Let them eat cake

[the Empress]

Y'know, I knew a guy once who was violent when drunk. Looking at the bruises on my wrist, he apologised but 'he always got that way when drunk'. Later, I learned he'd pushed a girl down the stairs and broke her arm. When drunk. I had a close friend who confided that her boyfriend was violently jealous when drunk. Which he knew. But he got drunk anyway. So, I'm sorry, but I can't believe that drugs are so benign, and I can't believe that their effect on behaviour and it's consequences are analogous to sports. And I can't believe, that it is so very unexpected, when something bad happens under the influence of drugs. So, no. I'm never going to agree with you. Maybe that's my blind spot.

[wild_quinine]

Y'know, I knew a guy once who was violent when drunk. Looking at the bruises on my wrist, he apologised but 'he always got that way when drunk'. Later, I learned he'd pushed a girl down the stairs and broke her arm. When drunk. I had a close friend who confided that her boyfriend was violently jealous when drunk. Which he knew. But he got drunk anyway.

I won't go on an on about this any more tonight. I respect your viewpoint, to the degree that is is consistent and reasonable, and I respect your right to have it even when it isn't.

But I will just say one thing about what I've quoted above, which I think is critically important to this debate, and to a lot of other debates besides. The problem in the example you present is not alcohol. I know this. You know this. The problem is not the effect of alcohol, even if it does exacerbate a certain type of temperament. We both know this.

I have known people who fit that description so closely, I wonder if we might know the same people. Maybe, maybe not. It's a commoner thing than we expect. But the problem is not alcohol. The problem is that those people are sick, and alcohol just happens to be the worst kind of anti-medicine to that sickness.

[munchingfoo]

Deleted

Quite Correct. Could which ever one of you it was (it seems two of you live at the same house) let me know so I can set your username to the post, otherwise I will delete it. Please don't post from a guest account if you have a registered username.*

*An acceptable exception would be when asking delicate advice on the advice board.

[Daniel]

Quinine, well fucking said.

I think you've just become one of my favourite sinnerites.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to spend the rest of the day in bed.

Daniel

[Guest]

If you agreed with some of it and disagreed with others... you're being inconsistent.

Discuss.

I have a right to be inconsistent.

In Britain, a citizen (or even an immigrant) is entitled to:
1) Free housing
2) Free food (welfare benefits/jobseekers' allowance etc.)
3) Keeping the excess on their housing benefit if their rent is cheaper than the benefit (free money)
4) (basically) Free education through university level
5) Free health-care

Most if not all of the people who utilize all of the above services at the same time:
1) Can vote
2) Don't pay taxes
3) Don't work

If they pay taxes, no problem- they are entitled to use the system.

But, there are many people who utilize all the above services for their entire lives, having malign disregard for the consequences, and give nothing back. We feed, clothe, offer to educate, etc... maybe it's time to have a little less regard for their welfare, and a little more regard for the welfare of the taxpayer.

[Guest]

One of my friends is into running, and he's frankly a mess. As I understand it, there's good evidence that running is awful for the body, long term and can be hilariously scary in the short term. My friend loves it when new runners piss blood and think they're dying.

That's a joke. Did you read it in the National Enquirer (or whatever the British equivalent is)? Stay fat and out of shape while the rest of us piss blood!

[Super Jock]

there's good evidence that running is awful for the body

I'm guessing your only talking about the extreme because, recreationally through to low level competitive running is fantastic for you. It's only bad if you have repetitive injuries such as shin splints.

I was a kid who hated sports and fitness until a medical condition meant running was the only pain killer I had that worked 12-15 yo, details are probably boring. (Constant Migraines)

Even when I became a very obsessed runner when the condition went away, I NEVER pissed blood. I would have gone straight to the Doctors if I did, as would most sane people. People come up with stories like: being fat is healthy, or chocolate cures cancer and aids because they'd love it to be true, and love trying puncture the probably over inflated ego of the Mr / Mrs Muscles of the world.

I'll admit though I ended my daily running when I got shins splints and had to effectively sit down for a month but that was because I ran a race up and down a mountain with no special footwear.

Sorry it's just a pet peeve to hear people imply exercise is harmful when I think it could help a lot of people with many health problems besides obesity.

[RedCelt69]

I have a right to be inconsistent.

And I have a right to mock your inconsistency.
For a belief structure to be well-founded (built on solid foundations), robust (able to counter claims that it is self-contradictory) and have value, it must be consistent.

In Britain, a citizen (or even an immigrant) is entitled to:
1) Free housing

Hence all the homeless people. There is a finite amount of housing. There is a points system in place in order to attempt to prioritise who should be housed first. There certainly isn't an entitlement.

2) Free food (welfare benefits/jobseekers' allowance etc.)

Imagine that. We don't want the streets littered with starving people. I'd rather the poorest of the poor were fed than clogging up the gutters with their corpses... or robbing the more-fortunate. A life on job seekers is one of Pot Noodles and beans on toast, not champagne and caviar. It is subsistence living, allowing the barest minimum to get by whilst disincentivising the furtherance of such a lifestyle.

3) Keeping the excess on their housing benefit if their rent is cheaper than the benefit (free money)

That's flat out wrong. Where are you getting your information? Housing benefit will not guarantee 100% of your rent, let alone offer 110% of it. If they deem that your rent is too high for the property you are in (i.e. suggestive of collusion with the landlord to defraud the system) you will be paid what the local authority feels is the appropriate amount for that property. If you're claiming rent on a penthouse suite at the Hilton, you'll be shit out of luck.

4) (basically) Free education through university level

Which is an investment for the future. Assuming you want a well-educated (or even *educated*) populace 10 or 20 years down the line.

5) Free health-care

Indeedy. Otherwise the richer you are the better your health and life-expectancy. The poorer you are... well, see above about corpses in gutters and the implications wrt crime rates when you have a desperate under class who would rather see a neighbour lose their plasma TV than they their life.

Most if not all of the people who utilize all of the above services at the same time:
1) Can vote
2) Don't pay taxes
3) Don't work

If they pay taxes, no problem- they are entitled to use the system.

With a (very) few exceptions, every time you go shopping you pay tax. It's called VAT. I'd be interested if you could find *anyone* who doesn't pay any kind of tax.

If, however, you mean PAYE & N.I. contributions... well, that's every child in the country screwed. And the pensioners. Rather a baby-out-with-the-bathwater situation if you're trying to target who I assume you're trying to target. You haven't thought this through, have you? Not one of life's "thinkers", are you? Do you, perchance, read the Daily Mail?

But, there are many people who utilize all the above services for their entire lives, having malign disregard for the consequences, and give nothing back. We feed, clothe, offer to educate, etc... maybe it's time to have a little less regard for their welfare, and a little more regard for the welfare of the taxpayer.

This party political broadcast was brought to you by the shit-for-brains party.

[Thalia]

I don't have much to contribute, just wanted to say about housing benefit - it's calculated based on an average of rent in your area. If you happen to be paying less than that you do end up getting a bit more money than you actually pay per month though there is a limit on that - i think maybe £15 a week? Which works out to £60 a month, not exactly a huge windfall

[RedCelt69]

I don't have much to contribute, just wanted to say about housing benefit - it's calculated based on an average of rent in your area. If you happen to be paying less than that you do end up getting a bit more money than you actually pay per month though there is a limit on that - i think maybe £15 a week? Which works out to £60 a month, not exactly a huge windfall

That wasn't my experience. I found myself needing to claim it for a couple of months last summer. I was paid the exact amount of the rent I was actually charged - not an average for the area. And not a penny more.

In fact, after I moved out, I had to repay £15 as the payment period extended very slightly beyond the date I left the property. Then again, I can imagine that different authorities have different systems.

[Thalia]

http://www.glasgow.gov.uk/en/Residents/ ... Allowance/

Fife council's website is notoriously useless for providing information about these things, or sometimes it's there and just really hard to find, but what the Glasgow site says is true of all council areas, the only difference is in the LHA which differs depending on where you live. Of course, this would be different if you weren't a private tenant.

[RedCelt69]

I received my payments from West Lothian Council and I just looked at their website. Their system is the same as Glasgow's. It has changed in the last 12 months, as that isn't what happened with me. Under the new system, my full rent at the time wouldn't have been covered.

[wild_quinine]

That's a joke. Did you read it in the National Enquirer (or whatever the British equivalent is)? Stay fat and out of shape while the rest of us piss blood!

It's a well documented fact. I even linked to a source. You even quoted the link, in your reply. The words that are underlined? You can click those.

Or don't; there are plenty of other sources, and no shortage of doctors who'll confirm it. It's not hugely harmful, but it can be very scary when you're not expecting it.

there's good evidence that running is awful for the body

I'm guessing your only talking about the extreme because, recreationally through to low level competitive running is fantastic for you. It's only bad if you have repetitive injuries such as shin splints.

...

Sorry it's just a pet peeve to hear people imply exercise is harmful when I think it could help a lot of people with many health problems besides obesity.

I agree with and support this peeve. I abhor the reporting of folksy pseudoscientific rationales that basically exist to make people feel better about taking the path of least resistance.

Excercise clearly has many health benefits, and that includes running. I wouldn't tell someone not to go running because of 'health risks'. Overall, I'm pretty certain that running is good for you!

Nonetheless, a great number of sporting activities carry the risk of personal harm, and in some cases the risk is very high (although the harm is usually quite low), whilst in others the risk is very low (but the harm is pretty ultimate).

I picked running because, in my experience, it's a case where the risk is very high (and the harm is correspondingly low). Running, as beneficial as it is, most certainly takes its toll on the body. (Hence my somewhat hyperbolic statement).

All the runners I know have long term health problems because of running. They're not all serious, of course.They mostly get in the way of more running, rather than of living a fulfilling life. But they are long term, and in some cases permanent.

If you look at the context of the argument, you'll see that this was the point I was trying to illustrate: there are many activities that do the body harm, or at least might cause the body harm, but which we utterly celebrate. There's more to it than simply knowing that something is risky.

If you enjoy something, that is a benefit. If the overall risk is low, and the pleasure is high, it might very well be worth engaging in that activity. Others won't feel that this is so, but that's okay. Since the benefit in question is enjoyment, then the value judgement is absolutely a personal, and subjective one.

You see, one of my major pet peeves is when other people tell you what you should or should not be feeling about something. People who want to control others are usually deficient in sensitivity in my experience, and should look to themselves first.

[LonelyPilgrim]

Many runners get themselves into trouble by increasing their duration and speed of running too quickly, or by using improper footware, bad form, or running on poor surfaces. The first item is the worst culprit. The cardiovascular system adapts to increased physical demands more rapidly than the skeleto-muscular system, which means one's ability to run for x time at y speed increases faster than one's ability to run at x time and y speed safely does.

Weightlifting is the same, really. Muscle gains strength faster than connective tissue. If you are doing 85-100% of your one rep max every workout, you'll gain muscle fast, but it's really only a matter of time before you seriously injure a ligament or tendon.

[Same Guest]

And I have a right to mock your inconsistency.
For a belief structure to be well-founded (built on solid foundations), robust (able to counter claims that it is self-contradictory) and have value, it must be consistent.

Communist Scottish git. My "inconsistency" is actually quite consistent in that I have a respect for fiscal responsibility. This country's touchy-feely, tax-and-spend social welfare system is currently bankrupting it. Our national debt is growing astronomically. If that means I think the Coastguard is a valuable service and housing benefit isn't, so be it. At some point this country is going to have to choose between insolvency and economic destruction on the one hand, and self-preservation and prosperity on the other. I choose prosperity.

Free food:

Imagine that. We don't want the streets littered with starving people. I'd rather the poorest of the poor were fed than clogging up the gutters with their corpses... or robbing the more-fortunate. A life on job seekers is one of Pot Noodles and beans on toast, not champagne and caviar. It is subsistence living, allowing the barest minimum to get by whilst disincentivising the furtherance of such a lifestyle.

True. But maybe we should put these people to work while we give them their jobseekers' allowance, teach them a trade, who knows? We could build new high-speed rail lines at a fraction of cost with all that labour.

Free money is hardly a disincentive-- some people out there don't like work. Try entry-level economics. You might like it.

On housing benefit:

That's flat out wrong. Where are you getting your information? Housing benefit will not guarantee 100% of your rent, let alone offer 110% of it. If they deem that your rent is too high for the property you are in (i.e. suggestive of collusion with the landlord to defraud the system) you will be paid what the local authority feels is the appropriate amount for that property. If you're claiming rent on a penthouse suite at the Hilton, you'll be shit out of luck.

"You will be paid what the local authority feels is the appropriate amount..." you still don't get it, do you? They don't pay for it. People who are in the 20% and 40% and 50% income bands pay for it. I pay for it. VAT pays for it.

On Free education:

Which is an investment for the future. Assuming you want a well-educated (or even *educated*) populace 10 or 20 years down the line.

Fair enough. But if you get a free education, there's no excuse for not achieving-- it's all down to you.

On healthcare:

Indeedy. Otherwise the richer you are the better your health and life-expectancy. The poorer you are... well, see above about corpses in gutters and the implications wrt crime rates when you have a desperate under class who would rather see a neighbour lose their plasma TV than they their life.

Bankrupting the country.

On Tax:

With a (very) few exceptions, every time you go shopping you pay tax. It's called VAT. I'd be interested if you could find *anyone* who doesn't pay any kind of tax.

If, however, you mean PAYE & N.I. contributions... well, that's every child in the country screwed. And the pensioners. Rather a baby-out-with-the-bathwater situation if you're trying to target who I assume you're trying to target. You haven't thought this through, have you? Not one of life's "thinkers", are you? Do you, perchance, read the Daily Mail?

Actually, I read the FT. Every day.

As for VAT: it's a stupid tax, prone to abuse (google "Carousel Fraud") and punishing on the poor. I'd gladly drop it if they'd drop the 40% band in exchange. And it's not chargeable on a lot of necessities- rent and food being two of them. I agree some tax is necessary. However, 51p on the pound for anyone earning above 34,800 squids (40% higher rate plus 11% NI) is a bit excessive, don't you think? Why, if I work for 10 hours a day, should five of them be for someone else? Why can't the fruits of my labour be my own? Is it fair that my product should be stolen from me like that?

In a normal tax year, someone on 50k a year won't actually start working for themselves until June. Someone on 400k a year-- who earns it, believe you me-- will work for the government for six months of the year. And that's not counting VAT and the other excise taxes slapped on daily living.

This party political broadcast was brought to you by the shit-for-brains party.

This political broadcast was brought to you by the party personal liberty, personal choice, and personal responsibility.

[RedCelt69]

Communist Scottish git.

I'm not a communist. Pure communism doesn't work. Neither does pure capitalism. As with most things in life, the answer lies in a balance between the two extremes.

I tried to make that point, but it seems to have been lost on you. Let's try again.

Pure communism doesn't work as there will always be money-grubbing people like you who place value in status symbols; whose self-esteem is so low that they believe that their worth in society can be measured in the acquisition of luxury goods. You can only eat so much food. You can only drive one car. You can only live in one home. Once you have life's essentials, the rest is pure window-dressing. A Ford Fiesta will get you from A to B, but why settle for that when a BMW will get you from A to B whilst making the people you pass think that you are "better" than them?

Pure capitalism doesn't work because the wealth is concentrated in a diminishing minority. This leaves a growing majority who are resentful of their lives having less "worth" than the minority. Rather than expand on this point further, familiarise yourself with the events which led to the October Revolution.

Your ire at the welfare system is presumably founded on a supreme confidence that you will never find yourself in a position to make use of it. I'm sure that if you avail yourself to speak to those on the lowest rung of society you will find some who used to share your confidence.

Your path in life consists in the consequences of decisions; not all of them made by you. All it takes is one "bad" decision to lead you to the welfare system. Often, the "bad" decision won't seem all that bad at the time. Only reflection and hindsight may lead you to realise it at a later date.

A philosopher named Rawls set out an idea for a just society. I won't detail his ideas (as they quite literally could fill a book) but he imagined a world in which those who designed a society were blind to their own position within it. Once the rules had been decided, those that had designed the rules would be returned to live within that society. With no certainty that you weren't a homeless beggar, you'd be less likely to have proposed draconic measures against the homeless… or whinging tax measures against multinational CEOs on the off-chance that that is your identity.

It is an interesting thought experiment, and one you could do with thinking about. As to whether you do… <shrug> that's your decision to make. You can lead a fool to wisdom but you can't make him think.

Imagine that. We don't want the streets littered with starving people. I'd rather the poorest of the poor were fed than clogging up the gutters with their corpses... or robbing the more-fortunate. A life on job seekers is one of Pot Noodles and beans on toast, not champagne and caviar. It is subsistence living, allowing the barest minimum to get by whilst disincentivising the furtherance of such a lifestyle.

True. But maybe we should put these people to work while we give them their jobseekers' allowance, teach them a trade, who knows? We could build new high-speed rail lines at a fraction of cost with all that labour.

Why not go the whole hog and build us a pyramid or three? The money from the tourism could help balance out the jobseeker payments.

Free money is hardly a disincentive-- some people out there don't like work. Try entry-level economics. You might like it.

In which case, you'd be happy being paid the equivalent of jobseekers allowance, right? You'd be happy getting by on the bare minimum? Having to go cap-in-hand to your nearest jobcentre? To jump through the hoops they present to you? The jobseekers system is a disincentive to all but the very few (e.g. 2nd and 3rd generation Welfare Class). Just because the minority abuse the system, it doesn't follow that the majority should be deprived of the system whilst they try to leave it. And the aforementioned is an incentive to leave it.

You have a strange black-and-white view of welfare and wealth - as scroungers and the virtuous.

Go read John Rawls. And some history books.

And work on your empathy, you selfish capitalistic git.

[777]

I can tell that you two are going to be close.

[WashingtonIrving]

True. But maybe we should put these people to work while we give them their jobseekers' allowance, teach them a trade, who knows? We could build new high-speed rail lines at a fraction of cost with all that labour.

Every time I see this point made, anywhere, I want to scream. YOU CANT GET A JOB IF THERE ARENT ENOUGH JOBS FOR EVERYONE IN THE COUNTRY. Sorry, the caps were intentional. If there are more people looking for work than jobs then it isn't going to happen. We can pay as many people to learn a trade as we want, but if we train up a million new tradesmen is the amount of work going to suddenly jump up? No, of course it isn't. If you want we could have a government that creates work for everyone by inventing new jobs, or just paying people to dig holes then fill them in again. Of course that's what happens under communism. Or we could have some bastardised public-private initiative that goes way over budget and gives us all a good laugh. Either way, YOUR money gets wasted.

I mean, it's pretty obvious really, a job exists if it needs done and if no job exists then there isn't anything that desperately needs done. Just creating new jobs isn't going to change anything. You need more work. And more work means big spending initiatives. And big spending initiatives mean spending lots of money.

Unless you can convince private companies to start hiring unemployed people without any government incentives?

[RedCelt69]

I mean, it's pretty obvious really, a job exists if it needs done and if no job exists then there isn't anything that desperately needs done.

I'm sure that Same Guest understands that the laws of supply and demand apply to the labour market as much as to commodities. After all, he/she reads the FT.

Every day.

Unless he/she was referring to the Fortean Times.

[Senethro]

guys guys what you're not understanding is that same guest would be just as successful and hold the same views no matter where in the world they were born!