxic, inhumane woman whose world view was typified by the statement: "There is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families."
Everything that went wrong with the UK (housing crisis, banking crisis, lopsided dependence on the City, de-industrial revolution and the stricken communities created by it) was the direct result of her policies.
The only good thing I can say about her is that David Cameron is twice as evil. Taken out of context as you would know if you'd looked into her history and politics at all before repeating such a often misquoted statement. Here it is in full "They're casting their problem on society. And, you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first. It's our duty to look after ourselves and then, also to look after our neighbour. People have got the entitlements too much in mind, without the obligations, because there is no such thing as an entitlement unless someone has first met an obligation" What it means is that saying that something is "society's problem" or an obligation of society doesn't mean anything because society isn't a real person who can come in and fix everything for us. It's made up of individual men and women. You should take your meaningless, superficial and ultimately idiotic critique back to youtube comments where they belong. I think it's somewhat misleading to suggest that that is the quote in full there.
What is wrong with the deterioration? I think we have gone through a period when too many children and people have been given to understand “I have a problem, it is the Government's job to cope with it!” or “I have a problem, I will go and get a grant to cope with it!” “I am homeless, the Government must house me!” and so they are casting their problems on society and who is society? There is no such thing! There are individual men and women and there are families and no government can do anything except through people and people look to themselves first. It is our duty to look after ourselves and then also to help look after our neighbour and life is a reciprocal business and people have got the entitlements too much in mind without the obligations, because there is no such thing as an entitlement unless someone has first met an obligation and it is, I think, one of the tragedies in which many of the benefits we give, which were meant to reassure people that if they were sick or ill there was a safety net and there was help, that many of the benefits which were meant to help people who were unfortunate—“It is all right. We joined together and we have these insurance schemes to look after it”. That was the objective, but somehow there are some people who have been manipulating the system and so some of those help and benefits that were meant to say to people: “All right, if you cannot get a job, you shall have a basic standard of living!” but when people come and say: “But what is the point of working? I can get as much on the dole!” You say: “Look” It is not from the dole. It is your neighbour who is supplying it and if you can earn your own living then really you have a duty to do it and you will feel very much better!”
And you don't agree that there is a disconnect in the mind of the people between demanding that their neighbour subsidise their income when they want a government grant and putting the burden on 'society'? Because I think there is. I think things would be an awful lot better if there was a genuine awareness of people that while we have this safety net in place, and we should have it, it is paid for by individuals and families. When you go on the dole there is a family that might be scraping by that is being forced to add your expenses into their weekly budget because you are telling society that you cannot support yourself. When people take money from the state they don't think about it in those terms because the idea that society is a person who is very rich and has money to spare is much more comforting. But it's not true, society doesn't exist, when you become a burden on society you are becoming a burden on real people and on real families.
Yes, society is made up of people -- but not just people, but also institutions. "Society" and "people" are not exclusive concepts. Rather, they're completely linked to each other.
This is what political ideology does when it comes across a word it doesn't like -- it tried to twist it or erase it into something else. Society exists, and you live in it. Some people are a burden to society -- but it isn't just the poor. A lot of institutions and people can burden society in different ways -- which in turn effects real people.
When you spend tax dollars on military power that the country doesn't need -- you're burdening society. Everyone is paying into something that is essentially useless.
When a company shirks its taxes and pays its workers unlivable wages -- they're burdening society.
Maggie wants to erase the notion of society (and "community" would be another pesky word she doesn't like, I imagine). So where does that leave business? Or government? Governments and businesses don't belong to any one person -- so how the hell do they exist? Because we live in a society.
I wish Kurt Vonnegut were alive right now. His main philosophy of "extending families" would do well to be represented here.
|
United States44033 Posts
On April 09 2013 02:49 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2013 02:45 Aristodemus wrote:
Argentina attacked and invaded British soil, yet "Maggies military strikes" make her a villain? She called Nelson Mandela a terrorist and sided with Pinnochet and the Khymer Rouge. There's no defending that.
Margaret Thatcher stated that "So, you'll find that the more reasonable ones of the Khmer Rouge will have to play some part in the future government, but only a minority part. I share your utter horror that these terrible things went on in Kampuchea."
She objected to kicking them out of the UN for the sake of retaining a dialogue with the more reasonable elements within the country while condemning the atrocities.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
