Originally Posted by Smidgey

Apart from huge costs, it might have some of the opposite effects to some of the 'positives' that you list. Namely, if I was forced to join the military, it would most certainly make me hate my country, my government and the society that sat by and caused it to happen. No doubt there would be thousands who felt the same. Not to mention countries such as Finland have had those who refused and are now serving prison terms called prisoners of conscience by Amnesty Internation.

An increase of patriotism is not necessarily a good thing. It really depends what kind of patriotism one wishes to increase. I don't see the militaristic and nationalistic collectivism that this would promote as a good thing.

Conscripts are not the greatest of war fighters. A professional army (as the name would suggest) is far more capable. As for creating discipline in 'our youth' (see the collectivism?), do you really suppose military service would do this? I think personal responsibility is far more potent in this regard. Contrast the youth of Russia or Denmark (Denmark has more youth alcoholism than we do according to my Danish friend).



It's absurd. It's like saying that one cannot use a private hospital until one votes in a party that wants to get rid of the NHS. Furthermore, a 'shirker of duty' is the person who willingly goes to military service and passes the massive costs onto other people, whilst shirking his duty to morality and his fellow human. Duty is a moral thing, and the state is not a moral entity. Only individuals can be treated morally.



Popularity does not make something right. I'm sure Jesus didn't think this when He was on the cross.

For the record, I could never vote for a party that supported the death penalty.



This is up for debate.



It weakens our nation by weakening our economy. With a stronger economy, the nation as a whole is much stronger. Not to mention the huge problems to farming that it brings.



Rail privatisation has been a disaster. But that is due to the way it was done, not due to private railways. American railways, before the state got involved, were far better. They have had the opposite problem. So, again, this is up for debate.



I would support a voucher scheme in the maintime, but back the main point - which was about indoctrination. I will also cover the centralisation point here. By centralising the school system, not only do you lower the quality of schooling (it is collectivist to assume that everyone is the same), but you create bureaucracy and increase costs for everyone. A voucher scheme requires decentralisation.



How much would you increase the taxes by? Because I have no doubt that even higher taxes will not prevent companies from outsourcing. However, if you make the taxes too great, then companies will stop trading in Britain and move elsewhere entirely. Not only do you have an outsourced company, but a lost company!



Partially answered above.



I don't think this was covered in five. Let me point out why I mentioned Bastiat:

What is seen:

1) Farmers earn more money and are better off.

What is not seen:

1) The tax that is used to pay the bureaucracy/subsidies that manage this comes out of the pockets of Brits who can no longer spend that money on some other product, which could have in turn boosted a different part of the British economy.
2) An increase in prices at supermarkets, which in turn would do what point one did.
3) Less goods bought in supermarkets, or, alternatively, less of a price hike in supermarkets. Either way, a loss of jobs.

You are asking us (as Bastiat so cleverly pointed out) to intentionally destroy windows so that the glaziers can stay in business money.

We should block out the sun since it is providing competition to the candlemakers.

Farming is a business, and it is no different from any other business. We should be supporting individuals, not businesses and not the government.



Indeed, Britain, even though it is a mostly Christian country, has a strong history of atheist thought as well.



This is absurd, just because you stop spending money on something doesn't make the problem go away. You will still have to spend billions in creating your utopia of 'Fortress Britain' to keep those nasty illegal immigrants out.



Right to buy is of course good, however, I would gradually phase out council housing altogether. The BNP's plans make it harder for new and cheap housing to be built, as well as promising council housing. You cannot have both.



China has maglev trains. I don't feel any resentment at Chinese greatness. To be honest, I feel nothing but contempt for the vile Chinese government. British greatness should be shown to the world as a land of liberty, not as a fortress nation where the state dictates daily life.