David Miliband interviewed on leadership contest (12Sept10)

[marcostar57]

The US Democratic party needs some David Milibands!

[xanderdude123]

A fucking tory voter arguing with miliband. It's only suppose to be an interview not a fucking debate...

[cheyaura]

let's examine the issue in capitalist terms; without any thought of morality or ethics. Investors need workers; for the system to be sustainable the availability of workers must also be sustained. If you take away the workers ability to sustain themselves; in a manner consistent with this mechanism, the system will collapse as there are no workers. So who will pay this requirement to sustain the system..? Now all of sudden when the money is in capitalist hands it's about fairness to them.

[LottLottie]

Upload much appreciated!

[gorillachilla]

its not hard for a jewish scum to win labour look at the speaker give it till 2012 it will be usa the new uk !!

[ToManyPhones]

David Miliband = 1997

Ed Miliband = 1983

[simpleasLiam]

Thanks for these clips.. couldn't find this anywhere else!

David doesn't have a clue on what he will do should he actually win this contendership..

He's biting off more than he can chew ... He can't lead Labour, he's naive and his party (if it becomes his) will never defeat the Tories because they never get it right.

[irdial]

This creep resorts to every logical fallacy in the book. Faulty Appeal to Authority (National Housing Federation), Appeal to the people (Nonsense about big shoulders bearing burden i.e. soak the rich), Appeal to emotion, False dilemma, to name but a few. And when he talks about 'reasserting moral norms in our society' WHOSE NORMS is this COMMUNIST talking about, and from what starting point?! What is wrong and ALWAYS wrong is stealing (wealth redistribution) and this is the entire point.

[cheyaura]

@irdial So what do you propose? To tax those who can't afford to be taxed because those that pay their wages want to keep more for themselves..? Stealing is when some guy sits on his butt drinking Champagne whilst 1000's of people sweat their butt's off in a factory making him million's.. Then he turns around and says oh we're freezing your wages and hammering your pension fund. If you want fair distribution of taxation then you need fair distribution of profit.

[irdial]

@cheyaura Stealing is when someone takes something from you with violence or the threat of it. The poor have their money stolen from them by the state, as do the rich. Both are immoral. Someone who owns a factory owns the jobs there. Wages are private contracts that are not the business of government. Workers have the absolute right to associate and strike, and this is not the business of government. There is no such thing as 'fair', and profits are private property, not public property.

[cheyaura]

@irdial The business of the government is to represent people without prejudice. Private contracts are governed by the law which is very much in the realm of the government. Taxation is not theft if it didn't exist your precious contracts could not be enforced! The Conservatives have passed laws to prevent strikes and used the police to stop them many times. Profit should be property of all who create it.. I'm glad you point out there's no such thing as 'fair' that's why it needs to change

[irdial]

@cheyaura It is not the business of gov to represent people without prejudice. There is no such thing as 'the people'. Private contracts are just that' private. The state has no businesses interfering in voluntary exchange of goods or labour. Profit is the property of the owner of a business unless the workers are under a contract that says otherwise (like a co-op). She put her capital in, and the goods she sells belong to her, so she owns the remuneration. Thanks for replying!

[cheyaura]

@irdial Stating the way the system currently operates is irrelevant as you have pointed out it is not fair, hence we should change it in a way that is. "It is not the business of gov to represent people without prejudice" I disagree. Covered the contract issue in previous response. There are people I am one of them and I know many. Her capital has a value as does the value added by the workforce therefore both have invested and should receive proportionate remuneration. You're welcome, thanks

[irdial]

@cheyaura It is not up to you, or the majority to decide what is or is not fair. You do not own other people, and they do not own you. The value added to capital by workers is compensated for fairly by wages that is what it means to have a job. Your idea of proportionate remuneration is applicable only to partners in a business, not employees who are stakeless. Co-ops work in the way you believe is fair, and all workers are free to start them and join them. You cannot steal from people. Period.

[cheyaura]

@irdial Not up to me, but it is up to the majority; if the MP's won't represent then the unions will. I have not claimed to own people or be owned. The wages given are disproportionate, hence we have people working full time who aren't paid enough to meet basic living requirements and still have to rely on the government for welfare. It is disproportionate, because it can be; the workers position to negotiate fairly is restricted. The system requires a majority of workers to function.

[irdial]

@cheyaura It is not up to you do decide what a proper wage is; wages are a private contract between people. You claim to own people when you say 'we have people working' this is simply not true. Unions have an absolute right to form, negotiate and strike, and business has a right to fire and hire on whatever terms they like, None of that is the business of government, or you or I. What you are describing is socialism and slavery. Both are immoral and destructive.

[cheyaura]

@irdial With regard to stake and risk the investor does take a financial risk however the risk to the worker is their survival, without their job they can not eat.  This gives a significant advantage to the investor when negotiating fair remuneration. The investor chooses to make a profit in this way rather and does not have to give up his labour/time. Sure co-ops are a valid blend of capitalist and socialist ideologies but the disparity of wealth and economy of scale inhibits it currently.

[irdial]

@cheyaura The risk to survival of the worker has nothing to do with the capital risk of an individual running a business. If you bind two people together in the way that you just have, you make one the servant of the other by force. That is slavery, and immoral. If you think that men should be forced to serve others because one set of men has needs, then you are a socialist and violent, since you are willing to force people to work for others.

[cheyaura]

@irdial Well indeed the Socialist ideology is not based on capitalist ideology I never argued that it was. Slavery? as you pointed out it is a contract that is entered by mutual consent. You just want the perogative to remain with the capital investor rather than to be shared. Socialism is the antithesis of capitalism it's obvious that there are contradictions. Pointing them out in this panto way has no impact on the fact that the Labour party represents the unions and working class majority.

[irdial]

@cheyaura 'Panto'? I think you just conceded that you are willing to force people to work for each other, to achieve 'fairness'. You do not care about property rights, or the right of people not to be enslaved. You have conceded that its OK to use violence to make people work for each other, and give up their money to achieve 'fairness'. Unlike socialism, the philosophy of Liberty is free of contradictions and violence: watch?v=muHg86Mys7I take a look what do you think?!

[cheyaura]

@irdial Every time the working class have a chance to get their views represented politically the capitalists turn around and say you can't tell us what to do.. We tell you the way it is and there's nothing to discuss. The worker is the majority and has the right to be represented as such; it is not a request, permission is not needed, objections will be given due consideration.

[irdial]

@cheyaura As I said before, workers have the same rights as everyone else, and they can join unions, strike and make all the demands they like. What they cannot do, is violently steal money from others, force others to work as slaves, simply because there are many of them. Numbers do not confer rights to a group of people; if that were not the case, slavery of the very workers you claim to support would be morally correct.

[cheyaura]

@irdial As I have pointed out before those rights have been inhibitted by laws enacted by the conservative party; by force; by the disparity in wealth; the economy of scale. I reject your idea of slavery as this is the antithesis to calling workers slaves to the investment class it is a non-progressive argument. The idea that having fair remuneration and representation is immoral is nonsensical. What confers rights to people then? The investment class? God? The majority is the fairest way.

[irdial]

@cheyaura Any law that stops peoples right to associate is wrong. Those laws must be repealed. The new socialist code words are 'progressive' and 'fairest'. The majority voting for something does not confer legitimacy; if it did, then a majority voting for slavery would make it moral, ethical and right, as well as legal. This is where you are tripping up; if majority rule is fair, then if everyone votes for slavery its OK. U cant have it both ways. If we vote for cuts then they are moral, right?

[cheyaura]

@irdial Never said that any law to stop association is wrong you're the one saying the wrokers can't be represented politically. Majority voting does confer legitimacy otherwise our government is elected illigitimatly, and hence are all the laws it enacts. If the majority did vote for slavery etc it would be lawful but that won't happen in a society that promotes democracy. Once an act is passed it doesn't mean it is set in stone they can still be repealed, revised and opposed.

[irdial]

@cheyaura You are correct, all democratic government that has a monopoly on violence is illegitimate. You are a little confused, majority rule and democracy are the same thing. And if you were on the receiving end of one of the acts of democracy that took away your rights, you would not be willing to simply wait for them to repeal it. This is why slaves had to fight for freedom, colonies had to have revolutions etc etc.

[cheyaura]

@irdial You're still digressing from the point that regardless of what I or you think of capitalism and socialism. The UK is a democratic country that represents the views of the populace in the commons. Ed Milliband is backed strongly by the unions who are backed by millions of working class people, every one of those union members can vote on the labour leadership. They will be represented either way and the more the Tories make their cuts the stronger that representation will become.

[cheyaura]

@irdial I could; on the same basis, argue that the capitalist system is ethically justified by the principle of survival of the fittest; thus nothing concerning morality or ethics can be legislated against. All that remains is the pursuit of personal profit. People should be free to enslave and kill under a capitalist ideology. Afterall there is no such thing as fairness is there? As I said before pointing out the dialectical inequties strengthens the case that both require representation.

