............Steralise all girls and women of childbearing age who belong to socio economic groups D and E, then 10 to 15 years later this generation won't have been able to produce unwanted children and maybe we'll see an end of yob culture

What are socio-economic groups D and E? Just wondering whether I'm in line for sterilisation...

And why are men left out? Surely we should sterilise them too? Them who go round spreading their 'yob' producing seed.

Oh to hell with it, let's just shoot them all then we wouldn't have to go to the expense of sterlising them.

Who are we shooting again? Am I in line for being shot?

I used to "joke" with my friend David Brewis (I write his name because he will probably be prime minister one day), about the idea of sterilising everyone and only giving the antidote to people who pass a certain number of aptitude tests.

I then realised that he meant people like him, trouble is he is not physically that talented i.e. unable to throw, run etc through a lack of coordination. Thus, in sterilising certain groups, in our case thick people, you'd be removing parts of the gene pool that you might not want to remove.

And anyway, imagine if we all had IQ's of 150, no one would want to collect the bins/work in factories.

Originally posted by LornaF
............Steralise all girls and women of childbearing age who belong to socio economic groups D and E, then 10 to 15 years later this generation won't have been able to produce unwanted children and maybe we'll see an end of yob culture

They government are already working on this.

Why do you think they want to put flouride in the water?

To keep your teeth clean? Yeah, right :suspect:

Originally posted by Abdul
They government are already working on this.

Why do you think they want to put flouride in the water?

To keep your teeth clean? Yeah, right :suspect:

According to Adrian Mole, flouride in the water was a direct contributant to the number of pregnant women in Wolverhampton.

This wisdom of Adrian Mole is often overlooked, I find...

Originally posted by ADC_28
According to Adrian Mole, flouride in the water was a direct contributant to the number of pregnant women in Wolverhampton.

This wisdom of Adrian Mole is often overlooked, I find...

Oh really? And what would he know?

It's not like he was getting any of that posh bird, was it :heyhey:

Originally posted by LornaF
............Steralise all girls and women of childbearing age who belong to socio economic groups D and E, then 10 to 15 years later this generation won't have been able to produce unwanted children and maybe we'll see an end of yob culture

there would be no footballers:rant:

Originally posted by robbie
there would be no footballers:rant:

You're right!

Only cricket and tennis left !

Originally posted by LornaF
............Steralise all girls and women of childbearing age who belong to socio economic groups D and E, then 10 to 15 years later this generation won't have been able to produce unwanted children and maybe we'll see an end of yob culture

yes, good idea.

So the moment you lose your job (unemployed - class E) you would be sterilised.

Sounds like an excellent plan, hope your redundancy comes through. (you've not had any yet have you? :suspect: )

Well if you're going on IQ rating that's LornaF first in line

Originally posted by LornaF
............Steralise all girls and women of childbearing age who belong to socio economic groups D and E, then 10 to 15 years later this generation won't have been able to produce unwanted children and maybe we'll see an end of yob culture

Splodge_CRB:- as well as IQ ratings, do socio-economic groups D & E know how to spell Sterilise? :hihi:

Didn't Adolf Hitler try cleaning up the gene pool a few years ago:suspect:

Originally posted by redrobbo
Splodge_CRB:- as well as IQ ratings, do socio-economic groups D & E know how to spell Sterilise? :hihi:

Probably not lol!

Bet LornaF can't spell Eugenics either ;)

Originally posted by Splodge_CRB
Probably not lol!

Bet LornaF can't spell Eugenics either ;)

Ooh Splodge_CRB - I think you are being very unfair to LornaF! You really ought not to use difficult words that may be hard to understand, like 'Bet' and "spell'. :nono: :hihi:

Think this what you referring to, Trever
Nature has it's own version of eugenics in survival of the fittest


'The philosopher George Santayana said, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." This adage is appropriate to our current rush into the "gene age," which has striking parallels to the eugenics movement of the early decades of the 20th century. Eugenics was, quite literally, an effort to breed better human beings – by encouraging the reproduction of people with "good" genes and discouraging those with "bad" genes. Eugenicists effectively lobbied for social legislation to keep racial and ethnic groups separate, to restrict immigration from southern and eastern Europe, and to sterilize people considered "genetically unfit." Elements of the American eugenics movement were models for the Nazis, whose radical adaptation of eugenics culminated in the Holocaust'


Hitler of course took what was only common sense and gave it an irrevocably nasty taste with enforced sterilisation programs of any group he considered sub human. sterilisation en masse

I say we just sterilise LornaF and leave it at that.....

Yup. It might be worth a shot.

Originally posted by andy4107
Yup. It might be worth a shot.

You and LornaF worry me.

Why stop at socio-economic groups D & E? What about convicted criminals? Why not folk with a disability? Gypsies maybe? Jews? Crumbs, where will this all stop? Oh I know, when we've got the perfect race. You know the sort - honest, decent citizens......with blue eyes and blond hair. Can't think where I got that idea from though - can you?

I worry myself at times. :)

And no, I don't have the slightest clue where your idea came from... But it's a good one! ;/

To add to this then, shouldn't all old people, who lets admit it are a burden to their children and society alike, be shot a birth?:heyhey:

Originally posted by RazorSHarp
To add to this then, shouldn't all old people, who lets admit it are a burden to their children and society alike, be shot a birth?:heyhey:

Reminds me of the car sticker:

"If we'd known how much fun grandchildren would be, we'd have had them first" :clap:

Originally posted by RazorSHarp
To add to this then, shouldn't all old people, who lets admit it are a burden to their children and society alike, be shot a birth?:heyhey: Old people being shot at birth, Genius! I like that Idea.

I personally believe that if we gassed people in group A and B the world would be a happier place. Or perhaps the top richest 500 people who own half the worlds wealth - this is the true sin of modern humanity, not the 'yobs' as you call them.
Just think if everyone had enough money to conduct a meaningful life then surely the 'Yobs' would disappear. 'Yob's, you could argue, behave like they do because of poverty and in facing the realisation that wealth is unobtainable.

Make Poverty History can only work if we make capitalism history as one undoubtably causes the other.;:thumbsup:

Yes , Miniminch , a brilliant idea !!
We could add all the wealth up in the world [Well , let's say , the Capitalist World ] and then divide it equally between 6,000,000,000 people and that's it !
Crime , Yobbishness , hunger , diseases and poverty , crime , envy and wars would disappear almost overnight.
I'm surprised no-one has thought of this before now . It's a bloomin' disgrace .

Originally posted by redrobbo
Splodge_CRB:- as well as IQ ratings, do socio-economic groups D & E know how to spell Sterilise? :hihi:

Well if they don't it just goes to show that the education system has failed them :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Fareast
Yes , Miniminch , a brilliant idea !!
We could add all the wealth up in the world [Well , let's say , the Capitalist World ] and then divide it equally between 6,000,000,000 people and that's it !
Crime , Yobbishness , hunger , diseases and poverty , crime , envy and wars would disappear almost overnight.
I'm surprised no-one has thought of this before now . It's a bloomin' disgrace .

To be honest, why don't we all just get a cow/sheep and small plot of land from the government and be self sufficient.

Actually that would mean there'd be a lot of cows about.

Originally posted by LornaF
............Steralise all girls and women of childbearing age who belong to socio economic groups D and E, then 10 to 15 years later this generation won't have been able to produce unwanted children and maybe we'll see an end of yob culture

Now for my chance to show off my knowledge of political history.

Similar to an idea by the late Sir Keith Joseph in 1974. He made a speech about providing free contreception for people in these groups as they were the least able to cope with large families.

He was much critisised for the speech and it ended any hope he had of becoming Conservative leader.

I just notein passing that with certain dog breeds castration is considered a good way to curb their aggressive tendencies. There are quite a few young men who also have aggressive tendencies. I will say no more but just leave people to ponder.

Originally posted by miniminch

Make Poverty History can only work if we make capitalism history as one undoubtably causes the other.;:thumbsup:


Yes, great idea - replace it with communism which has always worked so well in the past. :rolleyes:

Originally posted by t020
Yes, great idea - replace it with communism which has always worked so well in the past. :rolleyes:

naturally you will be able to cite examples of communism in action (there haven't been any....)

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
naturally you will be able to cite examples of communism in action (there haven't been any....)


Let's not start the whole "was the Soviet Union really communist" debate again. Capitalism is the best mechanism for society, despite it coming with problems.

Originally posted by t020
Capitalism is the best mechanism for society

for us it is, I think people in other countries in different circumstances might not agree

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
naturally you will be able to cite examples of communism in action (there haven't been any....) communism is just state capitalism

Well , it's all sad news for the non-communists , these days , isn't it ?
Not only has the Socialist / Communist Empire of Eastern Europe disappeared , plus the good old Soviet Union .......but now the biggest communist country of them all , China , is rapidly turning Capitalist too ! Oh , dear !
That , practically only leaves N.Korea and Cuba and N.Korea is the only , "pure " communist country around --------refusing to have anything to do with the dirty , corrupt Capitalists........well except those that can give it some food .
It looks as though this Capitalism business has got something going for it . Could it be prosperity ? Could it be freedom of choice ? Could it be the ability to get rid of an unpopular leader ?
Whatever it was it used to make hundreds of people risk their lives climbing over the Berlin Wall or sailing from Cuba to Florida .
How foolish of them to leave their wonderful Socialist societies behind !

Originally posted by nick2
for us it is, I think people in other countries in different circumstances might not agree

really, where?

Capitalism isn't perfect, socialism as practiced in the uk attempts to address some of the inequity caused by capitalism.

At the moment there is no way communism can work. But given a sufficiently advanced technological level it would probably be a better form of government/society than capitalism.

Originally posted by Cyclone
really, where?

Capitalism isn't perfect, socialism as practiced in the uk attempts to address some of the inequity caused by capitalism.


I was thinking of some African countries where a small number of people have all the wealth and the common people starve to death, I bet they don't think capitalism is so great.

Originally posted by nick2
I was thinking of some African countries where a small number of people have all the wealth and the common people starve to death, I bet they don't think capitalism is so great.

I doubt they'd be too impressed if the model changed to communist and the situation stayed the same.

They aren't capitalist democracies which is what I think people are actually talking about, it's questionable whether they really even qualify as capitalist, there's certainly no free market.

You don't even have to replace Capitalism with communism. All you have to do is stop putting £ and dollar signs on every ****ing thing on the planet! Capitalism is a world which is driven by money - by definition.
Well i say let's have a world that is driven by cooperation and respect. Respectism on cooperationism!
And anyway, T020, we know you are a socialist at heart. A national socialist! we've seen the photographic evidence.:hihi:

Capitalism worked out pretty well for the 600+ staff who were sacked at Gate Gourmet :P

Originally posted by miniminch
You don't even have to replace Capitalism with communism. All you have to do is stop putting £ and dollar signs on every ****ing thing on the planet! Capitalism is a world which is driven by money - by definition.
Well i say let's have a world that is driven by cooperation and respect. Respectism on cooperationism!

Sounds interesting... let's hear a more detailed account of how this would work?

Originally posted by miniminch
And anyway, T020, we know you are a socialist at heart. A national socialist! we've seen the photographic evidence.:hihi:

Bless him, I don't think it's sunk in yet...

Expect a strongly-worded response from his lawyers and his MP when it finally does, miniminch :nono:

Originally posted by Abdul
Bless him, I don't think it's sunk in yet...

Expect a strongly-worded response from his lawyers and his MP when it finally does, miniminch :nono:

It did, but you know me - I'm not one for rising to the bait.

Originally posted by slimsid2000
Now for my chance to show off my knowledge of political history.

Similar to an idea by the late Sir Keith Joseph in 1974. He made a speech about providing free contreception for people in these groups as they were the least able to cope with large families.

He was much critisised for the speech and it ended any hope he had of becoming Conservative leader.



I don't recall this speech by the late Sir Keith Joseph.

He did cause controvery with a speech he made in 1972, when, as Secretary of State for Social Services, he asked why, despite the creation of the welfare state and rising living standards, patterns of deprivation and maladjustment continued to persist. He suggested the answer might lie in a 'cycle of transmitted deprivation', in which some parents passed on poverty and deprivation to their children. A large-scale research programme was sponsored by the then DHSS in the 1970s. However social science researchers departed radically from Joseph's original idea. Preferring the term 'cycles of disadvantage' to the phrase 'cycle of deprivation', they argued that the main causes of poverty were structural rather than behavioural.

I am a firm believer that poverty is a main cause of society's iills.......and sterilisation, contraception and castration are not the answers.

And just how would we define socio-economic groups D & E under communism? Eh? Eh? :suspect:

Redistribute all our hard earned pelf! :o


*runs to quickly buy shares in Elizabeth Duke

Originally posted by t020
Sounds interesting... let's hear a more detailed account of how this would work?

How much detail do you need.

Doctrine 1. "YOU are other people"
Doctrine 2. "What's mine is yours"
Doctrine 3. "Whats yours is mine"

Can anyone show me a free market? No.

Originally posted by LornaF
............Steralise all girls and women of childbearing age who belong to socio economic groups D and E, then 10 to 15 years later this generation won't have been able to produce unwanted children and maybe we'll see an end of yob culture

But to end yob culture entirely you'd also have to rid the land of the Houses of Parliament. And its contents. I can't see that one getting onto the statute books.

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
How much detail do you need.

Doctrine 1. "YOU are other people"
Doctrine 2. "What's mine is yours"
Doctrine 3. "Whats yours is mine"

Can anyone show me a free market? No.

I wasn't asking you... but since you stepped in anyway, miniminch proposed an alternative social mechanism to capitalism and communism and I was wanting a detailed explanation of just how it would work and what it would entail. Going by your doctrines, would it be fair to assume no-one would have any possessions because they were owned by everyone? If you lived in a house, at any time someone could walk in and share with you? Give me capitalism over a free for all any day.

That is why you will never be part of the global revolution in consciousness.

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
That is why you will never be part of the global revolution in consciousness.

But at least I don't dodge questions.

Originally posted by Fareast
Capitalism is the best mechanism for society, despite it coming with problems.

It looks as though this Capitalism business has got something going for it . Could it be prosperity ? Could it be freedom of choice ? Could it be the ability to get rid of an unpopular leader ?
Whatever it was it used to make hundreds of people risk their lives climbing over the Berlin Wall or sailing from Cuba to Florida .



Prosperity??

When every so-called prosperous capitalist economy is slowly but surely collapsing under the inevitable strain put upon itself due to the filtering of wealth to the top of the economic system, how can you be so naive as to suggest capitalism brings prosperity? Capitalism brought us the privatisation of industry and public services, which in turn are failing us because the money all flows upwards so businesses, indeed whole industries, collapse from the ground up (coal, steel, rail, NHS, police, fire service, poorly equipped armed services to name but a few!). The most prosperous nations during the last decade of the 20th century were actually those who shunned the IMF, WTO, World Bank and other such financial institutions, countries such as Mexico, Bolivia, China! In fact, the most prosperous (that is to say those economies that have grown most and most evenly!) political models over the last 15 years are in a majority socialist, not capitalist.

Freedom of Choice??

How can you say freedom of choice? The majoirty of Americans didn't vote for G.W. Bush in the last election!! He did not win the majority vote, therefore more americans had their choice ignored than counted and surely America is the model capitalist society?! In the first election, he didn't even win on a technicality, but had it handed to him by his brother! Then he and his friends passed laws that stopped anyone from exercising freedom of expression. If you cannot express your choice, how can you make a choice? Certanly there is no more an unpopular capitalist leader in all the world right now than George W. Bush and yet it seems his own people are unable to get rid of him, indeed, it would seem illegal to even speak ill of the president over there right now, given "The Patriot Act".

Your examples of people fleeing Cuba and East Germany would not have needed to occur had contemporary western leaders not been so stupid as to believe they could control the popluations actions and information flow within their nations for ever. As the difficulties placed on the populations of such nations are often imposed by political or financial isolation by a capitalist power, it is fair to say they were running away from the indirect results of capitalism. Indeed, it was a business deal (deals done capitalist leaders) that handed eastern germans into communist hands.

Many, many people in western, capitalist society are beginning to realise the imbalance between rich and poor. It is not the principle of rewarding the most successful or hardest-working, it is the principle that the few who earn and own the most believe they are entitled to it that most rancours with intelligent people. For there are intelligent people in all walks of life, not necessarily just amongst the upper echelons of society.

It is those intelligent people who realise quickly that whilst more and more of the general population's life is being put into the hands of capitalist power-mongers, the lower and lower their quality of life becomes. We are now in a situation where as a nation, we can no longer afford to live. Most of us blindly pay into pensions when in 10 years or less, it is likely there will be no pension companies never mind pensions. Where does your money go? Up the corporate ladder!

I have an alternative for you T020 to the current capitalist system. A pegged salary system where the highest earner in any organization cannot earn more than X amount or mulitple of the lowest paid member of that organization. Lets say 10 times at most! So for example if the boss of railtrack want to earn 400k a year he'd best make sure he's doing such a good job that they can afford to pay his lowliest cleaners 40k a year. This ensures that everyone gets paid FAIRLY for the work they DO, not COMPETITIVELY for the ar$e they KISS! This would ensure that unviable business decisions, which reward the "fat-cats" such as those at Rover, do not occur, for they could not have squandered all those resources on payments to themselves without being forced to take care of the workers. Such a pegged system would not preclude prosperity, but it would preclude relative poverty.

Capitalism is NOT the best mechanism for society as there is not one successful capitalist society funcitoning today. All the major capitalist economies are treading the slippery downward slope to a collapse almost as shattered and disastrous as the logic which drives your reasoning. Can you not see the massive negative impact which capitalism has on all concerned?

The true parallel sets of ideals known as capitalism and communism both got lost long before the champions of either could implement their purist ideas. The fact that neither works in and of itself as a concept is not based around the system or ideaology but around 1 simple fact - people are greedy! Anyone who wholeheartedly supports capitalism has never lived amongst poverty in any society, nor have they considered much beyond their own greed.

I pity you T020 for one day you will be in the same boat as all those dying foreigners who should get rid of their leaders because good business relations with BP are more important than having a natioanlised healthcare system, or education, or running water! I pity you T020 because when that day comes and your last pound is spent, you will wonder where the world went.

I on the other hand will turn to my friends and no matter how much money I have in my pocket, I will be the richest man alive.

Originally posted by t020
Going by your doctrines, would it be fair to assume no-one would have any possessions because they were owned by everyone?

Thats the bit that really worries you (and most other people I guess) isn't it ?

osiris - firstly you are confusing democracy in it's various forms with capitalism. One is a method of government, the other a type of economy, they are not intrinsically linked.

Secondly, you list as the fastest growing economies the ones who are just starting to embrace capitalism or at least to move towards it. The reason they are growing so fast is because they have a lot of catching up to do.

Thirdly, if you compared the standards of welfare, poverty, life in general between capitalist and non capitalist markets you'll generally find that standards are higher in the capitalist ones.

The purpose of a free market isn't to somehow make life fair, or to redistribute wealth from the rich to the poor. It's purpose is to most efficiently distribute resources for growth by means of the market. it achieves that admirably.
If we want to try address some of the imbalances that can be created then we move towards an interventionist government and some form of socialism.

Your idea for limiting salaries is initially attractive, but ultimately probably too simple. A more complicated and well thought out system though might be a good idea, as there is a general dislike of CEO's earning hundreds of thousands while companies do badly and the people doing the ground floor work get no payrise year on year.

Originally posted by nick2
Thats the bit that really worries you (and most other people I guess) isn't it ?

Yes because it would cause a free for all with no order. How would you like it, thinking rationally, if someone just took something of yours "because they could" since you didn't own it?

Originally posted by t020
Yes because it would cause a free for all with no order. How would you like it, thinking rationally, if someone just took something of yours "because they could" since you didn't own it?

It wouldn't be "yours" thats the point.

Originally posted by nick2
It wouldn't be "yours" thats the point.


Yes, exactly!! So how on earth would it work? Surely you can see it wouldn't. It would be a mass free for all with the biggest, strongest men claiming ownership of everything they saw.

Originally posted by t020
Yes, exactly!! So how on earth would it work? Surely you can see it wouldn't. It would be a mass free for all with the biggest, strongest men claiming ownership of everything they saw.

Perhaps not, thats just how we would react as we have been brought-up to have that "I want everything, it's mine" mentality. There are other cultures where they share everything, for their common good, and people don't actually "own" anything but the most basic (what we would consider basic) stuff like clothes and nick-nacks.

Originally posted by nick2
Perhaps not, thats just how we would react as we have been brought-up to have that "I want everything, it's mine" mentality. There are other cultures where they share everything, for their common good, and people don't actually "own" anything but the most basic (what we would consider basic) stuff like clothes and nick-nacks.

Yes but when even our poorest have more than any of them, surely this indicates that capitalism is the best mechanism? Also, who's to control things? Who would make sure someone didn't fancy wearing your clothes for the day?

Originally posted by t020
Yes but when even our poorest have more than any of them, surely this indicates that capitalism is the best mechanism? Also, who's to control things? Who would make sure someone didn't fancy wearing your clothes for the day?

Do our poorest have more though ? In these comunities everyone has a roof over their heads and food to eat, as they all share these resources, if you assume that our poorest are homeless people then they would seem to have less.

I imagine they have some kind of understanding regarding the few personal items people have.

Originally posted by nick2
Do our poorest have more though ? In these comunities everyone has a roof over their heads and food to eat, as they all share these resources, if you assume that our poorest are homeless people then they would seem to have less.

I imagine they have some kind of understanding regarding the few personal items people have.

A society built on "some kind of understanding" sounds a bit flakey. Also, it could be argued that the only people in this country without a roof over their heads are there by their own doing. There are plenty of shelters available and plenty of schemes to help people. I know which kind of country I'd rather live in, that's for sure.

Originally posted by t020
I know which kind of country I'd rather live in, that's for sure.

Thats because we have been brought up to believe the only way to happyness is through owning lots of (expensive if possible) "things", not all cultures/comunities have this kind of materialistic outlook on life, it's quite sad that it's our main drive in life.

TBH, if I lived on a remote island away from "civilisation" and had somewhere secure sleep, food, water and a job to do, I would be happy, I wouldn't need to "own" things.

of course why would you need to work.
you can simply sunbathe all day and then go and take someones food (okay, it's not their food, it's just that they planted it, sweat over it, watered it and harvested it...) but that's cool, you just walk in, take it, eat it.

Go back for a bit more evening sunbathing.

Wow, the entire society can be brought down by something as simple as 1 selfish person.... And ultimately everyone is selfish.

How about a guy who's no good at growing food, but it turns out can make wonderful seats (don't ask me why).
He makes seats intending to exchange them for food (at a reasonable market value). Unfortunately someone else decides they need a seat and comes and takes it (he doesn't own it just because he made it).

So now we've got a non hungry sunbather sitting in a seat, a hungry family and a hungry chair maker.

SO what do they do, maybe they go and bash the guy over the head and take the stuff back, probably declaring at the time that they worked for it, so it's bloody well theirs, if he wants some he can get off his sunbathing arse and go and do what he's good at (maybe he's good at thatching roofs). Crap, they just reinvented ownership and the free market, without it there's not really any incentive for anyone to do anything.

Anyone not pulling their weight gets booted out and starves to death - simple.

