Someone needs to explain this to me

He said these include opposing “the moral injustice of poverty, inequality, homelessness” while advocating for internationalism and human rights.

This moral injustice of inequality. What, actually, is it?

Inequality of what, for a start. Peeps are born with certain attributes. For example, some lady might be enjoying the regular application of 7 inches of pork swordness, another 5. This is certainly an inequality but is it an immorality – the difference, the activity is often so described. Further, what does anyone do about it?

Then there’s the morality bit. Why is it that someone who applies themselves to life in one manner – working, saving, enjoying the fruits of such – and thus has more than someone who applies in another – friends are more important than money, who is thus rich in comrades and has no cash at 60 – is an immorality?

Answers on a postcard…..

26 thoughts on “Someone needs to explain this to me”

  1. And once they’ve explained the immorality, perhaps they can move on to explaining the harm. Poverty, inequality before the law and insecure private property rights are the enemy, not inequality.

  2. It seems to be as immutable as any of the laws of physics that you can have prosperity or you can have equality, you can’t have both. I prefer to be moderately prosperous, it doesn’t bother me that someone else is more so. A free and prosperous society is the best hope for those who are less prosperous than I, certainly better than the state stealing my money and giving it to them.

  3. The yada yada of “moral injustice of poverty, inequality, homelessness” is merely a bit of lefty mantra the congregation is obliged to chant at the beginning of Sunday morning service, before reminding everyone that while all animals are equal, some of the animals are more equal than others (public sector employees and union-controlled labour). I don’t believe Starmer has a prayer, he’s just a suit; the so-called Corbyn Project appears to have the party under their control. Labour will never win an election by appealing solely to the bottom 20pct, and that’s not their aim. To govern means compromising principals and accommodating others.

  4. Bloke in North Dorset

    To a first order approximation we have 100% voluntary ownership of smart phones and as a consequence Steve Jobs dies a very rich man – *shrug*

    Again, to a first order approximation, we have 100% access to use Amazon’s services if we desire. Jeff Bezos will likely die a very wealthy man – *shrug*

    I say those because there’s a “what did the billionaire’s do for us” meme running round Twitter and they never look at that side of the transactions. (As someone pointed out, name a billionaire who enslaved more people than the government. Name a billionaire who killed more people than the government)

    Homelessness is a red herring its because most people immediately think rough sleeping, which, as we’ve discussed here many times is a problem but not a massive one.

  5. It’s the moral injustice of people being allowed to make their own choices and live their own lives instead of living them in exactly the way their betters demand.

  6. Just read the Graun article. After a right seeing-to politically speaking, another nematode emerges from under his personal stone to tell us all how wrong Corbyn and his cronies were. Why didn’t you say that at the time Keir, you onanist?

  7. I heard Starmer on an interview today when almost every answer he gave was prefaced with “Let me answer that question”.

    It goes without saying the man’s an utter cunt but also – and remarkably for a Labour politician who aspires to lead the Party – he comes across as a condescending, patrician cunt.

  8. Anyone buying a mobile phone wanted the phone at least as much as but probably more than they wanted the money.

    Mostly all of them would have paid £1 more.

    Same goes with most everything.

    So we actually owe these rich people.

  9. ‘Starmer said Labour did not … sufficiently deal with antisemitism, and urged his party to return to being a “broad church”.’

    Or a broad synagogue, as the case may be.

  10. ‘“the moral injustice of poverty, inequality, homelessness” while advocating for internationalism and human rights.’

    Socialist Starmer and the rest of the Left couldn’t care less about these (except for internationalism). They use the terms because YOU care. They use your concerns as tools against you.

    “All men are born with different capabilities; if they are free, they are not equal; if they are equal, they are not free.” – Solzhenitsyn

    ‘The case for a bold and radical Labour government is as strong now as it was last Thursday.’

    True, but not for the reason you think. Could be fixed with ‘as weak now.’

    ‘He insisted Labour could win the next general election; but only if it sticks to its values.’

    How funny is that? Labour gets kicked in the nuts, and the answer is, stick to its values.

  11. Dennis the Irritable

    He wants Labour to be a “broad church”.

    He also wants to end “factionalism” in Labour.

    Who wants to tell him?

  12. Dennis, Political Savant

    I also like the idea that he thinks Labour was done in by “policy overload”.

    So in his head, this is how the voters were thinking: “Wow, these Labour policies are great! Just what we need! But there are too many of them… I’m going to vote Conservative.”

  13. Dennis

    Well he could hardly admit “we were done in by my stupid idea that remain was a winning strategy”. Nor can he say “we lost because we promised things that we could never achieve”.

    To be fair Labour were stuck between two stools – remain in London and leave in the north. And if they’d placated their leavers, it’s possible that they’d have lost out to the Lib Dems. Numerically there are more leave seats, but losing their remain base in London would have been bad. OTOH losing the red wall was also bad.

  14. Moral injustice: must be the opposite to social justice which is immoral – treating some people with inequality to achieve equality for all. Like f***ing for virginity.

  15. Bloke in Costa Rica

    Keir Starmer’s got as much chance of becoming PM as Keir Hardie, and he’s been dead for 104 years.

  16. Is he the one that’s the token white male in the perspective lineup?
    Though look at how Corbyn got nominated in the first place, adding someone to the list for diversity reasons went so well there didn’t it and Labour are prone to not learning lessons.

  17. Bloke in North Dorset

    Keir Starmer’s got as much chance of becoming PM as Keir Hardie, and he’s been dead for 104 years

    The first thing he’s going to have to do is identify as female if he’s to stand any chance whatsoever.

    He’ll probably make the best opposition PM and will give Boris the run around at PMQs with his attention to detail. It still won’t endear him to the membership and the red wall who’ll never forget or forgive his Brexit shenanigans.

  18. I’ll take any of the potential ‘leaders’ being mooted. All will ensure a second full term for the Boris. All we need to do is to make sure he (Boris that is) stays on track. Labour need to spend a long time in the freezer.

  19. BiND: I think he’d first have to plausibly identify as human. He looks like Max Headroom gone to seed. He’s so plastic if you stood him next to a radiator he’d melt. He wouldn’t look out of place as an extra on The Polar Express.

  20. This moral injustice of inequality. What, actually, is it?

    Someone has more than me AND IT’S NOT FAIR! Waaaah!!

    Usually, quite a few people have LESS than ‘me’, a ‘problem’ that’s easily resolved, yet few seem to take the necessary steps. Odd, that.

  21. I think that Stonyground has most of it – interestingly a discussion that was being had early this morning in work.

    The result being a degree of acceptance that some people becoming stinking rich is a (possibly unwelcome) side-effect of having the sort of society that allows most of us to be okay through moderately prosperous to quite well off. It’s certainly better for the world than aristocratic fortunes being maintained by the Corn Laws, for example, or the majority of the population being at subsistence level or worse – the default position for humanity between us evolving through to, what? The start of this century?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *