User:Brian McNeil/Views and opinions

The opinions and views of anyone are shaped by the environment they grow up in, work in, and their experiences throughout life.

I was born, grew up in, and attended a state school in Scotland. My parents were religious enough to regularly attend church; they were Scottish Episcopalians, which meant their place of worship was referred to as "The English Church". Nothing particularly radical about that, it is extremely closely tied to the Church of England, but quite different from the dour Presbyterian nature of the Church of Scotland.

There was little talk of politics in our house, and the media of the time was fairly limited - no Internet, and only three TV channels. I made very heavy use of the local library, and I really appreciate my parent's efforts to nurture a love of books. My preferred TV viewing was the BBC, the independent/commerical channel had little appeal - advertising interruptions just annoyed the hell out of me.

Politics
I am not, and have never been, a member of any political party. When I was first eligible to vote in a national election, I voted for the Green party. The two main UK political parties - Conservative and Labour - had, I felt, serious flaws that precluded giving them any support. The Scottish Nationalist Party (SNP), well, they didn't seem relevant at the time; their public image seemed to be of tartan-wearing zealots who would introduce compulsory Gaelic education throughout the country.

Now, well, I would call myself a Socialist, tending towards support of Market socialism principles. If you think that is equivalent to, or interchangeable with, terms like National socialism or Communism then your education is sadly lacking.

The unfortunate reality of UK politics is that neither the Conservatives or the Labour Party have any interest in socialism. The aftermath of Margaret Thatcher's prolonged tenure as Prime Minister was 'New Labour', a lurch to the right for a traditionally leftist party, and a blind acceptance that free market capitalism is the only political option.

Rights versus privileges
Even the fundamentally capitalist United States recognises this and provides free basic education. There are little in the way of arguments opposing this principle, it is very hard to present a credible argument against others getting a chance to learn to read and write when you, yourself, already benefitted from a system that provided you with those skills.
 * Education is a right

Personally, I would go much, much further. I left school when the UK still had a grants system and it was possible to get a university degree without burdening yourself with tens of thousands of pounds of debt. The more recent monetisation of education is, I believe, wrong. Study of subjects such as archaeology, philosophy, or history is going to be discouraged where it leaves you with a financial burden to pay off. With money becoming a central aspect of education, the drive is to obtain 'marketable' skills and knowledge. It may have widened access, but it requires a buy-in to the existing capitalist system. Further education, such as university, should be available to all who have proven themselves academically talented enough to benefit from it. The reality of this is that a country can really only afford to educate a maximum of 10-20% percent of their population to university level. Access must be on merit, not money. Like a lot of basic scientific research with no clear short-term reward, this is somewhere that the near-religious application of the 'cost-benefit analysis' is out of place and inappropriate.

From any government's perspective, a healthy population is an asset. Similarly, to a business a healthy workforce is an asset. The most cost-effective solution is what is generally known as 'socialised medicine'. This cannot be left solely in the hands of the market; a drive for profit in the absence of a realistic and enforceable regulatory framework will lead to selective provision.
 * Healthcare is a right

Yes, well, I support this one to the extent that I'd happily let Holocaust deniers spout whatever nonsense they like. It is then up to the rest of us to refute their arguments and assertions.
 * Freedom of expression is a right

Where I draw the line is in giving such discredited extremists a platform to preach from unopposed. They're free to drag a soapbox down to Hyde Park and scream all they want, and you can ignore them or oppose them as you choose.

I'd be facinated to hear a cogent argument as to why every single human being should not have a roof over their head, enough to eat, and a supply of safe, clean drinking water.
 * Shelter and sustinence are rights

The real-world reality is that there are a lot of people without shelter, without enough food, and with little water - which may not even be safe to drink.

Favouring one person over another for reasons of blood-relation is called neoptism. Financially favouring a relative isn't much different. Paris Hilton is probably one of the best arguments why people should never be allowed to grow up assuming they'll get all of daddy's money.
 * Inherited wealth is a privilege

This is where I have a real break with capitalism. If you work on the production of an essential good, then you should be rewarded for your labours. If you are the capitalist who funds the set up of the business or enterprise, then a reasonable rate of return on your investment is one thing, but a year, upon year, upon year, return of 20%+ is not reasonable.
 * Profit is a privilege

An odd point to raise, but the last 20 years have seen the inexorable rise of the credit card. Here I'm looking at this more from the perspective of a buyer. You should never be required to have a credit card to obtain goods or services; if you beat that point into submission then it ceases to be a case of everybody needs a credit card because you can't do/buy X without one.
 * Credit cards are a privilege