• 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"

kaya'08 said:
Depends. If you want a small government that can attend to your regional needs better, yes.
Click to expand...

I am of the opinion of strengthening local boroughs power. Give them more say over their area as only they can work towards the locals needs.
I hate this thing Westminister does where it does one blanket law for all and expect everyone to follow it.
 
Wessexman said:
Well narrow distributism is based on Catholic social teaching and the writings of Anglicans and Catholics like G.K Chesterton and Hilaire Belloc(Tolkien was a dsitributist as well.). Here is an intro.

The ChesterBelloc Mandate: What is Distributism?

More broadly it encompasses many movements and thinkers from Thomas Jefferson to Peter Kropotkin and is about a decentralised economy, more dispersed or distributed property particularly private propety, more rewarding work, an economy more based around human needs particularly deeper spiritual needs rather than frivolous consumerism and a better urban-rural balance.
Click to expand...

Your obviously not one to advocate separation of church and state? What does a nation/economy have any business or anything to do with in attending the spiritual needs of its inhabitants? Thats a personal issue. Why involve the state or even the economy in such processes? Its daft.
 
Last edited:
Wessexman said:
Currently what the people want is irrelevant or that is how the EU and the likes of New Labour conduct business --- Lisbon being a case in point. But I would only support my measures with popular support and hence work to achieve that.
Click to expand...

That is true.
I wonder if consitutional reform will be in the campaign at our next general election ...

Cameron talks alot about it but would he deliver?
 
kaya'08 said:
Your obviously not one to advocate separation of church and state?
Click to expand...
No but that is a slightly different matter. As you are already aware I don't advocate strict seperation of church and state in England. I'm not a Roman Catholic like most narrow distributists anyway, although broadly speaking distributism could be used to describe people as far apart as leftwing anarchists and classical liberals.

What does a nation/economy have any business or anything to do with in attending the spiritual needs of its inhabitants? Thats a personal issue.
Click to expand...
I very much disagree. Economics has a very important moral area, it is after all about human relationships.
 
Laila said:
That is true.
I wonder if consitutional reform will be in the campaign at our next general election ...

Cameron talks alot about it but would he deliver?
Click to expand...
I personally don't want it at the moment. I think it would block necessary change for several generations and the people right now simply would not go in the right direction, imho.
 
Wessexman said:
I very much disagree. Economics has a very important moral area, it is after all about human relationships.
Click to expand...

Describe in what sense the economy should attend the spiritual side of its inhabitants? I take that means banning certain material?
 
Wessexman said:
I personally don't want it at the moment. I think it would block necessary change for several generations and the people right now simply would not go in the right direction, imho.
Click to expand...

I want it ASAP.
I do not trust this Government or any. After Labour, i want executive power restrained.
 
So what sort of hunting is allowed in England?
 
kaya'08 said:
Describe in what sense the economy should attend the spiritual side of its inhabitants? I take that means banning certain material?
Click to expand...
That is not what I meant. I was talking about a more meta-level. The general classical economic view is morality should be left out of economics, a narrow distributist disagrees. He sees economics as part of human behaviour and society and hence very much part of the moral sphere.
 
Wessexman said:
That is not what I meant. I was talking about a more meta-level. The general classical economic view is morality should be left out of economics, a narrow distributist disagrees. He sees economics as part of human behaviour and society and hence very much part of the moral sphere.
Click to expand...

But you still haven't answered the question. How would the economy contribute to the spiritual growth of the people? In what way?
 
Last edited:
Wessexman said:
And yet you trust the EU?
Click to expand...

No i don't. If i do not trust my own fellow Brits to be in power, why would i trust Europeans?
But we seem to be stuck with it.
 
kaya'08 said:
But you still haven't answered the question. How would the economy contribute to the spiritual growth of the people?
Click to expand...

By being based around support for the individual and community, particularly those small-scale associations like the family, growth and stability and by limiting the amount of economic power any one individual or organisation can wield. It would set the scene for this spiritual fulfillment by providing things like rewarding, spiritually positive work, the strength and autonomy of the community and family, the family and individual possession of productive property for personal development, a better integration of rural and urban elements for better integrated individuals and such.
 
Ikari said:
So what sort of hunting is allowed in England?
Click to expand...

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

In Scotland you can hunt more.

Legal .... for now.
 
Wessexman said:
By being based around support for the individual and community, particularly those small-scale associations like the family, growth and stability and by limiting the amount of economic power any one individual or organisation can wield. It would set the scene for this spiritual fulfillment by providing things like rewarding, spiritually positive work, the strength and autonomy of the community and family, the family and individual possession of productive property for personal development, a better integration of rural and urban elements for better integrated individuals and such.
Click to expand...

