- View Single Post - The English riots: the personal cost
View Single Post
post #47 of (permalink) Old 11-28-2011, 07:38 PM
country flag EddceLLent
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2011
Age: 31
Posts: 367
Re: The English riots: the personal cost

Originally Posted by abraxas21 View Post
harder sanctions will contain the revolution in the mean time but they won't be able to extinguish the unerlying causes behind it
Lol at you spunking your pants at the thought of a revolution. Talk of a revolution is absolute nonsense.

Originally Posted by shiaben View Post
There's no problem with the rich or even having wealth. But they should pay taxes like the rest of the working class. It would help the economies of their respective nations.
Most of them do, and we wouldn't be able to provide safety nets for the poor without their contributions.

Originally Posted by star View Post
2. Rich people are usually rich because they inherited wealth from their relatives. That is the most usual way people have acquired wealth.
Is this based on any kind of evidence or is it just you making the assumption?

Originally Posted by star View Post
In reality, hard work does not lead to wealth. Many working class people work longer hours and at body crushing labor and never become rich or are even able to get medical insurance. And here I am only talking about western economies. I’m not talking about the millions and millions who toil from dawn to dusk to merely stave off starvation.

So please don’t even entertain the thought that people who do not have money are lazy. You have no idea what people go through to merely maintain their families at malnourished levels.
You're right here - hard work doesn't automatically lead to wealth. Wages are based on the availability of labour to perform a certain role, if there's not many people who can do a certain job then it'll pay better.

In a sense I agree with your assertion that it's wrong to call poor people lazy - because they're mostly not. I don't think the poster you were replying to was really saying that though, I think he was referring specifically to the guy who started the thread. (btw I assume everyone is male, sorry idk your genders)

Originally Posted by abraxas21 View Post
like i said to certinfy: read the whole article. it's not just her case, it's the way the english courts have dealt with all of the people who have been involved or were involved in the riots.
The courts have the power to give sentences as a deterrent. I, as a law abiding citizen of the UK, am happy to see that they've done so here. There's a duty to protect the law abiding majority of the country, and so it needs to be made abundantly clear that we will not allow the kind of behaviour that we saw during the riots. It was made absolutely clear before the riots became widespread that it'd be dealt with severely, and so anyone that took part has only him or herself to blame now that they're having to face the consequences of their actions.

Who are people kidding anyway???? This wasn't a revolt against the rich...look at the victims of the rioting - the ordinary citizens whose homes were burned to the ground, the small business owners who lost everything that they'd worked for, the emergency services that came under attack in the course of trying to protect us. It's outrageous. What annoys me even more is that some people with a left wing agenda started to make noises about inequality, thus giving the rioters a shred of an excuse for their actions. They might say now that it's a protest against the rich, but you can bet that was never on their mind when they were busy stealing trainers and electrical goods FOR THEMSELVES, exhibiting the very greed that any anti-capitalist protestor would espouse as being the source of such evil.

Before people harp on about inequality why don't they think about the people in countries where there are no safety nets, where the poor rely on only their own ingenuity to avoid starving to death. The reason that we, except for a very small number of isolated cases, don't have that in the UK is because of capitalism - enabling us to use our resources effectively in order to allow everyone the opportunity to have an acceptable standard of living.

Capitalism does result in inequalities - there's no doubt about that - but that's not the argument - the question we need to ask ourselves is what other system could we use to allocate resources more effectively? The truth is there is no better system that's proven to work as well in achieving the best standard of living possible for as many people as possible. Without capitalism there would be little opportunity for redistribution of wealth because there'd be comparatively so little of it to redistribute. So hows about we stop to think about those who are truly needy before we start denigrating the very system that means we're lucky enough to not be going hungry.

Follow me @EddceLLent on Twitter
EddceLLent is offline  
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome