: Some of these stories are in very left wing newspapers, even the Sun who appealed to Britain to vote Labor.
Hah- eh sun is one of teh most virulently right-wing papers in this country, the only vaguely left papers are the mirror (which isn't very, more pro-labour than left-wing) and the guardian (middle of the road liberal).
: The NHS processes more people for more reasons now than it did in the 60s (govt stats). operate the NHS now as it existed (ie at the cost levels in real terms) of the 1960s and it would be really 'fine'. Introduce increasingly complex treatments for diseases now considered treatable, and the staff that need to go with it and the burden goes up and up.
But also as health rates have declined due to poverty, as well (heart disease being a favourite). Like I said, the NHS is being cuaght by a declining rate of profit, as all otherindustries are.
: In the 1998-9 tax year Britain spent £22billion on defense and £100 billion on social security. Other bottomless pits included health & personal social services (£56bn), education (£33bn). Even debt interest was more than defence!! (£30bn).
But much of that money would need to be spent anyway, and would manifest as wage increases were the state to cease to provide those functions.
: Vote over what other people wanted to do? 2 votes against your one means were going to margate and your not going to Spain? Is this 'fair'?
No, two votes to you one says we're not putting all that time and effort into making rolls royces, so that perhaps we can all have some more time to go wherever we want to go. atm Their one vote against our millions says that we can't even afford to go to Margate.
: Saying a 'little' luxury is a relative term. We can indeed all decide on what is appropriate for ourselves but not for other people. The man who insists on throwing his money away on a RR is not stopping the shopgirl from going to Margate for the weekend. The 'vote' of the dollar does not have the same dynamic as the vote of a person. The bottomline is that if you decided you'd like to pursue one luxury and a greater amount of poeple want to use those resources for their purpose then you are subject to their despotism, simply because the exist and have this 'vote' over you.
Whereas now, if I have millions od dollars I can prevent them having their choice, by exercising my choice over them. What about a rich man with a broken toe being treated before the poor man needing a hip? Why should my needs be set against social needs, surely as a member of society my needs are the same as its?
: Which would really put pressure on those governments to back off from their collectivistic programmes (or even, like Somalia, to go stateless). Strange how the same set of data would make arguments that would oppose one another!
I doubt your conlcusions, teh poverty in those states isn't caused by collectivisation, more often its a result of failure to escape from colonial productive bases (Ghana for one) whereby their economy is tied to teh export of one primary resources, a failure in that market and all teh rest fall, collectivised or not...
: So now poverty is an absolute condition featuring stavation/disposession and wealth, at last, is not to be compared endlessly to whomever is poorer. The focus on poverty should indeed be limited to deaths door impoverishment, rather than he is richer therefore I am poor.
Dispossession is a relativist term, in a society where everyone has castles, the man with the semi-detatched is a puaper.