• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Tories "will scrap hunting ban"

In England?
Deers, foxes, Grouse and pheasant shooting is also popular.

In Scotland you can hunt more.

Legal .... for now.

These laws just about the fox hunting with dogs, or hunting in general? Scotland or England (I sorta clump the UK together)?
 
I thought they had rabies and stuff

They do. But like, that wouldn't be a problem if we had fox farms. Thing is, the Fox isn't a tame animal, like Cow, Goat or Sheep. Its quiet vicious at the best of times. More farmers would be killed and eaten in the process than foxes. Unless you want to stick them into compact cages and feed them through tubes with minimum human contact which isn't right.
 
These laws just about the fox hunting with dogs, or hunting in general? Scotland or England (I sorta clump the UK together)?

Fox hunting with dogs.

Wales and N Ireland also have these same laws.
 
I don't think they all do, but I've still never heard of anyone eating fox.

Neither have I.
If it was healthy, i'd have a steady batch in the woods nearby o_O
 
You call for a decentralized government yet your ideology simply gives more power to them by allowing them to control us through the economy. Im just saying, its wrong.

EDIT: And in the name of religion too. I couldn't think of anything worse.
I don't think you understand what I advocate and my system would certainly have a lot less gov't intervention than now.

Also I object to the idea that morality and eocnomics are separate. Economics is intertwined with human society and human behaviour is part of the moral sphere.
 
Last edited:
I don't think you understand what I advocate and my system would certainly have a lot less gov't intervention than now.

Also I object to the idea that morality and eocnomics are separate. Economics is intertwined with human society and human behaviour is part of the moral sphere.

If it involves the government and spirituality, its no no mate.
 
And I my morality is religious but as I said you could hold a very similar economic philosophy to me on purely secular grounds. Many people from Thomas Jefferson to Henry George to Peter Kropotkin to Ralph Borsodi have. Not that I'm in an way ashamed of religious motivations, I'm not a liberal, I believe traditional religion is extremely important for society.
 
If it involves the government and spirituality, its no no mate.
Again your focusing on that word but I must say rubbish. All human society is within the moral sphere.

Do you not believe in laws against child labour? Or dodgy consumer goods? The idea that you can separate economic areas completely from the rest of society I'm not sure. And I struggling to see your social conservatism here.
 
Again your focusing on that word but I must say rubbish. All human society is within the moral sphere.

Do you not believe in laws against child labour? Or dodgy consumer goods? The idea that you can separate economic areas completely from the rest of society I'm not sure. And I struggling to see your social conservatism here.

Your trying to base the economic system on Catholicism for christ sakes.
 
And I my morality is religious but as I said you could hold a very similar economic philosophy to me on purely secular grounds. Many people from Thomas Jefferson to Henry George to Peter Kropotkin to Ralph Borsodi have. Not that I'm in an way ashamed of religious motivations, I'm not a liberal, I believe traditional religion is extremely important for society.

Who are you to decide it is important for a society? Its values certainly are, but if people dont believe in your religion and those values, then they should be free from it being pushed onto them by the economy. Wtf?
 
Being American, I find it very intresting that this issue provoked so many posts and so much passion. If anyone does fox hunting in that manner in the US, I'm not aware of it, though it is possible.

In some hunting sports, we do use dogs, but primarily to find and/or corner the critter in question before it is shot dead, or in the case of birds to find and retrieve same after the shot.

Not my country, so I have little opinion on the matter.

One thing someone said, about a fox hunt group tearing up his vegetable garden: yeah, that definately shouldn't be allowed, or at a minimum suitable compensation plus a little extra for the bother and mess. Are the hunts allowed to cross other's private property without leave? Sounds like they are.

I grew up a farmboy, and I hunt sometimes, but my family tradition was to make a clean kill with one shot if at all possible, in order to be humane. It wasn't some big philosophy, just my Dad said "if you can't make a clean kill, better not to take the shot. Don't want it to suffer more than we can help."

Otherhandwise, I can see where Wessexman is coming from: if these hunts take place in the countryside, it seems like it is the business of the folks living in the countryside whether they want it to be legal or not, and what sort of regulations might apply.

None of my business really, I'm on the other side of the big pond. :mrgreen:
 
Your trying to base the economic system on Catholicism for christ sakes.

When did I say that? In fact I have repeatedly said you can base most of it on secular ethics and many have. Not that I'm ashamed to admit religious morality and simply referencing that is not an argument mate.

I'm wondering why we are discussing this topic any more. I have yet to see any real comprehension from you on this topic. At least try and get a grip on what I'm actually saying and advocating.

Was Thomas Jefferson a Catholic? Was Henry George? Was Peter Kropotkin or Lewis Mumford or Kirkpatrick Sale or the Southern Agrarians?

Also you haven't answered my questions on child labour laws or gov't intervention in the economy or really responded to my points on economics and society in any proper way.
 
Last edited:
Being American, I find it very intresting that this issue provoked so many posts and so much passion. If anyone does fox hunting in that manner in the US, I'm not aware of it, though it is possible.

