No Fault Evictions

[woodieallen]

But if you are eating junk food and living in poor conditions then you will be more susceptible to health conditions, also was it not found that obesity was linked to the poorer regions so another issue.

You can eat cheaper and better if you cook a proper meal yourself. Regardless of where you live.

 

[Jacob]

Who said they are evil?

You did. You are equating them with your apocalyptic view of Marxism.

 

[Spectric]

You can eat cheaper and better if you cook a proper meal yourself. Regardless of where you live.

Going back to good old living when it was the norm to actually prepare and cook food in the home but for many that is a lost art and hence why so many takeaways and ready meals. You hear the excuse that "oh we don't have the time" which is just nonsense, all it takes is some planing but then when you look around so many are just making life difficult simply through their own actions.

 

[BC'er]

You did. You are equating them with your apocalyptic view of Marxism.

Show us where I said that Jacob.

"Apocalyptic"? No, an apocalypse is a singular event. The mind-numbing and soul-destroying misery of socialist states continues for decades until they either collapse under the weight of their inherent contradictions or are violently overthrown as in say, Cambodia or Romania.

Now what about the questions I asked in my last post? Elephantophobia?

 

[Jacob]

Show us where I said that Jacob.

"Apocalyptic"? No, an apocalypse is a singular event.

Not grammatical. Did you mean "the apocalypse will be a singular event"?
"Apocalyptic" is OK and makes sense though. It matches your tub-thumping fundamentalist style.

The mind-numbing and soul-destroying misery of socialist states continues for decades until they either collapse under the weight of their inherent contradictions or are violently overthrown as in say, Cambodia or Romania.

Neither Cambodia or Romania were remotely socialist, in the European sense of the idea. They'd probably call themselves Marxixt/Leninist or similar, though I doubt Marx or Lenin would have been happy to take the blame!
Britain is a socialist state - to varying degrees. Peaked in 1945 with the Attlee government and major socialist reforms mostly still with us, successful and highly regarded, though somewhat under threat at the moment.

USA was founded on socialism. You should read Thomas Paine.
I lifted this from the web:

Many people see the term "socialist" and run scared without doing much research on "democratic socialism". Several of the country's early leaders were of a democratic socialist persuasion as seen in their laws and literature, although the "ism" terms did not really exist when this country was developed. Remember: the preamble of the US Constitution sets out the objectives of this country and the Bill of Rights and Amendments are only "add ons" to implement the preamble. Our forefathers were very much against the domination of the moneyed class (their term was "aristocracy"). Alexander Hamilton believed that taxes were a necessity. George Washington believed in "liberality". At the time of our country's birth, liberals were those who believed in developing a country for the people and away from the kind of money dominance of big banks, corporations and aristocracy in Great Britain. Conservatives supported the British rule and the dominance of a "monied class". During the early stages of the United States, corporations were limited and licensed. “I hope that we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country.” — Thomas Jefferson.

Hope that helps!

 

[BC'er]

In that case it would be the apocalypse

Neither Cambodia or Romania were remotely socialist, in the European sense of the idea. They'd probably call themselves Marxixt/Leninist or similar, though I doubt Marx or Lenin would have accepted that!
Britain is a socialist state - to varying degrees. Peaked in 1945 with the Attlee government and major socialist reforms mostly still with us, successful and highly regarded, though somewhat under threat at the moment

USA was founded on socialism. You should read Thomas Paine.
I lifted this from the web:

Many people see the term "socialist" and run scared without doing much research on "democratic socialism". Several of the country's early leaders were of a democratic socialist persuasion as seen in their laws and literature, although the "ism" terms did not really exist when this country was developed. Remember: the preamble of the US Constitution sets out the objectives of this country and the Bill of Rights and Amendments are only "add ons" to implement the preamble. Our forefathers were very much against the domination of the moneyed class (their term was "aristocracy"). Alexander Hamilton believed that taxes were a necessity. George Washington believed in "liberality". At the time of our country's birth, liberals were those who believed in developing a country for the people and away from the kind of money dominance of big banks, corporations and aristocracy in Great Britain. Conservatives supported the British rule and the dominance of a "monied class". During the early stages of the United States, corporations were limited and licensed. “I hope that we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country.” — Thomas Jefferson.

Hope that helps!

Yes, you did write "..the apocalyptic..." and of course what I mentioned in my last post is indeed the definition of the term. Your use of it is incorrect usage.

I've read Paine, and others including Jefferson. In fact I was reading quotations from one his letters while sitting on the toilet yesterday.

There is nothing even slightly "socialist" in the foundation of the United States, though the Founding Fathers as they call them, believed in the perfectibility of man and similar tripe. An ideal which conveniently lacked both a definition and a timeline making it unnecessary to give up slavery or slave mistresses for example, while allowing a pleasing self-conceit that certainly comes through in Jefferson's writings.

But to return to your anonymous paragraph from the Net, "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" along with "Common Sense" and "The Rights of Man" have less than nothing in common with socialism of any kind, as you of course well know. It is fundamentally individualistic philosophy and culture shot through with a profound and well-justified inherent distrust of government of every kind and then at least, a determination to ensure that it's pwers were minutely defined and strictly controlled. The antithesis of socialist thinking of every kind.

What's your next diversion?

 

[Jacob]

....

What's your next diversion?

Probably to press the ignore button. You seem to be a slightly hysterical tub-thumping fundamentalist with nothing interesting to say.

 

[BC'er]

Probably to press the ignore button. You seem to be a slightly hysterical tub-thumping fundamentalist with nothing interesting to say.

In other words you've been bested. Well off you go then. But one does note that when pressed slightly you seem to very quickly fall back on superficial clichés as a way of dismissing what you can't or won't answer.

I have no tub to thump, nor do I have 30,592 instances of the sound of my own voice.

And I'm certainly no "fundamentalist".

See if you can keep the chaps nattering about nothing in particular. It is one of the well known techniques of "managing public discourse""for the good of the cause" as Djilas would have put it.

Though it occurs to me that it may be as much about self-distraction as distracting others; at 80 odd years of age I suggest to you it's a bit late in the game for self-distraction.

Perhaps you or one the comrades can tell us the difference between socialism and Marxism-Leninism? It may be very comforting to the families of some of the 150 million odd people whose deaths can be attributed to such regimes in the last century or so.

 

[Fergie 307]

I find the idea of the church as a fundamentally good thing rather extraordinary. Individual Christians certainly. But the church, for many centuries specifically the Roman Catholic Church, really?
Amassed huge wealth supporting such altruists as the conquistadors, supporters of slavery, instigators of the crusades, Nazi sympathisers the list goes on and on.
More recently Nuns in Ireland throwing babies in septic tanks, and the countless cases of peadophilia on the part of Roman Catholic priests, many actively covered up by the church.
If you ask me one of the most evil institutions on the planet.

 

[Jacob]

In other words you've been bested.....

No, just bored. No point in trying to rant louder than a ranting zealot.

Perhaps you or one the comrades can tell us the difference between socialism and Marxism-Leninism? ....

I think you might have to work it out for yourself as you seem to have ranted yourself into a corner. Anything we say will just be water off a duck's back and get you in a tizz!

 

[Phil Pascoe]

I find the idea of the church as a fundamentally good thing rather extraordinary. Individual Christians certainly. But the church, for many centuries specifically the Roman Catholic Church, really?
Amassed huge wealth supporting such altruists as the conquistadors, supporters of slavery, instigators of the crusades, Nazi sympathisers the list goes on and on.
More recently Nuns in Ireland throwing babies in septic tanks, and the countless cases of peadophilia on the part of Roman Catholic priests, many actively covered up by the church.
If you ask me one of the most evil institutions on the planet.

 

[Fergie 307]

In other words you've been bested. Well off you go then. But one does note that when pressed slightly you seem to very quickly fall back on superficial clichés as a way of dismissing what you can't or won't answer.

I have no tub to thump, nor do I have 30,592 instances of the sound of my own voice.

And I'm certainly no "fundamentalist".

See if you can keep the chaps nattering about nothing in particular. It is one of the well known techniques of "managing public discourse""for the good of the cause" as Djilas would have put it.

Though it occurs to me that it may be as much about self-distraction as distracting others; at 80 odd years of age I suggest to you it's a bit late in the game for self-distraction.

Perhaps you or one the comrades can tell us the difference between socialism and Marxism-Leninism? It may be very comforting to the families of some of the 150 million odd people whose deaths can be attributed to such regimes in the last century or so.

Bit like religion really, many of the ideas seem laudable in theory.
The followers tend to turn them into an excuse for unrivalled corruption, personal aggrandisement and wholesale butchery.
Lovely.

 

[Fergie 307]

Indeed, in the mass murderer/genocidal maniac stakes, there are quite a few popes who would make some of the more often thought of candidates look positively cuddly by comparison.

 

[mudman]

Bit like religion really, many of the ideas seem laudable in theory.
The followers tend to turn them into an excuse for unrivalled corruption, personal aggrandisement and wholesale butchery.
Lovely.

Bit of a broad brush you're using there.

 

[Terry - Somerset]

"Socialism" needs definition - it is clear there is no consistent understanding of the concept. Populist interpretations rely upon such as (not an exhaustive list):

• the Marxist approach "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"
• self proclaimed states defining their own status - "peoples republic", "socialist republic"
• "a political and economic theory which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole".

Socialism in practice is clearly a variable concept. That no successful socialist states can be identified is an admission of their practical failure. The alternative is to insist they are not socialist.

This allows debate to be perpetuated on the proposition that were socialist ideals truly encouraged and allowed to prosper, it would be the favoured social and economic system.

I am not suggesting capitalism is the answer - painting it simplistically as the brutal "survival" of the fittest is equally simplistic and unattractive.

 

[Jacob]

"Socialism" needs definition - it is clear there is no consistent understanding of the concept.

It's a moving circus, more easily "described" (not "defined") as a tendency or direction, rather than a specific formula.
People seem to make up their own definitions and scare themselves to bits, as we see in earlier posts.
Easiest of all might be to forget the whole idea and simply ask how we should run things for the benefit of everybody.

Populist interpretations rely upon such as (not an exhaustive list):

• the Marxist approach "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"

Yes that sounds a worthy aim. Why not indeed?

• self proclaimed states defining their own status - "peoples republic", "socialist republic"

Tells you nothing about what goes on in these regimes and may be wishful thinking on their part!

• "a political and economic theory

Who needs a theory? It's common sense. We know things don't run themselves

• which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole".

Well that's how it is already, to greater or lesser extent, everywhere where there is state intervention and a working democracy. Some ownership, a lot of regulation by the state i.e. ourselves (in a democracy).

Socialism in practice is clearly a variable concept. That no successful socialist states can be identified

Really? UK for starters - big tax regime, massive state spending - on public services which would simply not exist without state intervention.

is an admission of their practical failure.

Seems to work OK in a clumsy sort of way. More or less accepted by all sides during "the post war consensus", and still surviving in spite of Thatcher, Liz Truss, various lunatics.

The alternative is to insist they are not socialist.

OK call it what you like!

This allows debate to be perpetuated on the proposition that were socialist ideals truly encouraged and allowed to prosper, it would be the favoured social and economic system.

It already is the favoured system everywhere where there is a genuine democracy. Who would choose the opposite i.e. not to run things for the benefit of all? We know that of course; a bewildered bunch generally referred to as the political "right wing".

I am not suggesting capitalism is the answer - painting it simplistically as the brutal "survival" of the fittest is equally simplistic and unattractive.

Well the current ideology of free markets etc etc say just that - that unconstrained survival of the fittest, the free market, will somehow work out for the best, via the unbelievably childish notion of "trickle down theory"

 

[Spectric]

way off topic as not heard any mention of a landlord for some time but dig deeper to find the issues, Capitalist. Marxist or socialist they are all just badges and ideals. The actual problem is the human race which seems to use wealth as a measure of success and achievement even at the expense of others rather than concentrating on things that benefit us all. We have really taken farming to an extreme, to the point where the minority farm the majority to generate wealth for their extravagant lifestyles because they must believe they are better than the rest of us, realistically the achievement should be in building the company itself but then using the proceeds generated for the benefit of all rather than just stashing more money away.

 

[BC'er]

No, just bored. No point in trying to rant louder than a ranting zealot.

I think you might have to work it out for yourself as you seem to have ranted yourself into a corner.

Bored? That's a pity, why don't you go and do something creative then? It's not like you've got forever is it?

Did you read any of the links I posted or are you one of the incurious who meander through life assuming that their emotions, convenience and whatever vague notions they picked up along the way are sufficient to build a world view on?

You don't have to agree with those author's conclusions, but an open-minded and curious person, that is a person actually seeking knowledge and understanding, can always gain from new information. "The opinions unexamined are not worth having".

So in your mind the ability to express oneself clearly and having some knowledge of history etc. and opinions derived from demonstrable facts is the mark of a "zealot"? More and more we see who the actual zealots are in this world, and that's a polite name for them; most are found on the political left and the most murderous ones, though certainly not all.

One of the most interesting developments of recent years is how we begin to see more clearly than ever that the real divide in ideology, society and indeed personality, is not between the supposed left and right, but between those who understand that the rights and freedoms of the individual person versus the so-called "rights of society" is where the true separation begins and ends.

Our little debate is merely an amusement Jacob; I have long ago learned the fundamental facts of human psychology as revealed in the Asche, Milgram and other such experiments, if the experiment called human history were not proof enough.

If you're not interested in substantive discussions, why bother at all?

 

[Fergie 307]

Bit of a broad brush you're using there.

In what way?

Religion is probably responsible for more human deaths than anything else.
Of course there are those figures in all religions who live with, and in similar conditions to their flock, and are genuinely interested in their well being.
But in most cases vastly outnumbered by those who use their position to accumulate wealth and power, often at the expense of those to whom they are supposed to be giving spiritual guidance.

And extreme politics, whether it be fascism or communism tends to result in an all powerful elite, who amass vast wealth and power at the expense of their subjects.

In each case probably not how it was advertised.

 

[Jacob]

Bored? That's a pity, why don't you go and do something creative then? .....

I am doing.