Delbert

To me it looks like some sort of optical aberration.

Again, I think you're missing the point. People buy the newspapers - period. Newspapers fill their pages with what people buy - it's as simple as that. Political control is nothing but oppressive authoritarian control and censorship. And how about left wing propagandists? They're the ones who apparently want political control - 'underpinned by legislation', is, I believe, the phrase they used. Which is state control by any other name. And of course, the wording would be vague such that editors would tossing a coins as to whether to print an article or not - so to be safe they don't. And the populous would end up with bland articles, with misdemeanours in high office or business being unreported. To state the blindingly obvious. As you said, that was in wartime. Okay, the left wing as you call it takes over. How does such an ideology create, maintain and encourage desire and aspiration? Something which I think was evident with extreme versions of left wing socialist regimes, which have since fallen. Life is not easy - we all know that. For example, it seems we all walk around these days with highly complex gadgets galore. And not only that, eagerly await the next new model sporting evermore exotic functions. And what did I see in the news the other day about one country where these very complex devices are designed and made, the suicide rate is now very high - even among children at school I think it said. So with that news I take it you will be discarding any such gadgets you might have. I bet you won't, and neither will others of similar political persuasion. In which case it seems to me you will be directly maintaining their high pressure lifestyle whereby success is doubtless the only measure, which surely must be contrary to your ideology. You talk about a 'living wage' (your words) - whatever that is. Indeed, I think you once said that a company that was unable to offer said wage should not be in operation. Well okay, for arguments sake we'll go along with that. So, on the same principle you won't be buying any goods in the shops that are too cheap and not priced at a decent living amount! In case you've missed it, that's the other side of the equation. Because that's input side where the money comes to pay for not only overheads but to enable it to go out in the output side as a 'living wage' (your words).

Well, I think you'll find it's not limited to two particles. It can be everywhere at once. Which presumably means an infinite number! It seems to me we get bogged down on this particle business. You know, like little billiard balls. I believe the undoubted fact is they are not little billiard balls, or anything remotely resembling one. Atomic or subatomic particles I think don't operate anything like things we love and know about. They operate in mysterious ways completely unlike everyday objects. More like events occasioned within or by some sort of wave field - so perhaps they don't even exist as such! And as far as I'm aware, a wave is something that spreads out everywhere. Anyway, I understand the billiard ball model was Rutherford's. Prior to that I think there was the plum pudding model. So it's just a convenient model for our imagination to play with.

To get or encourage people to vote for them. I suggest that will always be the case whatever system in operation. There's an awful lot of things I don't like about what I end up voting for. I agree, we all end up voting for a ragbag of policies, but as said, it seems that every and any system humans could envisage will be the same - we all like and dislike different things. And as for this direct democracy business, it seems like a system that nobody knows from one moment to the other what on earth is going on and no one will be in charge. i) I would be very surprised if there were a large number. And what's more, I'd wager they'd probably only do it for five minutes before returning for the bargains! ii) Not quite sure what you're saying. As far as I can tell people will always hunt for a bargain - everybody and their dogs in fact! That's why the company has been successful (I use that word in terms of business). iii) Don't think I've ever indicated and certainly never said any such thing. All I'm saying is the only acceptable system is democracy, and yes, a free press. Democracy is a fluid system like a mechanical or electronic servo system (sorry about such an analogy, but my life and work is into such systems), whereby it will correct for errors or changing circumstance. Sometimes it might take time, but it will correct. But for it to work properly it also needs a free press. Yes, I know the press has had a bad press recently, but without it I suggest peccadillos by those in charge and others may be hidden from view, which I would seriously undermine democracy. And what do I hear? The left (that's the word they seem to use to describe themselves) want to place it under some sort of political control! Well of course they do because their dream is tight state control of everything to be in accordance with their wishes.

The situation and consequence you refer is a law that's been drafted by our elected representatives - to curry votes mayhap? It appears that I'm not getting through here, the system is the voice of the votes of the organism formed of the populous. How else would you say the system and the resultant decisions should be so decided or taken? Presumably your view is things need to be changed. Right, starting from day one we change things to be in keeping with your ideals. So what happens on day two (or whatever day(s) later) following a free election that might well result in an administration with policies contrary to your views? As I see it, the only way to guarantee your ideals are permanent (as permanent as can be), is to have some sort of inviolate legislation that a future administration can't rescind. If that's the case, then, I have to tell you, it would be nothing more than an authoritarian dictatorship. What did I see on the TV the other day... ...a company allegedly exploiting its workforce. In fact encouraged to set up their business by the administration. They even built a new road for them! And following the TV prog, how many people will not now be buying products from them? Not many I wager, especially with their cheap prices. Anyway, do you pay more tax than you really have to?

Of course not, because they need the revenue to finance the freebies they offer at election time - to quote the blindingly obvious. And the money has to come from somewhere. Again, as I tried to indicate previously, it's up to the voters to choose. I suggest if someone came along and said we can't do this because we wouldn't be able to finance it without encouraging and turning a blind eye to a bit of questionable banking, they probably wouldn't get a single vote. Look what happened here in the UK at the last election. I understand one particular party offered free university tuition. Oh yes, we'll have a bit of that without giving any consideration as to how much it would cost and whether the country could afford it. And then after the election it had to be dropped, doubtless for the simple reason there wasn't enough money! As you say, revenue has to be obtained, obtained to finance things offered to curry votes - we choose. We get the government we deserve. I'm sorry, but I don't know what you're on about. You elaborate by making an outrageous comparison of it to Nazi Germany, and the say it's a pointless truism! Your talking in riddles my friend. Yes, if true it is certainly outrageous and needs to be dealt with by due process.

My point is as I said, as far as I'm aware they were and are not breaking any law - nothing more than that. Every law abiding citizen does that. Now, if you're saying that that is the same or similar to how Nazi Germany operated, then I'm sorry but that's a ludicrous viewpoint. Presumably, the conclusion is that anyone operating within the law could be reinterpreted by someone else with such a perpendicular view as operating like Nazi Germany! Quite frankly that's an outrageous interpretation to the point of hyperbole on hyperbole. More humane! So presumably it's currently inhumane? Again, an outrageous view. Socialist wouldn't be the word I would use. I refrain from expressing a view, because it would be unprintable. If all the response to my query is mud slinging, then this is a pointless discussion.

Well, from what I understand of that situation, they haven't, and aren't breaking any law. But like so many things, at the time it was all wonderful - like the a previous chancellor here in the UK who indicated upon opening a London branch of Lehman's bank that he'd like to be able to run the UK economy like Lehman's run their bank!! And we all know what happened to Lehman's when they nearly brought the world economy down. And don't forget it was a socialist chancellor. Anyway, returning to your tax query, from what I gather it's now in the public eye, and so the law may be changed - democracy in operation. Mind you, there may also be a price to pay if the relevant companies then change their policies! But returning to my query, as far as I can see your reply isn't a description of an alternative system in a few sentences. After all, Darwin's theory of evolution can be described in a few words. A few words around survival and natural selection. Sounds like you have the knowledge and experience gained by having found yourself performing such gymnastics.

I don't agree with what see says (I didn't play it all because I found it overly predictable and repetitive), but just for argument's sake, what's the alternative? That is, something that can be summed up in about three to four sentences (no links to long drawn out eulogies about perceived injustices). So I can do as Tridimity says: I can knock it down in one blow.

Yes, I'll have to make a note of that one: some people will disagree. One learns a little every day. Oh dear, you've spotted it. I've got a distinguished service medal in ignorance. I prostrate myself at the base of your elevated high altar of intellectual certainty.

Well, that again is up to the elected representatives. Here in the UK I seem to recall a couple of years ago we have referendum on - I think it was called - an AV system. I also seem to recall it was defeated by a substantial figure. The people expressed their view, and in simple terms, they didn't want it. Well, obviously I don't know in absolute terms, it was just my assumption.

Challenge your arguments!!! Certainly not. Who am I to do such a thing? I wouldn't be so presumptuous. Thanks be for that! Exactly. And who sets the rules and punishments? The government mayhap? And how does a government get into power? Is it the case that the people vote for it, mayhap? Ask yourself: would people vote for a government with presumably the policies that you would like to see enacted? The colour of government is what the people want, and they express their preference through the voting system. And the capitalist system you seem to identify is the result. I believe there is at least one party espousing the values which I think appears to be in keeping with your ideas, and possibly ideals. So the people have the option if they so wish. If they don't, it is because they don't want it.

I'm sorry, but I think you will find it's exactly the same. Some do these things within what you call capitalism, and others may do it in their daily activities. Naturally, we view what we do as individuals as perfectly right and proper. But that's what humans do: what we do is considered right, but what others do is wrong even thought we're doing the same. Hiding defects or imperfections in something, and or embellishing something to be what it isn't when selling it, for example, is deception - plain and simple. Nothing more than what I think you're complaining about with capitalism. Pots and kettles come to mind. Again no, I think I've tried to say more than once that what you're appear to be complaining about with capitalism is nothing more than what we probably all do every day. But like the humans we are, when others do it it's wrong. It's only right when we do it. As above: pot and kettles.

Semantics. One persons ethics is another's evil morals. As I think I mentioned previously, what you seem to call nasty capitalism is something we possibly all do everyday. For example, I presume from what you're saying you wouldn't cover up the cracks, the damp patch, woodworm, faulty plumbing, the leaking cracked sewer, termites in the woodwork, won't mention the noisy and rowdy neighbours and all the other possible defects when selling your house? And not forgetting seeking out and bargaining for the best item at the lowest possible price during normal everyday activity. I'm sure you don't do any of those. So we're in agreement, your view is naïve.

I thought you referred to wealthy or wealth? As for tax on profits, I think we already have such. And as for a punitive tax (which is what you appear to be saying), I think there is one European country trying just that. And if what I read is correct, such a system is not only becoming very unpopular but the financial model is all falling to bits. And what did I read the other day? A south American country that's been following a policy which I think you're advocating has now got to the stage of government encouraged looting!!! Looting apparently on the basis that if there's something in a shop window that you haven't got, then just take it!!! Presumably, the next step when that policy is exhausted and there's nothing left in the shops, is government encouraged burglary. Perhaps like looting, government policy will be: if someone has something that you haven't got, just burgle their house! Apparently all justified on the principle of equality! Inequality in the US is an opinion. I don't live in the US, so I wouldn't know. And I thought Japan is and has been in recession for about ten years!

Favours the wealthy? So, presumably there'd have to be some sort of red line defining what you refer or define to be wealthy - perhaps like: I say you over there, you can't trade because we've decided you've got too much. Doesn't sound anything like a free society to me, more like an oppressive authoritarian one. I'm sorry, but what you describe is nothing more than what it appears we all experience every day - it's just the ups and downs of a free society. I for one find countless things to be unfair, but to someone else they're viewed as right and just. And like free speech, I'd defend it with my life. Unfairness is a viewpoint depending where you are and what you're doing, and things do push, pull and seesaw, but so long as we have the democratic system imposing checks and balances calling the elected to account, perceived excesses will be countered. Perhaps an example of unfairness: yesterday I noticed a long queue outside a shop, apparently it's the first day and the shop is offering heavy introductory discounts - the queue must have been about an eighth of a mile long! Now that clearly favours only those who are able to spend time queuing, but disfavours those working hard at work and unable to queue - how unfair is that? Now that might be a minor example, but if you look around I suggest there are countless others. You might not like stockbrokers (I'm not too keen on them either), but they are no worse than countless other things and all part of a free society. More fool those parting with money to buy the stock, I say. I believe someone paid £90,000,000 the other day for a triptych! Frankly, it appeared to me the painter must have been blindfolded when painting the thing! But nonetheless, someone bought it of their own free will - although they didn't want to be identified!

Okay, accepting what you say how would you prevent stockbrokers doing what they do? I recall someone saying it all stated in a coffee shop, bartering and exchanging holdings. You know, buying and selling like perhaps we all do in a free society. Stopping individuals from trading, or in this case trading in certain commodities, is contrary to a free society.

No, you're missing the point. My initial comment was in reply to your apparent conclusion that land (or whatever) was initially obtained by force, with the inference that in some way it is the underlying foundation with what you seem to conclude is a problem today. I'm agreeing that it did it happen long ago, but arguing it is just as prevalent today. We may not like that thought, but I suggest if we examine events, if not the things we all do to some degree, it's there. Another coincidence, because to me your view is naïve. Naïve because you appear to have some sort of idea that there's a system out there that's all peace and love. I'd be interested to know what it is? Presumably some sort of system whereby everything considered of value is shared out equally to all. How that would prevent friction, discord and eventual conflict, not to mention getting anything done, I've really no idea. Presumably you'd have a police force to enforce order - oh dear a system supported by force!! And furthermore, who does the sharing - now that's unfair straightaway because someone or a group have power over others. Not to mention the loss of aspiration, desire, progress or even the need to simply do sod all! After all, why should anyone make or do anymore than they really have to, because they aren't going to get anything more than their allotted share if they did? So, one individual doesn't perform quite as much as he is supposed to, his neighbour then sees that in comparison he's now doing more, so he then reduces his output - ditto until collapse. Now that's summing it up too simplistically I know. But in a nutshell that's the philosophy. I think there is a place where they tried a system something like that after the second world war, and in the fullness of time it fell apart in disorder and destitution - if not disorder, destitution and poverty long before it collapsed. Not to mention maintained by oppressive heavy state control.

Late middle ages! What went on then is totally irrelevant to anything in today's world. As I said, the place where your abode is was doubtless taken, as you call it, long ago by force. You may not like it but that's how things have happened, ownership of just about anything in the world was secured in such a way - it's human nature (which you seem to refute), read your history. In our so called civilized society we do such by asking others to do it for us - like the police and armed forces. We can only operate in a way that we call civilized under the umbrella of the police and armed forces - which apply and use force to maintain law and order. If you think we don't need such (which is the impression I'm getting), just try to imagine what would happen without a police force, not to mention armed forces. Yesterday and Sunday we remembered those who placed and sacrificed their life to maintain and preserve our way of life. And in case you've missed the point, it was the application of force to secure our possessions against someone who wanted to take it from us. Something we doubtless obtained by force a long time ago. Frankly, It seems you don't understand how things operate. Yes, of course things we're secured by force - how else? There's a piece of land over there, the first one to get there stakes his claim, drafts a legal document of ownership and then secures it by force. If one doesn't mark one's plot and protect it by force, someone else would simply come along and push you out of the way - human nature again. You may not like that aspect of human nature (I'm not too keen on it myself), but it happens. Take another example: what happens when we apply for a job? We may not meet or even know who they are, but we doubtless embellish our ability to compete and effectively push aside any other candidates - we may not think that's what we're doing, but we're aggressively pushing aside others. As said previously: why do you lock your from door?

Little missive for ralfy. This guy's done it against all what you call that nasty and oppressive capitalism:- http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-24801980

I just don't know where you're living, but such doesn't happen anywhere near me. I'm sorry, but it seems you're diving into hyperbole. Again, where on earth are you living? Although if you want to go back far enough, and as said previously, all land at some point way back in history was probably secured by force - which means your abode. The trouble is it's a result of human nature being what it is (which you appear to disagree with), some sort of forced security needs to be applied - after all, I presume you find the need to lock your door when leaving your abode like we all do. Not forgetting anything else, which unless chained are bolted down will almost certainly disappear in short order. But if you're are identifying that as some sort of basis for your argument, then I'm sorry, because if so, your argument is just ridiculous. As said, that may well have been the origin long ago, but is hardly relevant today - nay, totally irrelevant today. I'm sorry once more, but you're just going into hyperbole again. And as said, your abode, or the area it's standing on, was doubtless originally obtained long ago by the method you indicate, so I presume you'll be surrendering it and handing it over to some better good.

We need to grow crops so we secure and control some land upon which to grow them. As I was trying to convey, if we didn't take measures to secure whatever, others would take the crops, trash the land or anything else they felt so inclined to do. And if you don't believe such can happen, just recall recent and current events of disorder. I just don't know what you're trying to say, other than confusing or viewing a normal necessary civilised state of affairs to be some sort of Orwellian oppression. I'm not going to offer answers to the rest because for me they just seem to keep batting on about how awful and oppressive things are. From which I get the impression that some sort of imposed set of rules to make things fair is required, like the wage business mentioned previously. Even to the point that a business that didn't offer what you deem as a fair wage shouldn't be in operation - how oppressive is that? And doubtless, wages wouldn't be the only item on the agenda. Well, that would require rules, lots of rules. In other words the heavy hand of state control. Or to put not too fine a point on it, bordering on communism. In contrast I suggest you're living in a free society, free to do and pursue what path you like within the limits of the necessary rules of consideration for others. I'd go further, it appears there may be a slight titchier of envy for organisations or others that have been, what could be described as, successful.

"enclosed by armed people". Unfortunately we go back to human nature (which I think you refuted), if you've got something, there'll will be someone else that'll want to take it from you - just like all the other creatures experience that inhibiting this world of ours. And you'll end up using force or even bear arms to defend whatever you value, else it will be taken from you - just like the other creatures do that inhabit this world of ours. In a civilized society we solicit the police and armed forces to do all that for us. For example: will you be giving up your current pitch on the basis that the land, area, space or whatever it occupies was almost certainly originally obtained by force? You then appear to go on and extend it into todays world of technology, big corporations and whatnot. For starters, perhaps you might like to offer a scenario whereby in our high density conglomerations, without some sort of well organised arrangement or conglomeration that you appear to criticise, you can get food on the table. That's not to mention all the other things the populous consider basic requirements. I'm just thinking about how many eggs are laid, packed, transported, sold in shops every day here in the UK? Perhaps 60 million? What sort of organisation do we need to achieve that? And that's just eggs. It seems to me we have created a requirement for what you seem to infer is something that needs to change or be done away with. I'm sorry, but an alternative not involving large organisations can only be either absolute state control or chaos. And I think we all know about state control. What do one US president say: the nine most dangerous words in the English language. I'll leave you to Google those. And as for chaos... You mention other things like profit sometimes driving over production. Well, I agree, it can happen, but you've not mentioned that there is an element of overconsumption to go with it - it's not just one sided. Go down your local authority dump and you'll see the useful things that get thrown away. And as for profit I think you'll find people don't do things for nothing. The complicated parts for this computer I'm typing this on were made for profit (yes, I prefer to assemble with the parts I choose). And to out do the opposition they'll doubtless shortly produce a faster and more complex parts - and so on. I'll agree that there are imperfections, and possibly unfairness - there are numerous - nay, countless - things I consider unfair. But it is absolutely clear to me that anything else would be grossly and disastrously unfair. Perhaps it's some sort of altruistic community is viewed as the alternative. Well, it might start off with that ideal, but frictions and disagreements will very soon surface - if not after the first ten minutes! And as for who does what, in the fullness of time that may well end up in armed conflict!

In general, your answers seem to infer, or in fact state, that I've not read your previous comments; well, that's a coincidence because from my perspective it seems you've not read mine! So were quits on that point. Anyway, other that simply saying I disagree with all your answers, I'm not going through them individually - or any one of them. It's clear to me there is some sort of grudge against what you call capitalism. But this system you call capitalism gives you the absolute freedom to pursue any work, job, profession, business or virtually any activity you wish. Within the limits of necessary fiscal rules to prevent inflicting harm to others, you can choose to take, refuse or do just about anything you like. You speak of some sort of rule about wages, you even mention slavery! I'm sorry, but you are perfectly free and able to refuse or accept to what you refer. And what you call a capitalist system is so far from slavery as to be billions of miles out of range of a space telescope. You clearly don't like what you seem to imply as those nasty employers and what they are offering. If so, then experience it from the other side and start your own business - you are perfectly free to do that and to experience it from the contrary position. You can start small, say, open a market stall. Or start a photography business from your bedroom, as I believe a well known multimillionaire did - think he's now been ennobled. I'm sorry, I'll be perfectly frank, I feel very sad for you that you take such a derogatory view about a free society. The conclusion being that the 'system' has 'got it in' for society or particular members of society. To repeat, you are free to associate and pursue whatever path you wish (within the limits of not harming others I mentioned above). The world is your lobster, as someone once said, what more could you ask for?

So what's new? Go down to your local pond and I think it's right to say just about every animal floating, swimming or walking on land does something similar - if not exactly the same. Securing an area or territory and consequently securing sufficient food for them and any siblings. The swan on my local river spent nearly all day chasing off others when he and the pen were nesting. He patrols what must be about 3/4 of a mile of river - it appears he considers he owns it. You're dealing with basic human nature - and doubtless the nature of just about every other creature. That is, securing protection, availability of food and shelter. You pitch you tent and will doubtless forcibly prevent others from either occupying it or pulling it down so they can pitch theirs on your patch. Where do we start? Workers receiving less? That's an opinion - we always think we're worth more. Although in contrast, some say we rise to our own level of incompetence, which is probably nearer the truth! More goods? That's counter to profit, too much of something lowers the price. Lenders charging interest? Would you lend money for nothing? Over consumption? Now that's a strange one; to the best of my knowledge people aren't forced to consume, buy or do any such thing. Frankly, I just don't understand this subject at all. If one doesn't like something then don't do it, buy it or get involved with it at all. If one doesn't like one's job or the wages it pays, then politely inform your employer that you're leaving. If one doesn't like the government in power then vote accordingly next time. The message I get from this subject is state control. Mainly the state control of wages, forcing employers to pay what others consider 'right'. Unfortunately that appears contrary to democracy. Contrary because of the simple fact that following an election another party may well decide to throw all said wonderful 'rights' out of the window! But if one takes the view such things should be inviolate, then that is hogtieing future governments and nothing more than a masked unelected dictatorship.