Free will - not entirely sure what you're trying to imply there, but I think a liberal philosophy involving a self-managed economy and worker-owned means of production would bestow greater freedom upon citizens. Property - Fair enough, this is something that I have mixed feelings about. Hard Work - Socialism advocates distribution of wealth based on one's contribution to society, so that's the polar opposite of what you're claiming. If anything it is capitalism that discourages hard work and encourages laziness, by promoting the "American dream", whereby people earn far more money than they need by doing very little. Entrepreneurialism drives a capitalist economy, but also is to blame for class divisions and the poor distribution of wealth. Greed, basically.
I'm on about living your life how you want. That's free will, right? That can't be done in a socialist system where many aspects of your life are managed for you, and enforced with aggressive force if you fail to comply. If I'm a manager and I have the resources to buy and maintain the means of production, it's anti-free will to say I can't do that, regardless of whether you think it's beneficial to the factory's running and society's upkeep. One for the philosophers among us definitely, but I think it's natural for intelligent creatures to procure inanimate objects as long as they do so fairly. My point being that hard-working people who rightly earn larger than average amounts of money still have it pinched from them in the name of wealth distribution. I'm saying that people should have the choice to distribute their own wealth if they so wish, but for a government to assume control of their wage packet and slip a wedge of it in their back pocket like they themselves did the work is arrogant, aggressive, offensive and immoral.
So what you're suggesting is that it's fair that some are wealthy and some are poor, because the wealthy have earned it and the poor haven't? That's just not the case. Some people are born into a world of opportunities and some are not. It is only in a socialist society that the harder workers will be the ones earning greater incomes. The objectivist philosophy that it's every man for himself and that the only thing that matters is the pursuit of one's own happiness is the most damaging thing in our society. As a society we need work together and prioritise the greater good of humanity over the selfish pursuit of personal monetary gain, or we will eventually wipe ourselves out.
What I'm suggesting is that hard-working people should be able to retain their wealth, leave their possessions to their kids when they're dead and live their lives as they like without hassle from governments they never subscribed to. Even though the lazy are still rewarded with a share of their profits which they have a moral right to own, and in so doing have the ability to donate of their own volition. I never said any of that, and I certainly don't believe in it. The only thing I do believe is that people own themselves and the property they've rightfully acquired, and should be able to do what they want with their lives and their possessions. If joining a voluntary communist commune, a subscription-only sociaist state or an anarchistic utopia is part of that free choice, then so be it. I'm not expressing a universal preference either way, although it's fairly obvious from voter figures that the majority of people would continue to live as they do now, which rather rubbishes your claim that I want everyone in it for themselves. If anything, my philosophy is a selfless one. I agree, but I don't think that thieving and enslaving is the way to go about achieving that.
Guys and Gals I am getting complaints in regard to this thread.......this is a football forum not a political debating forum. Either get back to discussing the original posters point about Le Saux, or I will have to close it. If I don't admin will now come on. Joe in regards to Godders and I and our exchange.....it is one grumpy old man not two. He knows that I wasn't trying to be rude......I just think he was having a bad evening. Don't worry about us we go right back......We are usually ok with each other. I have to say though I will close the thread if the political debating goes on. If you want to have a debate about politics why not pm each your views. I would suggest you go on to the GC but somehow that would not do, I think the conversation would go down the pan!
. le saux has an argentinian wife right? of course there are still archaic attitudes to gay people in football, it will take ages to change, maybe it never will.
I have to say I find it amazing that people are finding this thread offensive and off topic but people are then happy to have a thread about Whitney Houston. Let's all be a bit more tolerant otherwise this will be a completely censored forum/society and far less enjoyable. With regards to the point, I think you will find that racism is the flavour of the month at the moment in football. The problem is that now we have a situation when anyone says anything slightly controversial they could be banned and branded a racist. But is this going to continue into homophobia for anyone who calls someone gay or are we going to go into sexism if someone says another acts like a woman. I doubt it; it would be impossible to regulate but the FA is already in an impossible situation.
It's not offensive (though some of the opinions expressed within are offensively stupid) but it is off-topic, and I'd rather not see threads about Whitney Houston either. But if I'm in the minority so be it. With regard to the actual topic(!) there's a clear line between saying someone is acting like a woman (as unpleasant as that is) and the systematic homophobic bullying that Le Saux got. The FA can and should act to reduce homophobic attitudes in the game just as they can and should (and are to an extent) act to reduce racist attitudes. Not that they can do it all, but they can help.
It's true Jenny,look it up. In Portugal there are people that live in same conditions as some africans
I just find it interesting that "gay" is still used as an insulting term, and not just in terms of Le Saux but I've seen it used as such even on this forum, particularly when slagging off Brighton. Even if people aren't openly homophobic there's still an underlying issue with it all isn't there?
I can't believe that there are complaints about this discussion, considering some of the crap that people like to talk about on this forum. I'll stop talking about politics now, but I'd just like to say that the person who called me a left wing nutbag is an ignorant little oxygen thief. Sorry for caring about people, dickhead. If more footballers subscribed to a left wing philosophy then maybe there wouldn't be such homophobia. The reason that political debate was always going to come up on this thread is that people like my ignorant friend up there and homophobic people are often one and the same. So there, Beddy, is the relevance of this conversation to football.
Not sure how being right wing is being linked to homophobia and racism. Perhaps if you are talking about extreme right wing, but most people are well away from that.
I hope that you can watch the BBC (Panorama) in Portugal Adam, then you see what happens when there is no social concience and community values in "the land of the free" and Capitalism is taken to the extreme. I think that Lou Reed sums up the evils of capitalism best in his song Dirty Boulivard....[video=youtube;7z3TPwOT31g]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7z3TPwOT31g[/video].... I suggest that you read the novel "Money" by Martin Amis too. This has been a very interesting thread and I can't see why people get annoyed by non-football debates, if there is a thread i'm not interested in I just don't bother reading it, self censorship works best I think.
