billbatard

Violent crime in England and Wales is much lower today than in the 1990s
According to the Crime Survey for England and Wales, violent crime peaked in 1995 and has fallen by over two-thirds since then. In recent years, those falls have largely flattened out.
Nearly five in every 100 adults aged 16 and over were estimated to have been victims of violent crime in 1995. In 2016/17, fewer than two in 100 adults were.  https://fullfact.org/crime/violent-crime-not-record-levels/

can you prove that? they were down for years Long-term fall in crime is over as statistics show spike in robbery and murder

The figures come as the number of police officers in England and Wales plummets to a record low and the proportion of solved crimes also drops

The Office for National Statistics (ONS) said that “after falling in recent decades, the overall level of crime is now stabilising”.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/uk-crime-rise-robbery-murder-knife-statistics-ons-police-england-wales-a8454081.html from 1997 to 2010 crime feel deamatically in the uk and then increased only after cuts in police budgets 

one out of 3 is a lot its more than china https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2017/07/21/scandinavia-leads-the-world-in-public-sector-employment-infographic/#69a08c041820

Much of this money is tied up in diversified wealth funds, which some would object to as not counting as real state ownership. I disagree with the claim that wealth funds are not really state ownership, but the observation that Nordic countries feature high levels of state ownership does not turn upon this quibble.
State-owned enterprises (SOEs), defined as commercial enterprises in which the state has a controlling stake or large minority stake, are also far more prevalent in the Nordic countries. In 2012, the value of Norwegian SOEs was equal to 87.9 percent of the country’s GDP. For Finland, that figure was 52.3 percent. In the US, it was not even 1 percent.

State Ownership
Even more interesting than Nordic labor market institutions is Nordic state ownership. Collective ownership over capital is the hallmark of that old-school socialism that is supposed to have been entirely discredited. And yet, such public ownership figures prominently in present-day Norway and Finland and has had a role in the other two Nordic countries as well, especially in Sweden where the government embarked upon a now-defunct plan to socialize the whole of Swedish industry into wage-earner funds just a few decades ago.The governments of Norway and Finland own financial assets equal to 330 percent and 130 percent of each country’s respective GDP. In the US, the same figure is just 26 percent.

This post was originally intended for the launch of the People’s Policy Project website. But as that is running behind schedule, I figure I will post it here.When policy commentators talk about the Nordic economies, they tend to focus on their comprehensive welfare states. And for good reason. Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden are home to some of the most generous welfare systems in the world. Each has an efficient single-payer health care system, free college, long parental leave, heavily subsidized child care, and many other social benefits too numerous to list here.

As marvelous as the Nordic welfare states are, the outsized attention they receive can sometimes lead commentators to the wrong conclusions about the peculiarities of Nordic economies. Jonathan Chait thinks the Nordic economies feature an “amped-up version of … neoliberalism” while an oddly large number of conservative and libertarian writers claim the Nordics are quasi-libertarian.
The common thread to these mistaken conclusions, aside from the desire to deny that there are leftist success stories in the world, is the apparent belief that the only extraordinary part of Nordic economies are the welfare states. Except for their generous social benefits, everything else is properly capitalist and even more capitalist than the United States. Or so the argument goes.
Labor Market
But this is not true. In addition to their large welfare states and high tax levels, Nordic economies are also home to large public sectors, strong job protections, and labor markets governed by centralized union contracts.Around 1 in 3 workers in Denmark and Norway are employed by the government.

Protections against termination by employers are much stronger in the Nordic countries.

Centrally-bargained union contracts establish the work rules and pay scales for the vast majority of Nordic workers.

These labor market characteristics are hardly neoliberal or quasi-libertarian, at least if we stick to typical definitions of those terms. The neoliberal tendency, as exemplified most recently by France’s Emmanuel Macron, is to cut public sector jobs, reduce job protections, and push for local rather than centralized labor agreements. For the US labor market to become more like the Nordics, it would have to move in the opposite direction on all of those fronts.

This post was originally intended for the launch of the People’s Policy Project website. But as that is running behind schedule, I figure I will post it here.When policy commentators talk about the Nordic economies, they tend to focus on their comprehensive welfare states. And for good reason. Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden are home to some of the most generous welfare systems in the world. Each has an efficient single-payer health care system, free college, long parental leave, heavily subsidized child care, and many other social benefits too numerous to list here.

As marvelous as the Nordic welfare states are, the outsized attention they receive can sometimes lead commentators to the wrong conclusions about the peculiarities of Nordic economies. Jonathan Chait thinks the Nordic economies feature an “amped-up version of … neoliberalism” while an oddly large number of conservative and libertarian writers claim the Nordics are quasi-libertarian.
The common thread to these mistaken conclusions, aside from the desire to deny that there are leftist success stories in the world, is the apparent belief that the only extraordinary part of Nordic economies are the welfare states. Except for their generous social benefits, everything else is properly capitalist and even more capitalist than the United States. Or so the argument goes.
Labor Market
But this is not true. In addition to their large welfare states and high tax levels, Nordic economies are also home to large public sectors, strong job protections, and labor markets governed by centralized union contracts.Around 1 in 3 workers in Denmark and Norway are employed by the government.

Protections against termination by employers are much stronger in the Nordic countries.

Centrally-bargained union contracts establish the work rules and pay scales for the vast majority of Nordic workers.

Around 1 in 3 workers in Denmark and Norway are employed by the government.

so?Around 1 in 3 workers in Denmark and Norway are employed by the government.

so? theyve always had stricter gun laws too

singapore no guns no crime same with japan and the uk

god i admired Napoleon

how was the confederacy a successful revolution? we crushed them 103 ovi my ggg matt sands(zenz) helped burn atlanta to the ground, in the end we destroyed them utterly

people are so partisan on this issue they never vote fair

you want to try again i say we rematch i can beat you i have the facts

if you want i can prove you wrong easily for exmple 1 in 3 workers in denmark and norway work for the state half the population is on some sort of benifit or subsidy taxes are incredibly high on the wealthy and  google co determination

you could make that argument, you wont necessarily win the argument

so are you you seem to ignore my good points

No society is pure capitalism or pure socialism none not even North Korea some where in that sad land some one is selling something on the black market at risk to life and limb , even in Hong Kong the state provides pensions and has a role in the health care system

All societies are a combination of state and private . In the 60s France had a state sector bigger than present day china has and did very very well over a thirty year period with that model   https://eserve.org.uk/tmc/contem/trente1.htm Nordics are market based but they do have many Socialistic aspects http://mattbruenig.com/2017/07/28/nordic-socialism-is-realer-than-you-think/

the person saying the original intend was for states to create militias was a supreme court justice  https://www.businessinsider.com/science-of-gun-control-what-works-2018-2The Gun Lobby's interpretation of the Second Amendment is one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American People by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.  The real purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure that state armies - the militia - would be maintained for the defense of the state.  The very language of the Second Amendment refutes any argument that it was intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon he or she desires.

well they were wrong and also the original intent was to give states the right to fomr militias not extend individual rights to crazy people and criminals, you had a right to bear arms for the purpose of being in a militia thats itThe Gun Lobby's interpretation of the Second Amendment is one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American People by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.  The real purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure that state armies - the militia - would be maintained for the defense of the state.  The very language of the Second Amendment refutes any argument that it was intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon he or she desires.

Science has studied the gun issue and finds regulation helps reduce violence, I accept this because I understand how the Scientific method works, it is objective and careful , if it make s a mistake it tests again and again, and Scientist strike me as much more objective about the subject than a bunch of uneducated yahoos and gun manufactures who are basically no different than drug dealers  https://www.businessinsider.com/science-of-gun-control-what-works-2018-2

i have a modest proposal

all i know is what a read in the dictionary

meh

meh

by defintion i am illiberal, study the term

 vey little but your attitude is part of the problem you look for moral relativism to justify immorality, corruption spreads like a cancer and all you can do is point fingers

right

do you know what a goy is then? putzgoy

let people kill their children i'd be for that have as many as you like kill as many as you lkke hell go ahead and eat them

natural selection no one decides but the war pestilence and famine god is about to unleash on his dis obediant children i advocate for no one judging but god or nature whatever, things are about to blance themselves be it gods wrath or mother nature shaking off dandruff aka humanity i care not i wont decide nature will god will decide who is guilty and who is elect let only god decide

I'm not advocating or inciting anything  not really i'm just having a discussion ,  but it is the only way to save any of us, is to get rid of most of us, or am i wrong?

at any rat i admire the irish for over coming poverty all on their own well done paddy welll done

i dont think everyone here is being totally honest like i am

zalensky looked scared i think trump bitch slapped him before he dragged him in front of the camras

lack of power no we have power we just dont know ithttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47E2tfK5QAg

you assume, that is where you fail , i look at history people used to just take being on the bottom, then came the french revolution for the most part life for the common man has gotten a lot better, fighting back pays off, thats all i am saying we dont take it anymore so you give it up or we burn it down motive isnt even in play we wont stop is your life really worth a pile of trinkets https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3AbMUQXft4&t=386s let the bodies hit the floor some will die but some will live  we wont take it any more and you dont deserve what you have that isnt jealousy it s far worse it is rage https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47E2tfK5QAg

you dont know and it doesnt matter

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NkcRllnmFo i have no respect for anyone who would accept being on the bottom

i have thought on this and i think this is a mere taunt, have you ever studied Friedrich Nietzsche Master–slave morality is a central theme of Friedrich Nietzsche's works, particularly in the first essay of his book, On the Genealogy of Morality. Nietzsche argued that there were two fundamental types of morality: "master morality" and "slave morality". Master morality values pride and power, while slave morality values things like kindness, empathy, and sympathy. Master morality weighs actions on good or bad consequences (i. e., classical virtues and vices, consequentialism), unlike slave morality, which weighs actions on a scale of good or evil intentions (e. g., Christian virtues and vices, Kantian deontology).

For Nietzsche, a particular morality is inseparable from the formation of a particular culture, meaning that a culture's language, codes and practices, narratives, and institutions are informed by the struggle between these two moral structures (see valuation). you can learn a lot from Nietzsche .. the rich are rich because they take power and to a certain extent i agree with this if people let themselves be enslaved out of cowardice they deserve to live as slaves i wont i refuse i wont comply, if you wont negiotiate and share power and wealth as you should as you should, i will gladly destroy you rape you wife and make you watch eat your kids and take all of your shit and claim it as mine, i'd divide it up with the poor folks but thats  just the way i roll,  i'm way beyond jealous, i want the rich dead and i want to make them suffer before i remove them from the planet

and mate As such, this type of argument may be an informal fallacy.

A common feature of appeals to motive is that only the possibility of a motive (however small) is shown, without showing the motive actually existed or, if the motive did exist, that the motive played a role in forming the argument and its conclusion. Indeed, it is often assumed that the mere possibility of motive is evidence enough.
Examples

As such, this type of argument may be an informal fallacy.
A common feature of appeals to motive is that only the possibility of a motive (however small) is shown, without showing the motive actually existed or, if the motive did exist, that the motive played a role in forming the argument and its conclusion. Indeed, it is often assumed that the mere possibility of motive is evidence enough.

hm lets assume it is a state capitalist economy like china the state can run things well  as long as it makes some tolerance for the market and incentive, peole are greedy you let them make money and pow! propserity the secret is to throttle that engine so it doesnt destroy everythng around it

let the bodies hit the floor

crazy people do not know they are crazy i'm just a very large goy version of woody allen

well its good to see the irsh do well anything that hhumiliates the sansanach is a good thing the best revenge is to live well chuck fart are la

only here to pick up boys