In the US the time elapsed between ‘Defund the Police’ Actually Means Defunding the Police, Yes, We Mean Literally Abolish the Police until Ha Ha, Of Course We Didn’t Really Mean It Like It Sounded was about a year.
The Green Party of England and Wales leaves lumbering American lefties standing. PoliticsHome reports,
The Green Party has voted to make party policy a motion that seeks to “abolish landlords”.
The motion titled ‘Abolish Landlords’ was supported by a large majority of members at the party’s conference in Bournemouth on Sunday.
The motion has now become party policy, though leader Zack Polanski is not obliged to adopt the specific wording.
On Friday, PoliticsHome reported that the policy motion was being put forward, which sets out five steps the Greens would take to outlaw landlords.
Starting with rent controls and abolishing Right to Buy, a future Green Party-led government would also tax landlords via business rates on Airbnbs and double taxation on empty properties.
Under the proposals, the party would also end Buy to Let mortgages and give councils the Right to Buy when landlords sell properties, when the property doesn’t meet insulation standards, or when a property has been vacant for more than six months.
Carla Denyer, Green MP for Bristol Central, sought to stress that despite the motions “eye-catching” title, “it does not actually ‘abolish’ landlords”.
Neat. If the Greens get into coalition with Labour, they can say while introducing this policy, “Too late to complain now. It was clearly stated to be our policy back in 2025.” And when the policy goes the same way as every other attempt at rent control (as even they have some inkling it will), they can say “Doesn’t count, ‘coz we had our fingers crossed.”
What kind of abolishment do they have in mind?
Do they simply want to nationalize non-owner-occupied residencies; or are they planning a Final Solution to the landlord problem?
OK, First, there is not going to be even a theoretical chance of a change in government before 2029, and that is only IF Labour chooses to allow elections. Noting that they hold the government by an overwhelming majority and that they have ignored and continue to ignore the “unwritten constitution” while there is no institution that can compel obedience to said constitution; such is not an unreasonable expectation. Second, IF they should call an election, the Greens by themselves have zero chance of winning on a good day with a downhill run and a blazing tailwind. Third, if they run in a coalition with Labour, they will have no influence on policy. Fourth, if any part of the Green Party war on landlords becomes law, the only reasonable response by landlords to the functional confiscation of their property would be to evict all tenants and either let the buildings stand empty or to tear the buildings down to reduce the value for tax purposes. And yes, you can bet that they will be trying to move their capital and assets out of the country. Just in passing, it is not clear from this short summary of the war on landlords includes commercial landlords. If it does, it will have an interesting effect on the economy.
Subotai Bahadur
So the plan is to make housing even more difficult to get for young people? And what little housing remains have it run but the only people who can stay in business — namely slum lords?
I suppose though if you have a party built around the ideas in Net Zero then shutting down the rental market is fairly low down the list of “dumb ideas we had”.
Doesn’t seem that tricky. You ban private renting and charge 4x normal council tax for unoccupied property. Very rich landlords will wait you out. Other landlords will sell in a fire sale, which you the government buy up with printed money. Then you allocate the housing so acquired to your favoured constituency. Or asylum seekers.
Confiscation is seldom too hard.
@Subotai Bahadur
The Government could choose to ‘go to the country’ at any time. You could make an argument that the current ‘get Reform’ speeches by various parties is part of an advance positioning for an early election. So if Labour do poorly in the May 2026 elections and they continue to paint themselves into corners over poor policies they might see their way out via an early General Election, with refurbished policies, on the basis of ‘Who governs Britain?’.
At the moment the answer will be ‘Not You’, but a week is a long time in politics.
Before 1856 police forces were not compulsory in England and Wales – people helped to defend each other’s property, and in some areas, such as the small county of Rutland, setting up a Police Force was seen as rather absurd – Rutland obeyed the statute by setting up a Police Force of TWO people (a Chief Constable and one ordinary police officer).
But it is important to remember that the “defund the police” left do NOT want to return to a position where people were allowed to defend their own property, and the property of other people, against looters.
On the contrary they want looting to occur – and want to a People’s Militia to detain (or just kill) anyone who tries to stop looting.
It is the same with “Abolish Landlords” – the idea is NOT for everyone to own their own home, the idea is really for everyone to be de facto tenant of the Collective (very United Nations Agenda 2030) – with Henry George style taxation reducing home owners to tenants in all but name – by the way the economist Frank Fetter refuted the David Ricardo view of land (on which Henry George and others built their ideas) more than a century ago.
Indeed these ideas go back even before David Ricardo’s FALSE economics of land – for example Thomas Paine wanted various government benefits and services financed by a tax on land, a tax going up to 100% on large landowners (yes I know – even if his mathematics was correct on this financing government benefits and services in year one –
what does he do too finance these things in year two?).
Oddly enough the whole mess seems to go back to a misinterpretation of a book of the Bible (not that later thinkers, such as Thomas Paine, really cared about the Bible) – namely the Book of Genesis.
Such thinkers as Samuel Pufendorf and even John Locke seem to have misunderstood the Book of Genesis as God giving land to humanity IN COMMON – so that the private ownership of land has to be “justified” by either “as much and as good left for others” (Locke) – which is clearly impossible, or (alternatively) some sort of Poor Law tax on landowners to fund benefits and services for non landowners. This is the so called “Lockeian Proviso”.
BEFORE Locke, the Dutch legal thinker and Biblical scholar Hugo Grotius (among others) showed that this interpretation of the Book of Genesis is just wrong – God does NOT give all land to humanity IN COMMON – on the contrary land is UNOWNED till claimed (till settled) so there is no need to “justify” land ownership with some tax, and if a rich person does not pay XYZ they are NOT, contrary to John Locke, “guilty of murder” (Locke’s absurd example a ship’s captain not handing over their cargo of food in a port where there is famine and, instead, going to another port where they can sell their cargo, is clearly NOT “murder” – contrary to what he says) – as murder is intentionally killing someone.
Lack of charity is not murder – charity and justice are both virtues, but they are DIFFERENT virtues, not the same virtue.
And, as should be obvious, the “compassionate” tax (as if taking by force and fear is “compassion”) will not lead to less poverty and death – it will lead to more poverty and death.
Witness Ireland in the late 1840s – it was not just the failure of the potato crop that led to disaster – it was the Poor Law Tax on landowners (very John Locke) established in Ireland (by Lord John Russell) in 1838 – at every point of the dreadful events of the late 1840s, the response of the establishment (led by now Prime Minister Russell in London) was to increase the Poor Law tax on landowners – and make areas of Ireland that were not dependent on the potato pay for areas that were. A vicious circle of poverty leading to higher taxes and higher taxes leading to more poverty, leading to higher taxes which led to more poverty – which led to…….
This policy of every higher Poor Law Tax on the landowners sent the entire Irish economy into a tailspin (a vicious circle of higher taxes and more poverty – see above) – which ended up with a quarter of the population of Ireland either dead or fleeing the country.
A quarter of the population of Ireland either dead or fleeing the country – not the result of “Laissez Faire” – the result of “compassionate” taxation of land owners.
The burden of American Property Taxes is not simple to work out – as it is not just determined by the “tax-rate” but also by the assessed value of the property.
However, some people have done the work – and one of the highest Property Tax burdens in the United States, in terms of the amount of money a family has to pay in tax on an ordinary home, is to be found in Portland Oregon.
Anyone who thinks that high (neo Henry George style) Property Tax leads to less poverty and homelessness – should have a look at Portland Oregon.
A very relevant example – as Portland Oregon is dominated by what in Britain would be called “Green” activists.
It is pleasing to see that the Green party has now finally outed itself as communist. The old saying that they were watermelons is now shown to be true.
I see that they are trying to claim that they will not “abolish” landlords as such. No, they will just make it economically impossible for landlords to survive. A bit like the way the Communists did not actually set out a plan to starve the kulaks to death, they merely confiscated all their food.
As Paul rightly notes here, Portland, OR, is a likely result of such policies. Ditto Seattle.
JohnK,
“Rach from accounts” increase of inheritance tax is “soft” dekulakification. If I give her the benefit of the doubt (for she is thick) that she simply doesn’t understand that farming inherently requires land and is therefore capital intensive but income poor. I understand this because what I do with computers is the exact opposite. If I don’t give her the benefit of the doubt (for she is cunning) then it is a way for the government to force farmers out so they can build bloody awful housing estates. Near where I live in Cheshire there is a lot of this going on. Souless econo-coops for the proles but they are, technically, detached (but only to green wheelie-binmax standards) and stone-clad (never been a good look) and these developments stretch over numerous hectares without any amenities. No pub, no shop, no church, no nothing. I hope that these builds will in the future be seen as just as dreadful as the brutalist monstrosities of the sixties.
The Greens are evil and always have been. The mask slipped as they became bigger and slicker and not just a bunch of “well-meaning” socks with sandals lentil-boiling bearded sociology teachers (I speak of the uterus-equipped chest-feeders there – the androgen-poisoned are, if anything, worse). The great tragedy is these dismal cunts are taken seriously.
Right I’m off to have lunch and get Alexa to play “Also Sprach Zarathustra” at 11.
Reading the OP again:
I assume that the Right to Buy is the right of tenants to buy their homes.
Does not abolishing-it go against the intent to “abolish” landlords?
Aptly named.
So “Death to the Kulaks”.
The Green Party – Communism for middle class women.
I have noticed that the media doesn’t feel the need to reference Polanski’s real name whenever they mention him.
@ Paul Marks – regarding American property taxes being “not simple to work out” – excuse me? Maybe things are different in other states, but in my state, I get a detailed priperty-tax statement twice a year, with a line-by-line description of each specific part of the property tax total – so much for fire protection, so much for schools, so much for the library system, so much for drainage and flood control – an almost mind-numbing level of detail, but simple enough that anyone with basic math skills can clue out where every cent of their taxes goes. And the tax rates (‘millages’) are subject to voter approval – or disapproval – at the same level of granularity. Similarly, assessments are public information – anyone can go to the township and examine their assessment, in detail, the formulae for assessments are all public information, and there’s a simple appeals process if you feel the assessment is incorrect. I’m not sure how the process could be much-simpler or more-transparent.
llater,
llamas
Daniel : I have noticed that the media doesn’t feel the need to reference Polanski’s real name whenever they mention him.
OK you made me look him up on Wikipedia. I don’t actually see much of an issue with him choosing to go back to his family’s old name, before they changed it in an attempt to fit in better.
Anyway what made me smile was the last line – about his personal life:
Polanski is gay and vegan.He currently lives within the London Borough of Hackney with his partner, Richie Bryan, who works in palliative care
It made me smile because I’d just finished reading this :
https://pjmedia.com/vodkapundit/2025/10/06/maid-in-canada-euthanasia-organ-harvesting-surges-n4944512
“palliative care” just seems like the perfect place for committed Greenies to work.
llamas – when I say that Portland Oregon has very high Property Tax, I get the reply “but XYZ places have a higher Property Tax Rate”.
It is not just a matter of the “rate” – as the value of the same sort of house or apartment is not assessed as the same in all parts of the United States (for various reasons – of which you are well aware).
In terms of the amount of Dollars demanded in Property Tax for an ordinary house or apartment Portland charges an incredibly high number of Dollars – this is why I say it has very high Property Tax.
This may indeed be easy for you to understand – but it clearly is not easy to understand for some people (see above).
Wages are not that much higher in Portland – not for a shop assistant or other ordinary jobs.
But the amount of money demanded from them in Property Tax is incredibly high.
This is my point.
By the way – about that vast amount of information that you say local government gives you.
If a local government gives you lots of pages of information – they are truing to confuse you.
Full disclosure – I spent many years in British local government.
Nick:
I am quite sure, whether Reeves knows it or not, that the inheritance tax changes are designed to wreck family farms and family businesses. Why else do it? To raise £500 million? That is a rounding error for the government.
As you say, driving farmers off the land opens the way to build little boxes made of ticky tacky, fit for the Nu Brits to live in. It also makes room for the solar farms which make so much sense in our dark rainy island. Some people might think food production is important, but we can easily buy food from abroad. Foreigners will always accept our fiat currency as if it is actually worth something, so there is no risk of starvation. I think that’s the plan, at any rate.
JohnK
The inheritance tax changes, and much else, are indeed designed to undermine family farms and family business enterprise.
“You will own nothing and you will be happy” (unspoken addition – “you will be happy – or we will kick your head in”) – World Economic Forum and United Nations, fully supported by many vast Corporations (hello Black Rock, State Street, Vanguard and the Credit Bubble Banks) with their Henri Saint Simon style dream of Collectivism controlled by Corporate Entities.
You know all this – many people know this now.
But we appear to helpless in relation to stopping it.
“Capitalism” without Capitalists – without real owners (individual human beings and families) and without Capital – Real Savings, the actual sacrifice of consumption.
Instead everything to be controlled by “partner corporations” (joined at the hip with government agencies – on an international level) and Real Savings of cash (commodity) money, to be replaced by Credit Money expansion – electronic, so they can tell people what they must spend “their money” on and when they must do it.
“Time to spend your credits on the latest Hollywood movie – with its positive message that white-straight-men are evil and must be exterminated – with their young children to be sexually mutilated, and sexually debased, in order to “liberate” them”.