In some hunting sports, we do use dogs, but primarily to find and/or corner the critter in question before it is shot dead, or in the case of birds to find and retrieve same after the shot.

Not my country, so I have little opinion on the matter.

One thing someone said, about a fox hunt group tearing up his vegetable garden: yeah, that definately shouldn't be allowed, or at a minimum suitable compensation plus a little extra for the bother and mess. Are the hunts allowed to cross other's private property without leave? Sounds like they are.

I grew up a farmboy, and I hunt sometimes, but my family tradition was to make a clean kill with one shot if at all possible, in order to be humane. It wasn't some big philosophy, just my Dad said "if you can't make a clean kill, better not to take the shot. Don't want it to suffer more than we can help."

Otherhandwise, I can see where Wessexman is coming from: if these hunts take place in the countryside, it seems like it is the business of the folks living in the countryside whether they want it to be legal or not, and what sort of regulations might apply.

None of my business really, I'm on the other side of the big pond. :mrgreen:

It's more of an upper-class passtime than anything else, really. It's much quicker, and far more cost-effective, for a farmer just to shoot any persistent pests, than it would be for him to dress up pretty, round up a group of friends on horseback and go jaunting around the countryside for a few hours.
 
It's more of an upper-class passtime than anything else, really. It's much quicker, and far more cost-effective, for a farmer just to shoot any persistent pests, than it would be for him to dress up pretty, round up a group of friends on horseback and go jaunting around the countryside for a few hours.

Firstly that is a gross misrepresentation. Secondly so what if it was?
 
Its an ideology made by a bunch of Catho's/Anglo's aint it?
Narrow distributism is. Broader philosophies that could be classed as distributism are not necessarily. I have said this several times.

I have repeated I have no shame in saying I have a Christian view of man however.

You didn't answer the rest of my post, though that perhaps was because I edited it. Here is the rest:

In fact I have repeatedly said you can base most of it on secular ethics and many have. Not that I'm ashamed to admit religious morality and simply referencing that is not an argument mate.

I'm wondering why we are discussing this topic any more. I have yet to see any real comprehension from you on this topic. At least try and get a grip on what I'm actually saying and advocating.

Was Thomas Jefferson a Catholic? Was Henry George? Was Peter Kropotkin or Lewis Mumford or Kirkpatrick Sale or the Southern Agrarians?

Also you haven't answered my questions on child labour laws or gov't intervention in the economy or really responded to my points on economics and society in any proper way.
 
Last edited:
In fact I have repeatedly said you can base most of it on secular ethics and many have. Not that I'm ashamed to admit religious morality and simply referencing that is not an argument mate.


You said yourself your friggin ideology was based less on consumerism and more on human needs and spiritual needs. How the HELL would spiritual needs incorporate secularism? Thats all i need to know.

I'm wondering why we are discussing this topic any more. I have yet to see any real comprehension from you on this topic. At least try and get a grip on what I'm actually saying and advocating.

Your ideology does not advocate secularism as much as you claim it can have secular ethics which it obviously cant. If you don't believe in the sanctity of secularism you shouldn't be talking about the economy.

Was Thomas Jefferson a Catholic? Was Henry George? Was Peter Kropotkin or Lewis Mumford or Kirkpatrick Sale or the Southern Agrarians?

Where they in someway associated to a religion? The thing with your ideology is, it varies from person to person depending on what religion they would like to see a distributive economy worked with. You for example have the "christian view". So naturally you would want to incorporate that with your distributive ideology? Thats all i need to know, ive lost all respect at that point.

Also you haven't answered my questions on child labour laws or gov't
[/QUOTE]

The hell does that have to do with spirituality?
 
You said yourself your friggin ideology was based less on consumerism and more on human needs and spiritual needs. How the HELL would spiritual needs incorporate secularism? Thats all i need to know.
I think you are misunderstanding spiritual what means. It simply is talking about higher motivations than material possessions such as creativity, community, companionship and such. Even many agnostics and atheists recognise this side of man. It is not directly a religious thing. Maslow's hierarchy of needs is mostly as reflective of this view as much as any religious document.


It does seem this misunderstanding of what spiritual means or can mean has very much led you to misunderstand me.



Your ideology does not advocate secularism as much as you claim it can have secular ethics which it obviously cant. If you don't believe in the sanctity of secularism you shouldn't be talking about the economy.
Firstly that is an unsupported assertion which I reject, let's try and have a discussion without that. I could easily counter that if you don't believe morality always has a place in human affairs then you shouldn't be talking about them.

Secondly my ideology cannot be compatible with crass materialism that views man's only needs as the gaining of material possessions and fulfillment of low passions. It is compatible with many non-religious, and certainly non-traditional religious, views however including many that could be classified as secular. It is simply based on a view of man as having many higher needs that go unfulfilled by consumerism.


Where they in someway associated to a religion?
Some were, some weren't.

The thing with your ideology is, it varies from person to person depending on what religion they would like to see a distributive economy worked with. You for example have the "christian view". So naturally you would want to incorporate that with your distributive ideology? Thats all i need to know, ive lost all respect at that point.
Firstly when you say you separate morality from human affairs that destroys all my respect for your economic ideology. Secondly I do believe in religion and its place in society but it has only a marginal place in my economic theory, as an agnostic I held quite a similar viewpoint. It is based around the idea of man and his needs I've spelt out several times already.


The hell does that have to do with spirituality?
It has to do with morality and what you think human needs are. If you don't believe in child labour or bans cigarette advertising or pretty much any intervention in the economy in the name of a better society then you are being inconsistent.
 
Last edited:
I think you are misunderstanding spiritual means. It simply is talking about higher motivations than material possessions such as creativity, community, companionship and such. Even many agnostics and atheists recognise this side of man. It is not directly a religious thing. Maslow's hierarchy of needs is somewhat as reflective of this view as much as any religious document.

So the economy arranges camping days out and "must attend" leisure centers? What business is this of the economies? :shock:

It does seem this misunderstanding of what spiritual means or can mean has very much led you to misunderstand me.

Perhaps ive misunderstood you. Spirituality to me is religious baloney, not "community work".



Secondly my ideology cannot be compatible with crass materialism that views man's only needs as the gaining of material possessions and fulfillment of low passions. It is compatible with many non-religious, and certainly non-traditional religious, however including many that could be classified as secular. It is simply based on a view of man as having many higher needs that go unfulfilled by consumerism.

The needs of man is not yours to dictate. We all have indivisual needs. Some believe material things are all they want. Others don't...so what?



Firstly when you say you separate morality from human affairs that destroys all my respect for your economic ideology. Secondly I do believe in religion and its place in society but it has only a marginal place in my economic theory, as an agnostic I held quite a similar viewpoint. It is based around the idea of man and his needs I've spelt out several times already.

Religion is not for the economy to enforce or assert, thats for the people to decide.



It has to do with morality and what you think human needs are. If you don't believe in child labour or bans cigarette advertising or pretty much any intervention in the economy in the name of a better society then you are being inconsistent.

Im talking about spirituality, not morality. Every idiot can tell you that an economy needs to fall within certain moral boundaries.

Some were, some weren't.

Of course they where.
 
Last edited:
Tories "will scrap hunting ban" - Telegraph

Nice to see Tories still know how to make this a class issue and where their priority lies.
What the hell? Only toffs go gallivanting off to tear a fox apart in a red suit all done up :/

Here in Virginia, it's much better to have a Hunt, than have a bloody Deer come crashing thru your Car Window at 65 MPH. We've well over 300,000 of the bloody buggers in our State alone. Plus we have a Program to turn in the Game for the Needy. :)

Venison, for the Poor.:lol:
 
So the economy arranges camping days out and must attend leisure centers? What business is this of the economies? :shock:
It is my view that society should be arranged to help man fulfill his needs and potential. The economy is very much part of society. Just about everyone believes similar, even you. Don't pretend you view of man is neutral nor that pretending people should simply be allowed to choose in an economy that is part of a society, full of power relationships and state intervention is neutral either.


Perhaps ive misunderstood you. Spirituality to me religious baloney, not "community work".
It is not community work and please try and not be offensive to my religious views. Have you ever read Lord Northbourne? I recommend his work.



The needs of man is not yours to dictate. We all have indivisual needs. Some believe material things are all they want. Others don't...so what?
I have my views on society. It is pretty much excepted most people have higher needs, hence Maslow's place in psychology. Again don't pretend your view of man is neutral nor that our society is.

You have a naive view of the economy, as if it isn't very much part of society and as if there isn't very much a massive load of state intervention in our economy anyway. Corporations for instance are creatures of state fiat which separate ownership from control, in contradiction to common law ownership, and encourage irresponsibility and consolidation.

Do I have a right as a 12 year old to work done a mine-shaft and not go to school? Or is the fuller development of my intellectual faculties more important?



Religion is not for the economy to enforce or assert, thats for the people to decide.
The economy is part of society. I believe in making it better for man in a libertarian and decentralist fashion like replacing most taxes with a locally collected land value tax and encouraging mutual banking.

If I followed your advise I pretty much had better give up on my social views and my wish to decentralise gov't as these are based partly on my views of man which are in contradiction to crass materialism. Perhaps I should just become a Thatcherite? Maybe there is no such thing as society? And why shouldn't I embrace the EU? Nations don't matter, the sooner we have world gov't the better.

Of course I'd still actually be trying to enact my view of man, it would just be the prevailing consumerist, corporate-capitalist one.
Im talking about spirituality, not morality. Every idiot can tell you that an economy needs to fall within certain moral boundaries.
These moral boundaries are based on a view of man as is my idea of spirituality. If you believe in these rules then you go beyond the Thatcherism you are espousing.

Of course they where.
I don't think Kirkpatrick Sale or [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_Mumford"]Lewis Mumford[/ame] could be said to be and [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Kropotkin"]Peter Kropotkin[/ame] was an anarchist. There are many more.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom