Brexit revisited

I'm not a member of any party. And if Labour believed in paying down the national debt, cutting taxes and growing the private sector instead of building up the civil service, and actually knowing what a woman is instead of obsessively going after the Eddie Izzard vote, I'd have more sympathy for them.

Labour hasn't learned anything from 25 years of mistakes.

Think about what you are saying logically. If being rich were merely a matter of natural selection and devoid of all other factors beyond personal ability - and that is a very big if to start with - - then surely the most fruitful logical course for humanity is to allow zero inheritance for anybody so that everybody has to start from the bottom to ensure that only the very best get rich?  Such an assumption implies that the best course for the best outcomes for our species is a 100 percent inheritance tax so that the children of the rich have to get rich by their own efforts and talents, thereby ensuring that only the most able ever get rich.

Or are you as I rather suspect merely employing a throwaway, ill thought out and bastardised form of social Darwinism to seek to utilise social eugenics in favour of your favourite hobby horse of cheerleading the interests of poor hard done by rich people?

Of course I dont believe in this social Darwinism crap at all, and clearly you actually dont either unless you advocate any of the above?

I seem to be observing intellectual laziness in defence of a kneejerk reaction in support of the rich. 

Next time I feel like winding you up I shall make some post about rich bloodsuckers being lined up against a wall somewhere, lol. I wont actually think that of course, but if I can convince you that I do your reaction would be most entertaining. lol

One of the biggest drivers (if not the biggest) to become rich is the desire to provide a better life for your family, if the State is going to steal the wealth that you have struggled to attain and leave your family destitute then you destroy much of the will to work.

Which is precisely what we see in Communist societies and why they have poor productivity and growth.

I am not going to dispute that. I was not advocating that. I was merely rubbishing your deployment of Social Darwinism in support of your ideology, pointing out - which you yourself have just confirmed - that you cannot actually be a Social Darwinist at all, without being very selective about it.

But anything to hand will do in defence of the rich I suppose.

I will point out to you that whilst most of us have gotten poorer, the wealth of the super rich has doubled in recent years. I am sure they will get by just fine without the support of little old you. lol

One of the things about the EU is an economic Darwinism of using very poor countries like Romania as skivvy states. As manufacturing moves from rich countries to poor, unemployment rises in the rich countries and living standards fall.

First, the EU is not failing, of only in your dreams. You dont describe in what way you assess this failure, but obviously look for and create bias confirmation.

You may not appreciate the fact that an elected head of statz represents the country on the international stage. He/she might appoint a proxy but he/she is ultimately responsible for the voice of the country on the world stage.

Just think of Netanyahu whose word still counts even if he no longer represents the majority of the people of Israel. Democracy means you have to wait for an election. Otherwise you have tyranny.




I can assure you that the people of the EU are quite content with the existential presence and results of the EU.
Objection secured by illegal means does not mean the majority of a country objects to it.

And you haven't learned anything from their successes.