On 03/07/2012 11:16, bob wrote:
On Jul 3, 8:41 am, Martin wrote:
On 02/07/2012 16:19, allantracy wrote:



Friedmanite dogma is a good example of Einstein's statement that
insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a
different result.

Err... wasn't it Friedmanite insanity that built our railway network,
in the first place, and wasn't it Stalinist insanity, as applied to
the burgeoning road network, that did so much to undermine the
finances of some otherwise very sound private railway operations?

There is something to what you say. The railways were saved first by
compulsory amalgamation in 1925, then by nationalization in 1947, by
which time three of the four companies were going out of business. Even
Margaret Thatcher stopped short of privatization, being a somewhat
cannier Friedmanite than her epigones (I'll give her that much).

A major part of the financial problems the railways faced in the 1930s
and later was that they were subject to government regulation of
passenger fares and freight tarrifs, and subject to common carrier
obligations, that were created when the railways were effectively
regional monopolies, but that were no longer appropriate when
motorised road traffic provided effective competition. Railways could
not turn away freight that was expensive to transport (common carrier)
and could not price it off (freight rates were controlled by
government), nor could they increase rates on what should have been
profitable traffic. That's before the lack of payment for wartime
traffic loads are considered.

Robin

I'm sure I knew that a long time ago but thanks for the update. :-)

--
Myth, after all, is what we believe naturally. History is what we must
painfully learn and struggle to remember. -Albert Goldman

On 03/07/2012 12:13, 77002 wrote:
On Jul 2, 4:19 pm, wrote:
Friedmanite dogma is a good example of Einstein's statement that
insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a
different result.

Err... wasn't it Friedmanite insanity that built our railway network,
in the first place, and wasn't it Stalinist insanity, as applied to
the burgeoning road network, that did so much to undermine the
finances of some otherwise very sound private railway operations?

Coming from a hard-line marxist the poster's remark is particularly
appropriate.

To whom do you refer?

Everywhere his philosophy has taken power, death and
misery have followed (Russia, the PRC, Cambodia, North Korea, etc.,
etc.).

Perhaps the greatest example of the difference between socialism and
freedom is the Korean Peninsula. North of the DMZ is a giant
concentration camp. There the people are forced to fawn over their
incompetent "leader". Their years pass in hunger and missery.

To the south of the DMZ there flourishes a modern nation. The people
there enjoy freedom and increasing prosperity. Periodically they
elect their leaders. Their goods are a byword for quality around the
world.

Friedman vs. marx, wow that is a hard choice.

This may have been true for a few years while the state protected
nascent industries, but the "free" market system has now been imposed
and the Road to Serfdom has been taken.
--
Myth, after all, is what we believe naturally. History is what we must
painfully learn and struggle to remember. -Albert Goldman

On 03/07/2012 12:22, 77002 wrote:
thing about them when, or if, returned to office.
They just play the political game.

Thanks to their union ties, the Labour party is the real conservative
party nowadays in this country, having failed to produce any real
radical changes of any consequence for years.
Your joking. The UK has forgotten what Conservatism is.

Apart from completely f**king up the nation’s finances the only thing
I can think of the last lot did that you can now, with hindsight,
never see being undone was civil partnerships.
There is nothing conservative about encouraging sodomy.


We've nearly been through the card now. How about capital punishment,
safety belts are dangerous and smoking is good for you?


--
Myth, after all, is what we believe naturally. History is what we must
painfully learn and struggle to remember. -Albert Goldman

On 03/07/2012 18:06, Alistair Gunn wrote:
In uk.railway 77002 twisted the electrons to say:
There is nothing conservative about encouraging sodomy.

Quick! Let's make the government small enough that it can fit inside
everyone's bedrooms?

Why are libertarians not libertarian about sodomy?

--
Myth, after all, is what we believe naturally. History is what we must
painfully learn and struggle to remember. -Albert Goldman

On 04/07/2012 06:41, Martin Edwards wrote:
On 03/07/2012 12:22, 77002 wrote:
thing about them when, or if, returned to office.
They just play the political game.

Thanks to their union ties, the Labour party is the real conservative
party nowadays in this country, having failed to produce any real
radical changes of any consequence for years.
Your joking. The UK has forgotten what Conservatism is.

Apart from completely f**king up the nation’s finances the only thing
I can think of the last lot did that you can now, with hindsight,
never see being undone was civil partnerships.
There is nothing conservative about encouraging sodomy.


We've nearly been through the card now. How about capital punishment,
safety belts are dangerous and smoking is good for you?



Whatever you do, don't mention global warming!

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail

On 04/07/2012 06:42, Martin Edwards wrote:
On 03/07/2012 18:06, Alistair Gunn wrote:
In uk.railway 77002 twisted the electrons to say:
There is nothing conservative about encouraging sodomy.

Quick! Let's make the government small enough that it can fit inside
everyone's bedrooms?

Why are libertarians not libertarian about sodomy?


Buggered if I know...

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail

On Jul 4, 7:42*am, Martin Edwards wrote:
On 03/07/2012 18:06, Alistair Gunn wrote:

In uk.railway 77002 twisted the electrons to say:
There is nothing conservative about encouraging sodomy.

Quick! *Let's make the government small enough that it can fit inside
everyone's bedrooms?

Why are libertarians not libertarian about sodomy?

Perhaps if gay marriage were rebranded "deregulated marriage" it might
be more popular amongst the political right?

Robin

On Jul 4, 9:51*am, bob wrote:
On Jul 4, 7:42*am, Martin Edwards wrote:

On 03/07/2012 18:06, Alistair Gunn wrote:

In uk.railway 77002 twisted the electrons to say:
There is nothing conservative about encouraging sodomy.

Quick! *Let's make the government small enough that it can fit inside
everyone's bedrooms?

Why are libertarians not libertarian about sodomy?

Perhaps if gay marriage were rebranded "deregulated marriage" it might
be more popular amongst the political right?

There is nothing wrong with a "bright and cheerful" marriage. One
would expect that to be the norm.

In article ,
77002 wrote:
On Jul 4, 9:51*am, bob wrote:
On Jul 4, 7:42*am, Martin Edwards wrote:

On 03/07/2012 18:06, Alistair Gunn wrote:

In uk.railway 77002 twisted the electrons to say:
There is nothing conservative about encouraging sodomy.

Quick! *Let's make the government small enough that it can fit inside
everyone's bedrooms?

Why are libertarians not libertarian about sodomy?

Perhaps if gay marriage were rebranded "deregulated marriage" it might
be more popular amongst the political right?

There is nothing wrong with a "bright and cheerful" marriage. One
would expect that to be the norm.

I don't see any problem with having that as the only criterion for two
or more people to be joined in union.

Nick
--
"The Internet, a sort of ersatz counterfeit of real life"
-- Janet Street-Porter, BBC2, 19th March 1996

On Jul 4, 12:27*pm, Nick Leverton wrote:
In article ,





77002 wrote:
On Jul 4, 9:51*am, bob wrote:
On Jul 4, 7:42*am, Martin Edwards wrote:

On 03/07/2012 18:06, Alistair Gunn wrote:

In uk.railway 77002 twisted the electrons to say:
There is nothing conservative about encouraging sodomy.

Quick! *Let's make the government small enough that it can fit inside
everyone's bedrooms?

Why are libertarians not libertarian about sodomy?

Perhaps if gay marriage were rebranded "deregulated marriage" it might
be more popular amongst the political right?

There is nothing wrong with a "bright and cheerful" marriage. *One
would expect that to be the norm.

I don't see any problem with having that as the only criterion for two
or more people to be joined in union.

One would like to think that the man and woman involved had a deep
conviction that they are right for each other. Although I agree it is
entirely, and only, their business. That is assuming they are over
the age of consent.