But people wouldn't not pull their weight, again it's our way of thinking that we would use the opertunity to skive and do nothing, some cultures don't have that "do as little as possible" attitude.

I haven't invented this guys, people realy do live like this in the world, and it obviously works as they have lived like this for centuries.

Originally posted by nick2
Anyone not pulling their weight gets booted out and starves to death - simple.


Who would police this and where would they get booted to?

Originally posted by nick2
Anyone not pulling their weight gets booted out and starves to death - simple.

But people wouldn't not pull their weight, again it's our way of thinking that we would use the opertunity to skive and do nothing, some cultures don't have that "do as little as possible" attitude.

I haven't invented this guys, people realy do live like this in the world, and it obviously works as they have lived like this for centuries.

what t020 said.
It only takes one person to act selfishly.

Anyway, the examples of this type of living are generally very small scale and do not scale well to larger groups.

They only work on such a small scale because everyone is aware of the value of each others contribution. Take that away (as the group gets larger) and you get into the situation where people value things differently. I say that making a chair means I deserve more than simply a roof over my head and some grain to eat.
Or I invent the plow but demand that 20% of your crops be paid to me to license it, suddenly i'm rich as I have excess food which I can exchange for other goods and services.

Communal living is just an informal and unspoken for of the free market really.

Originally posted by Cyclone
what t020 said.
It only takes one person to act selfishly.
I can see that neither you nor t020 are going to be part of the global revolution in consciousness.

If children were schooled in the iterated prisoners dilemma, perhaps we might find it easier to instill in them the service to others meme, rather than the service to self.

Capitalism is the sea we swim in - which is what makes it so difficult to imagine other solutions.

I wish people would stop bandying "the free market" about like it exists. It has about as much existence as "a communist state" or "military intelligence".

Where in the universe can you find a free market?

Originally posted by t020
Who would police this and where would they get booted to?

Your just being pedantic now (for a change), but, the rest of tribe would police it and they would get booted out of the tribe/village/land I guess.

I agree this kind of society probably only works for small village sized communities, but that doesn't alter the fact that it does work.

Originally posted by nick2
Your just being pedantic now (for a change), but, the rest of tribe would police it and they would get booted out of the tribe/village/land I guess.

I agree this kind of society probably only works for small village sized communities, but that doesn't alter the fact that it does work.

they are excommunicated - which in this kind of society is a real punishment.

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
I can see that neither you nor t020 are going to be part of the global revolution in consciousness.

If children were schooled in the iterated prisoners dilemma, perhaps we might find it easier to instill in them the service to others meme, rather than the service to self.

Capitalism is the sea we swim in - which is what makes it so difficult to imagine other solutions.

I wish people would stop bandying "the free market" about like it exists. It has about as much existence as "a communist state" or "military intelligence".

Where in the universe can you find a free market?

free market, just means a market place free of interference by regulatory bodies, ie the government.

We don't really strive for it in this country as we have socialist leanings, but it's certainly possible.

Originally posted by nick2
Your just being pedantic now (for a change), but, the rest of tribe would police it and they would get booted out of the tribe/village/land I guess.

I agree this kind of society probably only works for small village sized communities, but that doesn't alter the fact that it does work.

not an awful lot of use as a model for a world with 6 billion people in it.

If we had a free market, Richard Branson and Alan Sugar would be trading in crack cocaine.

Originally posted by Cyclone
not an awful lot of use as a model for a world with 6 billion people in it.

if the 6 billion people lived in small comunities spread out across the planet it would be.

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
If we had a free market, Richard Branson and Alan Sugar would be trading in crack cocaine.

lol, I already said that we didn't actually have one.
But there is no reason that segments of the market cannot be free, whilst others aren't.

To be honest were the market for cocaine free, I doubt it would be that expensive or lucrative.

However there are good reasons sometimes for society policing the actions of it's members... Although if i remember correctly crack isn't that addictive or harmful.

Originally posted by Cyclone
However there are good reasons sometimes for society policing the actions of it's members... Although if i remember correctly crack isn't that addictive or harmful.

I thought crack was the most dangerous drug there was and that it was instantly addictive (though how that works I don't know, might be an urban myth).

Originally posted by nick2
I thought crack was the most dangerous drug there was and that it was instantly addictive (though how that works I don't know, might be an urban myth).

could be that i'm wrong. I'm sure phan can tell us.

Originally posted by Cyclone
could be that i'm wrong. I'm sure phan can tell us.

I'm pretty sure it's very dangerous, but the adictive thing does sound a bit unbelievable.

Cocaine is a drug that if used regularly will cause physical dependency. Because the onset of crack cocaine is very fast, the dependency is quick to assert itself. But whether you become an addict or not is more to do with you than the drug itself.

Branson already sells drink, an addictive mind altering drug. crack cocaine (much cheaper to produce and distribute) is more addictive and more mind altering. By controlling the supply through cartel, (as is done already) Virgin Crack™ would be the biggest grossing product they had ever produced. Closely followed by Virgin Smack™ and Virgin Speedball™.

The free market is a total myth. No-one would stand for it. So instead we have regulated markets where constant hegemonising of business interests always leads to cartels and price fixing and the so called 'level playing field' which keeps the wealth in one place.

Its particularly laughable when people slate 'rip off' Britain, and yet champion the opressed (not free) market.

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
The free market is a total myth. No-one would stand for it. So instead we have regulated markets where constant hegemonising of business interests always leads to cartels and price fixing and the so called 'level playing field' which keeps the wealth in one place.


Remember the kerfuffle (and resulting law suits) when supermarkets started buying jeans on the "grey market" and flogging them cheap, I suppose in a free market that would be allowed ?

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
Cocaine is a drug that if used regularly will cause physical dependency. Because the onset of crack cocaine is very fast, the dependency is quick to assert itself. But whether you become an addict or not is more to do with you than the drug itself.

Branson already sells drink, an addictive mind altering drug. crack cocaine (much cheaper to produce and distribute) is more addictive and more mind altering. By controlling the supply through cartel, (as is done already) Virgin Crack™ would be the biggest grossing product they had ever produced. Closely followed by Virgin Smack™ and Virgin Speedball™.

The free market is a total myth. No-one would stand for it. So instead we have regulated markets where constant hegemonising of business interests always leads to cartels and price fixing and the so called 'level playing field' which keeps the wealth in one place.

Its particularly laughable when people slate 'rip off' Britain, and yet champion the opressed (not free) market.

nonesense, if it were so lucractive then other companies would also be quick to enter the market. As cartel forming is anti competitive and not the behaviour of the free market, it's not interference to legislate against this.
A cartel can only really be formed when entry into the market depends on a restricted physical supply, or where there are a small number of players.
Cocaine fits neither of those criteria, so price competition would ensure that the customer got a good deal whilst profits remained at a reasonable but low level for companies.

If behaving differently were so easy, why isn't there a milk cartel and the price of milk up at £4 a pint?

Originally posted by nick2
Remember the kerfuffle (and resulting law suits) when supermarkets started buying jeans on the "grey market" and flogging them cheap, I suppose in a free market that would be allowed ?

yes it would. I think there are still legal issues to be resolved around that area, as manufacturers shouldn't be able to specify which market a product is for, either directly or through technical means (see dvd regions).

Originally posted by Cyclone
yes it would. I think there are still legal issues to be resolved around that area, as manufacturers shouldn't be able to specify which market a product is for, either directly or through technical means (see dvd regions).

But if you were in charge of Levis would you want a supermarket flogging your jeans and making your brand look cheap ?

Originally posted by Cyclone
nonesense

what's nonsense? I can't really respond to your post without knowing which part of mine was nonsense.

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
what's nonsense? I can't really respond to your post without knowing which part of mine was nonsense.

By controlling the supply through cartel, (as is done already) Virgin Crack™ would be the biggest grossing product they had ever produced. Closely followed by Virgin Smack™ and Virgin Speedball™.

The free market is a total myth.

the part that I tried to show as wrong. Sorry, thought it was obvious.

Levi's clearly are cheap somewhere if the supermarket can sell them at that price and still make a profit.
Differential pricing is a questionable activity in itself... Which should probably be investigated by the authorities.

OK, in a free market (one where the trade in crack was unrestricted and unfettered by silly little laws) then I think you are right, unless VirginNarc Ltd. managed to buy up the competition and, like de beers, end up controlling the worlds coca supply (except in de Beers case it is diamonds)

In the case of crack cocaine, you really only need to dominate the distribution end of the operation to ensure market dominance.

And aren't milk prices in the UK controlled by a 'cartel' already?

it's impossible to control the distribution end.
Assuming that supply isn't locked, Stelios could start up EasyCrack, buy in a load, use existing distribution chains and sell to every corner shop in the country.

VirginNarc would have to drop it's prices to compete.

Diamonds are much rarer than poppy plants, hence controlling the supply would be nearly impossible.

Stick em all in Bad Lads Army. That will sort them out.

Hell of a lot of people nowa days are so selfish, they don't wonna work.. want everything given too them.. don't respect anyone.. it's up to them to put thing back!

Originally posted by Cyclone
it's impossible to control the distribution end.
Assuming that supply isn't locked, Stelios could start up EasyCrack, buy in a load, use existing distribution chains and sell to every corner shop in the country.

VirginNarc would have to drop it's prices to compete.

Diamonds are much rarer than poppy plants, hence controlling the supply would be nearly impossible. Poppy plants can be made very rare with the application of paraquat dibromide. Likewise Coca plants (this has happened in South America) in the war on drugs, ironically enough.

No,it's because De Beers owns all the major diamond mines. Diamonds are essentially worthless, but it's a bad example, I concur. But the cartel is being broken up - its anomalous even in an environment of controlled trade.

So in a world of really free trade, crack cocaïne and smack would be available for low low prices at every newsagent? Interesting.

Diamonds, crack, Levis, milk cartels ?

I don't think I've seen a thread veer this far off topic before and
a) not be a slagging match
b) still be interesting
c) not get "done" for being off topic.

That's the sad thing about bulletin boards - their inherent unbranchiness.

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
unbranchiness.

Thats one of the best things, the ability to make words up if you want to :)

Ahhh, this thread is great... Just like it used to be, with people having intellectual debate, going off topic, and not reducing it all to insults.

I think it would be great if we could all just get rid of money... we could all keep doing the same jobs, and everything in the shops would be free... where is the problem in that plan?

I think the problem comes with human nature... people are too greedy and selfish, people will always find a way of taking advantage of a situation.

We now live in a society where people are obsessed with money and possessions. Kids don't go to medical school to be doctors anymore, they go to get rich. If a doctor got payed as much as a cleaner, at least we'd know that our doctors really cared and loved what they were doing.

It's the same with teaching. When I was at Uni, the people who were going to do teaching were mainly the ones who didn't know what to do with their lives, and teaching seemed a good fall-back plan because it pays quite well (in the scheme of things).

Wow, this has gone way off topic! Like nick2 says though, it's interesting reading. I think what we have in this country is a "controlled free market" (an oxymoron really) but this is because in some markets, restrictions and controls need to be enforced for the good of society.

As for the "alternative" mechanism to capitalism, I still don't think it could possibly work and this isn't just because we live in a capitalist society. As cyclone says, it's human nature to have some selfish instincts. This isn't something that could ever be changed instantly - it's a survival instinct for our species. Within the "alternative" society, markets would inevitably develop as described by cyclone, and all we'd be doing would be to turn back the clock a few thousand years. Perhaps capitalism as a societal mechanism didn't just happen by chance, but because it's the most natural solution that develops.

Originally posted by Snook
I think it would be great if we could all just get rid of money... we could all keep doing the same jobs, and everything in the shops would be free... where is the problem in that plan?


I was watching a program about Trekies earlier in the week (my remote control finger got tired of flicking between channels looking for anything worth watching), and one Trekie was saying how she looked foreward to the future as shown in Star Trek, a world where everyone co-operates, there is no money, there is no war (between people on Earth anyway), no famine, and people did the jobs they wanted just for the satisfaction of it (though the other half did point out that even in the future toilets would need cleaning), then she said "but thats just total fantasy".

Originally posted by nick2
I was watching a program about Trekies earlier in the week (my remote control finger got tired of flicking between channels looking for anything worth watching), and one Trekie was saying how she looked foreward to the future as shown in Star Trek, a world where everyone co-operates, there is no money, there is no war (between people on Earth anyway), no famine, and people did the jobs they wanted just for the satisfaction of it (though the other half did point out that even in the future toilets would need cleaning), then she said "but thats just total fantasy".

Wow, a Star Trek fan who can distinguish between reality and fantasy... I like to think of it as 'just a nice idea' myself, but something is will never happen because of human nature.

prosecute parents for being responsible for an accident.

i do agree in holding parents for responsible for the actions of under 18's.
it is the parents job to educate & discipline, if they allow them to be brought up expecting to get everything then they are at fault.

Originally posted by Snook
Wow, a Star Trek fan who can distinguish between reality and fantasy... I like to think of it as 'just a nice idea' myself, but something is will never happen because of human nature.

human nature? is it possible to rise above it, or are we simply doomed to always be slaves to our impulses?

What about the idea of enlightened self interest? Where we can subvert our own impulses.

As I've said before, a revolution in consciousness is required for everyone. I believe it's possible, but it could never be global damascene conversion, but as t020 identifies, it would be necessary for any such revolution to emerge rather than be imposed.

This has already happened at least once. So it can happen, and if it can, I think it will.

Originally posted by Snook
Wow, a Star Trek fan who can distinguish between reality and fantasy...

I wouldn't go that far, her cat was dressed as Dr McCoy :)

the star trek future is fine, with a sufficiently advanced technological basis the toilets will clean themselves, or it will be done by cleaning robots.

Snook - why would we? If we were all 'equalised' at no pay i'd be damned if i'm driving the length of the country to do something that requires a degree of effort when I could stack shelves at morrisons down the road.

We have a degree of co operativesness built into us, but also a degree of competition. Without that competetive streak we'd still be living in the woods and eating carrion and berries. I don't think supressing it would be good for society as a whole, or certainly progress.