[irdial]

@cheyaura Capitalism is justified by your right to your property. It has nothing to do with darwinism. Killing has nothing to do with capitalism, Im afraid you are completely confused about the definition of that word. Your right to life has nothing whatsoever to do with 'fairness'. You have to understand the meaning of these words before you use them otherwise, your points do not come across correctly!

[cheyaura]

@irdial That is the common justification of capitalism ethically; I didn't make it up it's really quite commonly expressed in the field of social science. If you are telling me I am confused you're also claiming a Cambridge University Professor who teaches Social Science wrong bceause it's a direct quote. Fairness is a rather simple word claiming I do not understand it is really rather infantile. You introduced the term 'fair' claiming it didn't exist... I simply said it should.

[cheyaura]

@irdial Capitalism can exist because of the structure of property rights it is not an ethical justification. The laws are created to facilitate capitalism so you can't look to laws to justify it ethically that's completely circular. If the laws were structured from a socialist basis there would be different property rights and laws would that justify socialism in your mind..?

[irdial]

@cheyaura The difference between your philosophy (violent socialism) and Libertarianism (Completely ethical, non violent exchange) is that Libertarians do not want to violently steal from you, whereas you believe that you have the right to form a gang and steal from whomever you like, as long as you all vote for it. The ethical basis of property rights is unassailable, and anything less leads to violent theft at the hands of thieves. Thankfully there is no more money left for them to steal!

[cheyaura]

@irdial My philosophy is Libertarian Socialism most similar to that of Chomsky so that is massivley incorrect I believe in a blance between the individual and society.  I can see how it would appear that way from someone looking from the position of corporate fascist oligarchy. You don't even seem to support basic democratic process. You're claims of property rights being infallible are an act of desperation. Who is "them" corporate serving fabians like Mandelson, Blair et al..?

[irdial]

@cheyaura Libertarian Socialism is an oxymoron!

[cheyaura]

@irdial i'll refer you to Chomsky's response to that you can find on here. I'd only echo it with less eloquence. "Noam Chomsky - Libertarian Socialism Contradicting terms" He is a professor of linguistics so we can consider his opinion expert.

[irdial]

@cheyaura Thank you for that. By all means, do read 'For a New Liberty, the Libertarian Manifesto', which lays out the foundation of Libertarianism and explains why it and socialism are mutually exclusive. You might also want to read 'The Road to Serfdom' the definitive rebuttal of Socialism from an economic standpoint. And finally, you can find 'how an economy grows and why it doesn't' for free on scribd, which irrefutably demolishes many socialist fallacies. A book to print it out and keep!

[cheyaura]

@irdial I will of course. I would advise you to do the same with Chomsky's political works; they are numerous. However some also cover the manufacture of consent; Philosophy of futility and fashionable consumption etc. Which irrefutably destroy to the point it never existed and no one can ever argue otherwise [cough]; the misconceptions of Libertarianism applied to the capitalist model, and demonstrates the methods by which it leads to private rather than state tyranny.

[irdial]

@cheyaura I PMd you on your youtube account, take a look!

[cheyaura]

@irdial Hi, I have and thanks for the links :) I'm always open to the possibility of seeing things from different perspectives. If you haven't read Chomsky I really would consider it. Like most great thinkers his ability to see progressive synthesis; rather than just contradict or confirm the value of contemporary systems is astounding. I'd put him in a class with Marx, Adam Smith, Tocqueville etc and expect in the future he will be treated accordingly in academic sphere's.

[irdial]

@cheyaura I think we can take this much further, but thanks for chatting today, its been fun!

[cheyaura]

@irdial indeed I said it quite some time ago the importance is both sides have a voice not who is correct.. take care of yourself... and each other... ;)

[irdial]

@cheyaura As long as the debate is purely theoretical, then there is no problem; as soon as once side uses their claim to be right to steal and murder, then we have a very real problem! later!

[cheyaura]

@irdial Which is why the system must be balanced.

[godlikeangel]

its nice that labour punish those that work hard all their lives to make money or make a business.

[dynomyght]

"Spread the wealth" what is David on about, that is redistributing income.

[mari0228504]

thanks for these clips.

[AmerginMacEccit]

"It asks those with the broader shoulders..." (nice propaganda language...). Wait a minute, it asks them or it tells them to under the threat of imprisonment???

[cheyaura]

@AmerginMacEccit I love these capitalists who hate the state but then rely on it to protect them from the guy who wants to shoot them and take what they have. Survival of the fittest but by my rules lol.

[AmerginMacEccit]

redistributing wealth = nice Marxist new speech for "thievery"

[loveisall1000]

the boy with the knitted hair.

kev UK