The Fucking Thatcher Thread

[Fife]

Government should not be investing in housing, Thatcher had it exactly right, not the role of government to house you, determining housing supply and demand is the role of the market.

Housing is the epitome of "private good," dictionary fucking definition thereof.

Same as groceries.

What if a so-called free country had a Dept. of Agricultu...

oh wait

[Smitty-48]

The problems with Right to Own was not so much Thatcher, she had the right idea, the problem was that, after decades of having the government running their lives for them, the British really didn't know how to run their own shit, nor were they inclined to, they were functionally retarded when it came to buying and selling property.

They seem to have picked it up now, but back in the 1970's, Britain was the Soviet Union-lite when it came to individual property ownership, they were literally infantilized wards of the state.

I don't think Americans here quite realize how Bolshie it was in Britain before Thatcher took over, it wasn't the sort of ownership society which you had in America, the British were far closer to people in the Soviet Union than they were to Americans.

They basically went around expecting some centrally planned council or ministry to run every aspect of their lives for them, the idea that they would have to go out to buy and own their own shit and then run it, that was an alien concept to them. It was a nation of tenants, and the government was their slumlord.

[DrYouth]

I mean that is it isn't it.

Bringing responsibility back to the individual. Like a get in the deep end and swim father.

The right is much better at this than the left.

And when a society is doing well... this is how it thrives.

But when shit goes down, the state is forced to step in... the left is better at this part.

But it doesn't know how to let go... it is like an overprotective mother... unable to cut the apron strings.

Again I come back to the thesis that both aspects of a society are important - but they need balance and rarely get it.

[DrYouth]

I mean that is it isn't it.

Bringing responsibility back to the individual. Like a get in the deep end and swim father.

The right is much better at this than the left.

And when a society is doing well... this is how it thrives.

But when shit goes down, the state is forced to step in... the left is better at this part.

But it doesn't know how to let go... it is like an overprotective mother... unable to cut the apron strings.

Again I come back to the thesis that both aspects of a society are important - but they need balance and rarely get it.

[DBTrek]

How do you see the left being better at running the state?
Does your definition of better include policies creating generational poverty, seizure of private assets and widespread fraud via imposed government programs? Because those seem to be the nigh exclusively leftist parts of governing.

Not sure how that makes them “better”.
Better than helicopter rides maybe.

[DrYouth]

Not better at running the state....

Any more than most overprotective mothers are better at running the household.

Better at stepping in to protect the vulnerable "losers" of the business cycle.
Providing homes for the homeless.
Welfare for the unemployed.
Safety to the refugee.

What the left doesn't know how to do is to rehabilitate these folks.
The left fosters hostile dependence. Like every overprotective mother with her snowflake child.

It's the right that calls her on it.
It's the right that understands that there are bills to pay and that the kid needs to be bumped out of the nest.
It's the right that understands that you have to earn your keep in any society and we have to stop adopting kittens.
Especially Muslim kittens.

[DBTrek]

Does the left believe it is possible to show compassion in a way that doesn’t lend itself to the proliferation of “losers”? Is there room for such ideas in their narrow dogma?

Because to my cynical eye it seems that the left politically benefits from the proliferation of losers, and therefore engineers their “compassion” to encourage the mass growth of “losers”.

After all, when creating a political constituency the more the better, right? Helping “losers” become winners works against their self interest. Nothing would be worse for the left than a nation of winners. What could the left possibly offer such a country?

Think about it.

[Smitty-48]

The Loser Industrial Complex in Britain is by far and away they most deeply entrenched and expansive in all the western world, I mean, I complain about the nanny state in Canada, but honestly, Britain makes Canada look like Texas.

[DrYouth]

Does the left believe it is possible to show compassion in a way that doesn’t lend itself to the proliferation of “losers”? Is there room for such ideas in their narrow dogma?

Because to my cynical eye it seems that the left politically benefits from the proliferation of losers, and therefore engineers their “compassion” to encourage the mass growth of “losers”.

After all, when creating a political constituency the more the better, right? Helping “losers” become winners works against their self interest. Nothing would be worse for the left than a nation of winners. What could the left possibly offer such a country?

Think about it.

Yes...

Yes...

See the Nietsche thread.

[clubgop]

That infant SJW manual broke something inside me.

I want a public execution pronto.

Someone take note of this day in history.

And there is the meta demonstration writ large. That "fantastic", "Phenomenal", "knock out" post by Monte about all the ills of the Thatcher regime is quickly erased by the worst demons of the lefty nature being expressed. Simply wait them out, let them get too full of themselves, then pounce. Exactly as Smitty laid it out. I'll take note of the day but there are many more to come its why the term "red pill" exist.