“You do not want to spend your credits on this noble product? Well then the Electronic Credits expire at the end of the day – and the police will be coming round to check-your-thinking”.
NickM: I think there is a third option which accounts for the government’s policy toward inheritance tax on farms. I believe it is neither the Chancellor’s stupidity nor the intent to find land to build housing estates.
The key attributes driving the decision, in my view, are spite, envy and malice. The Labour party of today looks at farmers as a class and sees only a demographic which traditionally holds a conservative worldview and supports their (small or large c) conservative opponents. And in their spite, envy and malice, they want to tear away things that are important to such people. Whether that importance is cultural or financial doesn’t especially matter; the motive is to punish them for thinking differently and opposing the Party; and to undermine their ability to do so in the future.
So they force the farmers from the land. Will they build housing estates on it? The malice is inherent in this: it simply doesn’t matter to them. It is enough that the farmers do not have it any more. It could become dismal swamp or a boulder-strewn wilderness as far as they are concerned; as long as their enemy doesn’t have it.
As if it matters! The Greens will form a government when I become Miss World.
@anon
Class War. The Fabian version is a long slow war without a revolution.
JuliaM – their policies are already being followed, and have been for years. In various countries (international policy) – but especially in Britain, and things are going to get worse.
anon and Discovered Joys…
Yes spite, envy and malice – and lust for power.
Although the International Community (government and corporate – for they are joined at the hip) dress all this up as a desire for a wonderful new society – where people will “own nothing and be happy”.
@anon 5:20pm: spot on. Labour’s war on farmers and farming has no great strategy above base class hatred. If they wanted land to build houses or solar farms they could expropriate it easily enough using existing compulsory purchase laws (or pass new ones for that purpose) with far greater efficiency than waiting for random elderly farmers to die and their farms sold to pay IHT. No, it’s just pure spite, plain and simple.
One of my interests is castles and I note the many, many castles (and stately homes) in the UK that are empty shells. OK, due to warfare etc. they can be destroyed but I read an article (I can’t remember where) that said if the council tax on the place was too high and the owner could not pay it, then by removing the roof and making the building uninhabitable, the tax was no longer due (or at least the tax was only on the land area).
I can see that if the proposal gets voted into law, that a similar method of tax avoidance will be resorted to as it is simple and easy to accomplish.
Until, of course, the Government passes a law to say that the tax etc. is payable on any land or structure on that land as if it was a fully functioning dwelling.
The State will not be denied its pound of flesh.
@Snorri Godhi
I assume that the Right to Buy is the right of tenants to buy their homes.
If I am not out of date it is the right to buy your council house, that is to say the right to buy the house you are renting from the government.
So they don’t want to eliminate landlords, they just want to make sure that that government has a monopoly on being a landlord.
If they actually wanted to eliminate landlords they’d do things to make it easier to buy a house like reduce the ridiculous regulatory framework that makes building homes so expensive, or reduce interest rates by having the government borrow a lot less money, or reduce the miscellaneous taxes that make buying a house so diffiuclt.
But like I say the goal is not a nation of home owners, it is a nation or renters of crappy homes provided by the government.
Phil B
One of the perversities of property tax in California (and no doubt in other states) was (WAS) that the valuation was based on the “highest and best use”. E.g. a piece of orchard land in a region where housing development was occurring, could be taxed AS IF the houses had ALREADY BEEN BUILT.
I say WAS because most of those policies were voted out or ruled unconstitutional. But they were responsible for the destruction of all orchards on one of the most fertile pieces of land, the Santa Clara Valley, now Silicon Valley.
In Portland Oregon a medium home (mathematics note – medium is not the arithmetic mean, so it is not distorted by very high value homes – if one used the mean rather than the medium, the number would be worse) gets hit by an annual property tax that is well over five thousand Dollars.
In relation to the sort of wages an ordinary person can earn in Portland Oregon – that is a crushing burden of property tax.
Fred the Fourth – defenders of California point to Proposition 13 (passed in 1978) that supposedly protects property owners from crushing taxation – but, as you know, government in California finds many ways to get round such protections.
Still taxation of ordinary people is actually worse in some places than it is in California – perhaps the worse State (State – overall, as opposed to a city in a State) is New Jersey – where the weight of Property Tax, Sales Tax, State Income Tax (and so on) is insane.
And New Jersey is also crushed by government debt.
I do not know why Republicans are campaigning so hard to win the Governorship of New Jersey – the place can not be saved, if they win they will just get the blame for its (inevitable) collapse.
China has 96% owner occupation, the second highest in the world, almost an entire absense of landlords. That’s clearly Zak’s vision for the UK.
Hold on, if they abolish Right to Buy, they are *PRESERVING* renting, *PREVENTING* the abolition of landlords.
jdh – as you know the People’s Republic of China does not really have owners, as all layers of government may take land and homes whenever they feel like it.
That is indeed Zak’s vision for the United Kingdom (and elsewhere) – and it is well on the way to be being “achieved”.
For example, around 80% of commercial property is not “Net Zero compliant” and so, in a few years time, “owners” will not be able to operate it, or sell it (at least not sell it anything other than a low price).
It will, eventually, be a similar story for domestic property – for homes.
Paul,
My house cannot be made “Net Zero” without violating planning laws because it is a grade II listed building. I could actually go to jail for fitting solar panels or a heat-pump.
NickM – You SHOULD go to jail for fitting solar panels or a heat pump!!!
Regardless of the listed status of your building.
Stupid should hurt. Always. Otherwise the fuckers will never learn.
Here’s what chatgpt says:
In the UK, “Right to Buy” refers to a government policy that allows tenants of publicly owned housing (known as council housing) to buy their homes at a discount.
Here’s how it works:
It was introduced in the 1980s under Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher.
If someone had been renting a council house or flat for a certain number of years, they could purchase it—often at a substantial discount (sometimes up to 70% off the market value).
The idea was to encourage homeownership and reduce the size of the public housing sector.
However, critics say the policy has had negative consequences, including:
A huge reduction in the stock of affordable social housing, since many sold homes were never replaced.
Some former council homes ending up in the private rental market at higher rents.
So when the UK Green Party says it wants to abolish Right to Buy, it means they want to end the ability of council tenants to buy their council homes, in order to preserve the stock of public housing for future tenants.
@george m weinberg
So when the UK Green Party says it wants to abolish Right to Buy, it means they want to end the ability of council tenants to buy their council homes, in order to preserve the stock of public housing for future tenants.
Which, as I said above, means they don’t want to abolish landlords, they want to abolish landlords except themselves. They want an exclusive monopoly on the right to rent houses and thus direct control over one of the most basic needs of a population. Of course in Britain they already have that through ownership of the NHS.
The last thing they want is a nation full of people who own their own homes, ironic, since that is what 99% of Britons actually want.
Now, imagine this — the government owns all the housing stock. The possibilities with regards to NetZero are endless. And it is a small step to include a TV as part of your furnished house too, with zoom built in. They could even send important government messages to every household. What shall we call that? A Telescreen perhaps?
Is the use of “medium” instead of “median” a British thing? Or just autocorrect clamming another victim?
I tried to check, but Wolfram only has Mathworld, not Mathsworld.
No, it is not a British thing.
It might be an autocorrect thing.
More likely it is a Paul Marks thing, given that he also confuses “predetermined” with “deterministic”.
(Not that i have any idea of what he means by “predetermined”.)
I thought of doing this nitpicking earlier, but i try not to antagonize Paul more than needed.
Snorri – try and stop being sneering. Fine – median. Both you and Cayley knew very well what I was saying.
You can stop behaving badly – if you make a real effort to do so.
By the way – you know very well that when, for example, Dr Martin Luther wrote of the “bondage of the will” he meant that his actions (and the actions of everyone else) were predetermined. Which means, for example, that the attackers on October 7th 2023 can not be morally blamed for their rapes, mutilations and murders – as they could not have chosen NOT to do these things.
I tried you, long ago, with the Richard Price (although I did not name him at that time) approach of “I am the determiner” (the point of view that holds the human person, the “I” exists, and the person CHOOSES their actions – and can do other than they do) and you rejected this approach – it is quite clear (in spite of the “compatibilist” tap dance) that when Thomas Hobbes, David Hume and Jeremy Bentham write about actions – they hold them to be predetermined. Indeed that they hold the human person does not even exist – that humans are just bundles of sensations, or whatever, with human personhood just being an “illusion”.
What Mr Hobbes, Mr Hume and Mr Bentham (and others) were really doing, on this matter, is presenting an atheist (or semi atheist) version of what Dr Luther claimed – Dr Luther had one free-will being in the universe (God), and Hobbes-Hume-Bentham had none-at-all.
What Martin Luther, and John Wycliffe before him – and George Whitfield (or Whitefield – some people seem obsessed with spelling) and Jonathan Edwards after him, never really answered is – if it has been predetermined (yes – PRE determined – for this determinism is connected to predestinationism, although James McCosh DENIED that in the 19th century) at the start of the universe who is going to be saved and who is going to Hell, what is the point of preaching?
The closest them come to an answer is that their preaching is also predetermined. That their preaching was not a choice of their’s – it was all part of God’s plan.
For those who do not know – Jonathan Edwards was not just an American theologian, he was also a philosopher (supposedly one of the leading ones of the time – in spite of his philosophical doctrines making no sense – see above).
I was mostly sure you were talking about medians, although there’s a nonzero chance you knew of a statistic I’d never learned. Stats ain’t my specialty.
I genuinely didn’t know if “medium”/”median” was a British/American language thing. My web searches suggested otherwise, but it’s not like Google’s covered itself in glory lately.
Cayley if you say you did not know what I was talking about, I have to take your word for that.
But I thought I made it clear that I was pointing to Property Tax – and how looking at what most people call an average (i.e. the mean) can be misleading – as it can be distorted by a few very high value homes, the mode (the most popular number) can also be misleading, so it is best to look at the median.
I typed a “u” rather than an “a” – and you could not follow the thread of the conversation? O.K. fair enough.
You made that clear. That’s why I didn’t ask anything about the rest of your comment.
No argument there.
That’s the part that wasn’t perfectly clear from the comment in question.
I’d happily agree that it’s reasonable to just go with the assumption that you meant the widely-known¹ statistic with a similar name, and that has the property of being less “distorted by a few very high” values. However, mathematics and statistics are fields where assertions can be both reasonable-looking and false. There’s also quite a few statistics that aren’t widely known, but are apparently useful (I have to say “apparently” ‘coz stats ain’t my specialty). You apparently know many things about the history of philosophy that I haven’t covered, so maybe you’d also heard of an obscure statistic I’d never encountered.
I could follow the thread of the conversation; I just didn’t quote it because I didn’t have any questions about it.
¹ I’m pretty sure it’s widely-known, at least. General knowledge ain’t my specialty either.
Paul: apologies for the late reply.
2. I DID know very well what you were talking about, that is why i did not reply until Cayley intervened;
BUT
1. I just can’t stop being sarcastic: it is too much fun.
And it IS true that you have not yet adequately distinguished between ‘deterministic’ and ‘predetermined’.
But your comments here help me to understand, DIMLY, what you mean by ‘predetermined’.
IFF I understand what you mean, let me say this LOUD AND CLEAR:
I do NOT believe in predetermination sensu Marks, and I am pretty sure that Hume did not, either.
Hobbes, yes; Leibniz, yes; the Stoics, yes; Spinoza, yes.
Martin Luther and Jean Calvin: yes afaik.
Bentham, i have no idea.
But not Hume.
Which is not to say that my concept of agency/freedom of choice/liberum arbitrium is the same as Hume’s.
It is not.
It was influenced more by Allen Newell & Herbert Simon than by all philosophers put together.
PS: … and Ayn Rand, yes too.
That people sometimes choose what they know to be wrong (what they know is NOT the best) is the basis of the criminal law – the “guilty mind” – it is why it is morally acceptable to punish people for their crimes, because they could, with moral effort, have chosen not to follow their passions. They could, and should, have chosen to other than they did.
Cayley – it was, not was not, clear.
Before someone points out my oversight – yes it is not just when committing crimes (i.e. violating the nonaggression principle – real crimes as opposed to the absurd definition of a “crime” as doing something that Parliament does not like) that people choose what they know NOT to be best – sadly people (including myself – sadly most certainly including myself) often choose what we know NOT to be best.
We all have our vices and failings – it is not just a matter of us doing bad things, it is a matter of us failing to do what we know we should do – not just “what I have done”, but “what I have left undone”. And we human beings most certainly know what we have done that we should not have done, and that we have left undone many things we should have done – we choose (by our own free choice – our own fault) what we know NOT to be best – and we human beings do this often.
Mr. Marks, you’re becoming quite Islamic. A dua for refuge?
bobby b – no I am not becoming Islamic.
Have a nice day Sir.
For people who really do not know – for what we have done, and what we have left undone (by our own fault) is from Christian prayers – although it can also be found in secular, pre Christian, philosophy – as well as Judaism.
And mainstream Sunni Islam is, as is well known (or at least used to be well known – a generation or so ago, before the 1960s war on traditional knowledge) is not exactly a great fan of free will (moral agency).
Perhaps they have had enough of Angela Rayner.