Mix petroleum with fire, and you have Britain without separation of church and state. Your "ideal" undermines the modern progressivism Britain stands for. Your asking the economy to get involved in personal issues. I believe we need some social conservatism in a society which is forever socially and morally declining, but at the same time we need to remind ourselves that everybody, including the economy, has its place in a Democratic society.
 
Wessexman said:
By being based around support for the individual and community, particularly those small-scale associations like the family, growth and stability and by limiting the amount of economic power any one individual or organisation can wield. It would set the scene for this spiritual fulfillment by providing things like rewarding, spiritually positive work, the strength and autonomy of the community and family, the family and individual possession of productive property for personal development, a better integration of rural and urban elements for better integrated individuals and such.
Click to expand...

Hmm ...

Another reform suggestion.
Church/State seperation anyone?
 
kaya'08 said:
Mix petroleum with fire, and you have Britain without separation of church and state.
Click to expand...
We don't have a separation of church and state.

Your "ideal" undermines the modern progressivism Britain stands for. Your asking the economy to get involved in personal issues. I believe we need some social conservatism in a society which is forever socially and morally declining, but at the same time we need to remind ourselves that everybody, including the economy, has its place in a Democratic society.
Click to expand...
I think you are reading far too much into the spiritual comment I made, I was not primarily talking about the Christian aspect. I'm willing to defend a moderate Anglican view of society and a moderate role for an established Anglican church as I have done before but I was not primarily talking from that perspective. Most of what I was talking about in the spiritual aspects could be captured under many ideas, including on the left like the Greens, without being expressly Christian.

I was talking primarily of an economy where people can be creative, live in strong, bonded and supportive local communities and such and develop their innate abilities with rewarding work they have a lot more control over rather than work for some global corporation in a boring job and be encouraged to spend their income on empty consumerism. I was making an anti-consumerism point which is similar to many on the left and not anything overtly religious, in an orthodox sense, and certainly not Christian.
 
Last edited:
Wessexman said:
We don't have a separation of church and state.
Click to expand...

Of course we do?

I think you are reading far too much into the spiritual comment I made, I was not primarily talking about the Christian aspect. I'm willing to defend a moderate Anglican view of society and a moderate role for an established Anglican church as I have done before but I was not primarily talking from that perspective. Most of what I was talking about in the spiritual aspects could be captured under many ideas, including on the left like the Greens, without being expressly Christian.

I was talking primarily of an economy where people can be creative, live in strong, bonded and supportive local communities and such and develop their innate abilities with rewarding work they have a lot more control over rather than work for some global corporation in a boring job and be encouraged to spend their income on empty consumerism. I was making an anti-consumerism point which is similar to many on the left and not anything overtly religious, in an orthodox sense, and certainly not Christian.
Click to expand...

Whats wrong with consumerism?
 
kaya'08 said:
Of course we do?

Whats wrong with consumerism?
Click to expand...

We don't Kaya.

We do not have a seperation like US. Legal and binding
Our attitudes are secular but the state is entwined with the church
 
Laila said:
We don't Kaya.

We do not have a seperation like US. Legal and binding
Our attitudes are secular but the state is entwined with the church
Click to expand...

Oh of course. Church of England. Sorry. :doh
 
kaya'08 said:
Of course we do?
Click to expand...
Ever heard of the Church of England?


Whats wrong with consumerism?
Click to expand...
I think we are way off on a tangent here but it is wrong for the reasons I have already briefly stated. Briefly put it puts consumption, and a very materially and poorly based idea of it, before the complete needs of man and society. For an intro though I cannot recommend E.F Schumacher's Buddhist economics from his Small is beautiful, a key work in the Green movement.

The E. F. Schumacher Society • Buddhist Economics

....For the modern economist this is very difficult to understand. He is used to measuring the "standard of living" by the amount of annual consumption, assuming all the time that a man who consumes more is "better off" than a man who consumes less. A Buddhist economist would consider this approach excessively irrational: since consumption is merely a means to human well-being, the aim should be to obtain the maximum of well-being with the minimum of consumption. Thus, if the purpose of clothing is a certain amount of temperature comfort and an attractive appearance, the task is to attain this purpose with the smallest possible effort, that is, with the smallest annual destruction of cloth and with the help of designs that involve the smallest possible input of toil. The less toil there is, the more time and strength is left for artistic creativity. It would be highly uneconomic, for instance, to go in for complicated tailoring, like the modern West, when a much more beautiful effect can be achieved by the skillful draping of uncut material. It would be the height of folly to make material so that it should wear out quickly and the height of barbarity to make anything ugly, shabby, or mean. What has just been said about clothing applies equally to all other human requirements. The ownership and the consumption of goods is a means to an end, and Buddhist economics is the systematic study of how to attain given ends with the minimum means

Modern economics, on the other hand, considers consumption to be the sole end and purpose of all economic activity, taking the factors of production—and, labour, and capital—as the means. The former, in short, tries to maximise human satisfactions by the optimal pattern of consumption, while the latter tries to maximise consumption by the optimal pattern of productive effort. It is easy to see that the effort needed to sustain a way of life which seeks to attain the optimal pattern of consumption is likely to be much smaller than the effort needed to sustain a drive for maximum consumption. We need not be surprised, therefore, that the pressure and strain of living is very much less in say, Burma, than it is in the United States, in spite of the fact that the amount of labour-saving machinery used in the former country is only a minute fraction of the amount used in the latter.

Simplicity and non-violence are obviously closely related. The optimal pattern of consumption, producing a high degree of human satisfaction by means of a relatively low rate of consumption, allows people to live without great pressure and strain and to fulfill the primary injunction of Buddhist teaching: “Cease to do evil; try to do good.” As physical resources are everywhere limited, people satisfying their needs by means of a modest use of resources are obviously less likely to be at each other’s throats than people depending upon a high rate of use. Equally, people who live in highly self-sufficient local communities are less likely to get involved in large-scale violence than people whose existence depends on world-wide systems of trade.......


I very much encourage you to read the whole thing and even the whole book.
 
Last edited:
kaya'08 said:
Oh of course. Church of England. Sorry. :doh
Click to expand...

Lol
No problemo Kaya.
Easy mistake to make, i forgot it is there sometimes too =P
 
I think we are way off on a tangent here but it is wrong for the reasons I have already briefly stated. Briefly put it puts consumption, and a very materially and poorly based idea of it, before the complete needs of man and society. For an intro though I cannot recommend E.F Schumacher's Buddhist economics from his Small is beautiful, a key work in the Green movement.

The E. F. Schumacher Society • Buddhist Economics

....For the modern economist this is very difficult to understand. He is used to measuring the "standard of living" by the amount of annual consumption, assuming all the time that a man who consumes more is "better off" than a man who consumes less. A Buddhist economist would consider this approach excessively irrational: since consumption is merely a means to human well-being, the aim should be to obtain the maximum of well-being with the minimum of consumption. Thus, if the purpose of clothing is a certain amount of temperature comfort and an attractive appearance, the task is to attain this purpose with the smallest possible effort, that is, with the smallest annual destruction of cloth and with the help of designs that involve the smallest possible input of toil. The less toil there is, the more time and strength is left for artistic creativity. It would be highly uneconomic, for instance, to go in for complicated tailoring, like the modern West, when a much more beautiful effect can be achieved by the skillful draping of uncut material. It would be the height of folly to make material so that it should wear out quickly and the height of barbarity to make anything ugly, shabby, or mean. What has just been said about clothing applies equally to all other human requirements. The ownership and the consumption of goods is a means to an end, and Buddhist economics is the systematic study of how to attain given ends with the minimum means

Modern economics, on the other hand, considers consumption to be the sole end and purpose of all economic activity, taking the factors of production—and, labour, and capital—as the means. The former, in short, tries to maximise human satisfactions by the optimal pattern of consumption, while the latter tries to maximise consumption by the optimal pattern of productive effort. It is easy to see that the effort needed to sustain a way of life which seeks to attain the optimal pattern of consumption is likely to be much smaller than the effort needed to sustain a drive for maximum consumption. We need not be surprised, therefore, that the pressure and strain of living is very much less in say, Burma, than it is in the United States, in spite of the fact that the amount of labour-saving machinery used in the former country is only a minute fraction of the amount used in the latter.

Simplicity and non-violence are obviously closely related. The optimal pattern of consumption, producing a high degree of human satisfaction by means of a relatively low rate of consumption, allows people to live without great pressure and strain and to fulfill the primary injunction of Buddhist teaching: “Cease to do evil; try to do good.” As physical resources are everywhere limited, people satisfying their needs by means of a modest use of resources are obviously less likely to be at each other’s throats than people depending upon a high rate of use. Equally, people who live in highly self-sufficient local communities are less likely to get involved in large-scale violence than people whose existence depends on world-wide systems of trade.......


I very much encourage you to read the whole thing and even the whole book.
Click to expand...

[/QUOTE]

Consumerism is another personal thing that you are asking that the economy should intervene with. If your a religious person, your not going to be consumerist. If your atheist or agnostic, chances are you will be because you don't believe in God or all things spiritual so will believe that all material things are all there is and death is the end to all means. I believe an individual can be consumerist, not an economy. The economy is simply there to provide a service and exploit, what you do with it and how you interact with it is your choice. The economy doesn't dictate our lives or tell us how we should live. This whole catholic jumble sounds fascist to me. I'll read it anyway.
 
Laila said:
In England?
Deers, foxes, Grouse and pheasant shooting is also popular.

In Scotland you can hunt more.

Legal .... for now.
Click to expand...

Not really, no. Our laws are pretty similar to England's on hunting. Restricted areas, restricted species, restricted weaponary. I've never actually met anyone that hunts though, just farmers that shoot as pest control.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom