Not by a hair of my chiny chin chin....

[InsaneApache]

will I let you in......

So goes the saying in the nursery rhyme The Three Little Pigs. Fat chance they'd have these days if they happened to live in the wretched country called the UK. They'd be in a bacon butty faster than you could say Lord Mandy of Corfu.

When the New Labour party was elected in 1997 I believe that there was two orgainsations that were allowed to enter your house without a warrant.
One was Her Majesties Excise men, an ancient custom and the other was the fire brigade, for obvious reasons.

At the last count there are now 244 different organisations that can enter your home, whether you like it or not. So much for a decade of enlightened, progressive government.

Alarming enough you might think but wait! Our overlords aint finished with us quite yet....

When the Government hired the services of an 11-year-old poet to sing the praises of the new Human Rights Act in 2000, few would have imagined that a few years later we would be left envying the freedoms enjoyed by 17th-century Englishmen. Weren't human rights supposed to protect us from arbitrary justice? Not if you are an 89-year-old woman cowering in her home while a bailiff batters down the door to seek payment of your absent son's unpaid parking fine, they don't.

That case is just one of the injustices that have come to light since the introduction of a clause buried inside the Victims of Crime and Domestic Violence Act 2004, giving bailiffs the right to break open the doors of debtors' homes. Not satisfied with that piece of legislation, the Government now wants to give bailiffs the right to push debtors from their doorways, drag them off their televisions and ease their grip on their children's dolls houses. The proposals are just a thugs' charter. Anyone can be a bailiff. There is such a thing as a “bailiff's certificate”, to obtain which budding bailiffs have to undertake minimal training and convince the courts that they are fit and proper people to go sniffing around debtors' houses.

But the certificate is only required for bailiffs who are collecting unpaid rent, motoring fines and council tax. As far as any other kind of debt is concerned, you can be finishing a jail sentence for manslaughter one day and be out battering down doors on behalf of a debt-collection agency the next. Neither is there anything to stop a bailiff adding his own extortionate fees on the debts that a county court has empowered them to collect.

It is extraordinary how less free citizens are in this respect than they were 400 years ago. Medieval laws against overbearing bailiffs were confirmed in a case in 1604 between one Peter Semayne and the heirs of his deceased business partner George Beriford, with whom he owned a house in Blackfriars. The court ruled that the only agent empowered to break the lock on a citizen's door was a sheriff acting on behalf of the King. Last year a petition was presented to Number 10 pointing out that the Government had succeeded in reversing an ancient law protecting us against bands of privateers. In its attempt to defend this loss of liberty, No 10 replied by arguing that the 1604 Act discriminated against the poor, who “couldn't afford locks”.

That's all right then. We now live in a country where bailiffs can batter down our doors before making off with our possessions, but at least there is no discrimination against the poor. Forget to pay a parking fine or overlook a credit card bill and we are all equally at risk of waking up to hear our front doors being splintered by a bull-necked debt-collector.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article5379480.ece

I think I'll look into buying some property in China, I could do with living in a more relaxed, easy going, lassaiz faire culture.

:wall:

[Fragony]

Ah, news from England?

[Louis VI the Fat]

Reform Treaty - Protocol (No 7) [that is, the Lisbon Treaty and its follow-ups.]

The Treaty will provide countries with the option to opt out of certain EU policies in the area of police and criminal law:


The "Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union" by the European Court of Justice is not to apply fully to the United Kingdom and Poland, although it would still bind the EU institutions and apply to the field of EU law:

“ Article 1

1. The Charter does not extend the ability of the Court of Justice of the European Union, or any court or tribunal of Poland or of the United Kingdom, to find that the laws, regulations or administrative provisions, practices or action of Poland or of the United Kingdom are inconsistent with the fundamental rights, freedoms and principles that it reaffirms.
2. In particular, and for the avoidance of doubt, nothing in Title IV of the Charter creates justiciable rights applicable to Poland or the United Kingdom except in so far as Poland or the United Kingdom has provided for such rights in its national law.

Article 2

To the extent that a provision of the Charter refers to national laws and practices, it shall only apply to Poland or the United Kingdom to the extent that the rights or principles that it contains are recognised in the law or practices of Poland or of the United Kingdom. ” This is what, against bitter protest from other European nations, Poland and the UK negotiated for themselves a few years ago.

Rest assured though, ye opressed peoples of Europe, that whatever your governments may concoct, my revolutionary mind shall not rest until freedom, justice and human rights are spread form the Atlantic to the Ural. :knight:

[Hosakawa Tito]

Isn't it good to know that the recently paroled have a career field open to them that utilizes their unique talents? Nobody expects a Repo-man's Inquisition:pirate2:

[rory_20_uk]

Supposedly left leaning governments are far more able to strip away any rights they feel like as it is not what they are associated with. imagine the Tories doing this...

IF entry is required, the police should be the only persons doing so - as a law from 1604 stated. The police should then be paid for their time to undertake this.

In essence the job of repo men should be undertaken by the police as a magistrate sanctioned event, not by the types that go into the industry.

~:smoking:

[CountArach]

Supposedly left leaning governments are far more able to strip away any rights they feel like as it is not what they are associated with. imagine the Tories doing this...
Les... sigh...

Labour is not left...

[rory_20_uk]

Les... sigh...

Labour is not left...

Of the three parties it is the one perceived to be left wing, even if its actions are right wing. Its core voters will vote for it regardless of what it does, as the other option is the Tories (boo, hiss)

~:smoking:

[Fragony]

Les... sigh...

Labour is not left...

Yes they are, they just can't afford it anymore, it's like a snake that eats it's own tail, getting pretty top-heavy over there with our british complete idiots friends.

[naut]

I'm glad I'm out of there. Revolution is needed I say. :wink2:

[Banquo's Ghost]

Yes they are, they just can't afford it anymore, it's like a snake that eats it's own tail, getting pretty top-heavy over there with our british complete idiots friends.

Fragony, I can understand that your comforting world view (Everything bad = the left) demands the above belief, but no-one else has considered New Labour to be remotely socialist for years. What party of the left considers, in all seriousness, charging the very poorest over 27% interest on social emergency loans? Even Mrs Thatcher, who reformed the easy money society, didn't plan to gouge people like that. (If one believed New Labour had any chance of joined up thinking, one could easily accept that this plan was to neatly increase business for their new friends, the bailiffs).

Much more interesting than generalised left bashing is discovering the answer to a question I find raised each time InsaneApache rightly posts about his iniquitous government: to wit, what are you doing about this? Specifically, as a member (I think) of the Tory party, are you lobbying to make sure an incoming conservative government over-turns all this awful legislation? Because I don't see them making the same song and dance of outrage.

Since no parliament can bind its successor, a program of over-turning all the years of pernicious legislation should be rather straightforward and easy to plan in Opposition. Where are those plans? Each time this stuff is proposed, one should hear a promise that 'twill last no more than GB's career.

Don't you think? :inquisitive:

[Fragony]

Keep that in mind when I send you a bill :laugh4:

[Husar]

Since no parliament can bind its successor, a program of over-turning all the years of pernicious legislation should be rather straightforward and easy to plan in Opposition. Where are those plans? Each time this stuff is proposed, one should hear a promise that 'twill last no more than GB's career.

Don't you think? :inquisitive:

This is one of the things that made me lose faith in politics so I now think you just choose the lesser evil. :wall:

[Gregoshi]

Talk about an open door policy gone horribly wrong. :thumbsdown:

[Mangudai]

Fragony, I can understand that your comforting world view (Everything bad = the left) demands the above belief, but no-one else has considered New Labour to be remotely socialist for years. What party of the left considers, in all seriousness, charging the very poorest over 27% interest on social emergency loans? Even Mrs Thatcher, who reformed the easy money society, didn't plan to gouge people like that. (If one believed New Labour had any chance of joined up thinking, one could easily accept that this plan was to neatly increase business for their new friends, the bailiffs).



Socialism is not really about helping the poor. It's about increasing the power of the state.

Want proof? Count the threads on this forum. I have yet to find one encouraging org members to give to charity. I found a few dozen in no time where org members supported repressive government policies.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Fragony, I can understand that your comforting world view (Everything bad = the left) demands the above belief, but no-one else has considered New Labour to be remotely socialist for years. What party of the left considers, in all seriousness, charging the very poorest over 27% interest on social emergency loans? Even Mrs Thatcher, who reformed the easy money society, didn't plan to gouge people like that. (If one believed New Labour had any chance of joined up thinking, one could easily accept that this plan was to neatly increase business for their new friends, the bailiffs).

Socialist, maybe not. But are they on the left? Yes. At least the centre-left.

[CountArach]

Socialism is not really about helping the poor. It's about increasing the power of the state.

Want proof? Count the threads on this forum. I have yet to find one encouraging org members to give to charity. I found a few dozen in no time where org members supported repressive government policies.
Look at the number of threads where people talk about social welfare, not to mention healthcare - the majority of people favour increased social spending, only the vocal minority here don't support it. The number of threads asking people to donate to charity is not a valid representation of the leanings of the forum and I don't know how you could possibly think it is a good judge.

Socialist, maybe not. But are they on the left? Yes. At least the centre-left.
:laugh4:

[Watchman]

And seeing as how social security etc. state-subvented services to the down-and-out are more or less institutionalised charity...

Socialism is not really about helping the poor. It's about increasing the power of the state.If you're talking about the moderate-reformist type (which is the succesful branch most "first world" states have practised succesfully for quite a while; the radical-revolutionary version... didn't really work out), it's actually more or less about rescuing capitalism from itself by sanding down the nasty sharp bits that shred people.
The hardcore revolutionary types rather loathed the reformers for that, because they were quite effectively defusing the uprising of the oppressed proletariat long before it even started...
"Splitters!"

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

:laugh4:

What, you think Labour is on the right? :inquisitive:

[naut]

What, you think Labour is on the right? :inquisitive:
Britain's Labour party is definitely more right than left.

[CountArach]

What, you think Labour is on the right? :inquisitive:
Let's just say that I struggle to believe that the UK has room for both the Conservatives and Labour.

[InsaneApache]

Britain's Labour party is definitely more right than left.

Oh dear...

Big government=left. Tax and spend=left. High taxes=left. Lunatic fiscal policies=left. State intrusion into personal life=left. Papers pleese!=left. Politicisation of the police=left.

...and of course the nationalisation of the banks=left.

New Labour isn't remotely right wing, they are crypto-Stalinists who know what's best for you. To this end they will seek to control every aspect of your life, for your own good of course. Anyone who resists are at the best ungrateful buggers for wanting to spend their money the way they see fit. At the worst they are right wing, knee jerk, daily mail readers who obviously need a pre-frontal labotomy so that they may learn to think in the right way. Try reading the comments section in the Gruniad if you want a good laugh. I used to think the left were just deluded and misguided, now I think they're downright dangerous.

[CountArach]

State intrusion into personal life=left.
Errr... you mean like legalised marijuana? Gay civil unions? Greater abortion rights?

These are all left-wing causes that remove the government from the private life of its citizens.

[Hosakawa Tito]

Time to play an appropriate song... (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2O4Cls96iA&feature=related)

[rory_20_uk]

Errr... you mean like legalised marijuana? Gay civil unions? Greater abortion rights?

These are all left-wing causes that remove the government from the private life of its citizens.

Evidence that the oft-used left - right wing description is not adequate.

You are referring to policies that don't really have a left - right leaning, but a place on the authoritarian - freedom access, which is unrelated to left - right.

~:smoking:

[Slyspy]

Oh dear...

Big government=left. Tax and spend=left. High taxes=left. Lunatic fiscal policies=left. State intrusion into personal life=left. Papers pleese!=left. Politicisation of the police=left.

...and of course the nationalisation of the banks=left.


I struggle to believe that these characteristics are found only in governments of the left. I'm fairly sure right wing governments have had all of those. Hell, even the Tories managed a fair few and it seems that even right wing governments decided to bail out their banks.

[CountArach]

Evidence that the oft-used left - right wing description is not adequate.

You are referring to policies that don't really have a left - right leaning, but a place on the authoritarian - freedom access, which is unrelated to left - right.

~:smoking:
So you are restricting the argument solely to economic theories? Alright then, here are some things that New Labour have done from Blair and Gordon's administrations that are clearly right-wing:
1) Reserve Bank independence.
2) Increased fees to enter university
3) Welfare-to-work
4) Various privatisation programs (Including most recently talk of the postal service...)

[InsaneApache]

I struggle to believe that these characteristics are found only in governments of the left. I'm fairly sure right wing governments have had all of those. Hell, even the Tories managed a fair few and it seems that even right wing governments decided to bail out their banks.

Struggle away then. :beam:

I consider myself a libertarian.

Libertarians are committed to the belief that individuals, and not states or groups of any other kind, are both ontologically and normatively primary; that individuals have rights against certain kinds of forcible interference on the part of others; that liberty, understood as non-interference, is the only thing that can be legitimately demanded of others as a matter of legal or political right; that robust property rights and the economic liberty that follows from their consistent recognition are of central importance in respecting individual liberty; that social order is not at odds with but develops out of individual liberty; that the only proper use of coercion is defensive or to rectify an error; that governments are bound by essentially the same moral principles as individuals; and that most existing and historical governments have acted improperly insofar as they have utilized coercion for plunder, aggression, redistribution, and other purposes beyond the protection of individual liberty

Not a left wing mindset is it?

[rory_20_uk]

So you are restricting the argument solely to economic theories? Alright then, here are some things that New Labour have done from Blair and Gordon's administrations that are clearly right-wing:
1) Reserve Bank independence.
2) Increased fees to enter university
3) Welfare-to-work
4) Various privatisation programs (Including most recently talk of the postal service...)

You're preaching to the choir! I think that Nu-Labour and especially Brown is right leaning authoritarian.

~:smoking:

[Fragony]

So you are restricting the argument solely to economic theories? Alright then, here are some things that New Labour have done from Blair and Gordon's administrations that are clearly right-wing:
1) Reserve Bank independence.
2) Increased fees to enter university
3) Welfare-to-work
4) Various privatisation programs (Including most recently talk of the postal service...)

A huge intrusive government costs a lot of money, has to come from somewhere.

[CountArach]

You're preaching to the choir! I think that Nu-Labour and especially Brown is right leaning authoritarian.

~:smoking:
*Tears up his 20-odd minutes of research and throws it away*

I just got a different feeling from the tone of your post.

[Watchman]

Oh dear...

Big government=left. Tax and spend=left. High taxes=left. Lunatic fiscal policies=left. State intrusion into personal life=left. Papers pleese!=left. Politicisation of the police=left.

...and of course the nationalisation of the banks=left.Doesn't quite a bit of that pretty well describe what the Bush regime has been up to for the past eight or so years, Stateside ?

Pretty sure this is the first time I see Bible-thumbing pinko-Republicans classified as politically "left"...

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Doesn't quite a bit of that pretty well describe what the Bush regime has been up to for the past eight or so years, Stateside ?

Pretty sure this is the first time I see Bible-thumbing pinko-Republicans classified as politically "left"...

Not exactly politically left, but I can't call them that faithful to the right either...

[Watchman]

Oh, it's very faithful to the Right all right. Or are you forgetting what exactly lies at the extreme end of that side of the Left-Right divide ?

Seems to me like someone's trying to make up some pretty tendentious political definitions here, ones that have little or nothing to do with the reality of the life political and the really existing ideologies and movements, and quite a bit with rhetorical and moral convenience...

[CountArach]

Oh, it's very faithful to the Right all right. Or are you forgetting what exactly lies at the extreme end of that side of the Left-Right divide ?
You are forgetting that EMFM believes that Hitler was left :wink:

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Oh, it's very faithful to the Right all right. Or are you forgetting what exactly lies at the extreme end of that side of the Left-Right divide ?

Godwin. ~;)

What exactly are you trying to say? That something is faithful to right-wing ideology because the Nazis did it? Naturally the same must apply to the left for Stalinists then, no?


You are forgetting that EMFM believes that Hitler was left

Someone evidently has forgotten to tell me that I believe that. Where have I ever said that Hitler was left?

[CountArach]

Someone evidently has forgotten to tell me that I believe that. Where have I ever said that Hitler was left?
Oh, my mistake. I got you confused with Frag for a sec.

[Watchman]

Godwin. ~;)What, it's Godwinisation to remind someone there's been no shortage of patently Right-wing oppressive police states ? Pff. The Nazis were just the worst of the bunch - stone cold crazy actually, far off the deep end - the rest really more just odious and unpleasant. The Italian Fascists, whatever Franco and Salazar now styled their reactionary dictatorships as, any number of squalid military-junta affairs... you get the idea. They come in all flavours.


What exactly are you trying to say? That something is faithful to right-wing ideology because the Nazis did it?I don't remember invoking them by the name, you know...

Nah. What I'm saying is that there's absolutely nothing about the agenda of the political Right that precludes them from devolving into oppressive bastards as readily as anyone else. All you really need is a sufficient belief in the justification of your Cause, wtf it now might be, the "end justifies the means" mindset, and opportunity.

Naturally the same must apply to the left for Stalinists then, no?The USSR, for whatever it now claimed to be (and that was a lot indeed), was arguably pretty seriously far indeed removed from the goals and aims of revolutionary Marxism. Replacing the ancien regime with just another bunch of bloody-handed thugs wasn't exactly the plan, after all.
Probably more or less an inevitable result of the whole project, though.

Which is why I make a point of making a clear distinction between moderate-reformatory Socialism/Social Democracy/watevah (which demonstrably works and doesn't have people shot on the edge of a gravel pit) and radical-revolutionary Communism (which demonstrably failed hard and got a lot of people killed in the process). The latter gets lumped with all the other heaven-on-earth-now extremists who firmly believe they know the Truth, ie. dangerous loons.

Someone evidently has forgotten to tell me that I believe that. Where have I ever said that Hitler was left?You certainly did seem to be insinuating that oppressive and restrictive policies were by default "left", anyway...
The reductio ad absurdum (or Hitlerum, as it were :clown:) of that is indeed arguing that Adolf was an ultra-Leftist.

Which is obviously pretty, well, absurd if you understand the first thing about the political spectrum.

[Fragony]

Oh, my mistake. I got you confused with Frag for a sec.

Well at least you didn't confuse him with Hitler, for decades. Who was a leftie by the way.

[Watchman]

Where exactly ? In calling his party "the National Socialist Party" ? I hope you realize the "Red Nazis" who read too much into that were pretty summarily banished into the political wilderness the second the NSDAP managed to grab the power.

And rah-rah "for the honest little worker" populism isn't exactly restricted to the political Left, if that's what you're thinking about. The populists are just selling more or less the same line to the one and same audience and appealing to its concerns; whether they're Left- or Right-wing populists has nothing to do with that, although it rather tends to affect the contents of the rest of the package being sold...

Also... *cough*JoeThePlumber*cough*
QED.

[Fragony]

Where exactly ?

Where exactly is he rightwing? Let's start there, first thing about the political spectrum thingie, top down vs bottom up, state control vs power of the individual.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

If you use the traditional right-left compass, I'd say Hitler is clearly on the right-wing. Fragony seems to be using the political compass, and his theories therefore have some credence (http://www.politicalcompass.org/extremeright) if you look at modern extreme-right parties. (http://www.politicalcompass.org/germany2005)

[Husar]

Yes, the funny thing about such a spectrum is when your side looks bad you can just change a few definitions to your liking and voila, your world is all black and white again with you on the white side.
Needless to say the guys who fly airplanes into towers on purpose do that because they also changed every definition and interpretation to the point where they are absolutely white and nice like a bunny chewing a carrot. :dizzy2:
Oh wait, carrots also have feelings...

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

I don't trust the political compass as much as I used to Husar, especially with their 2008 Canadian Election diagram.

[Mangudai]

Look at the number of threads where people talk about social welfare, not to mention healthcare - the majority of people favour increased social spending, only the vocal minority here don't support it. The number of threads asking people to donate to charity is not a valid representation of the leanings of the forum and I don't know how you could possibly think it is a good judge.
:laugh4:
Perhaps I was wrong to count solicitations for charity. How about raising awareness about people in desparate situations? I don't see that either. I see people whining because people lucky enough to be born in a wealthy country don't get everything they need for free.

If poverty and human dignity are the primary concerns, then the undeveloped parts of the world deserve all of our attention. Poverty in the developed world is nothing compared to poverty in some countries. 98.5% of the socialists I've ever talked to are National Socialists or Euro-Socialists.


And seeing as how social security etc. state-subvented services to the down-and-out are more or less institutionalised charity...
Except that charity also means love. State services don't capture that part.

[CountArach]

Perhaps I was wrong to count solicitations for charity. How about raising awareness about people in desparate situations? I don't see that either. I see people whining because people lucky enough to be born in a wealthy country don't get everything they need for free.

If poverty and human dignity are the primary concerns, then the undeveloped parts of the world deserve all of our attention. Poverty in the developed world is nothing compared to poverty in some countries. 98.5% of the socialists I've ever talked to are National Socialists or Euro-Socialists.
You will also find that most Socialists (At least those worthy of the name Socialist) want increased foreign aid so that we can drag these people out of the poverty cycle. However, this isn't a position that most governments are willing to take, and as such it is easier to argue for removing poverty in your home country - people are far more likely to get the message. Don't take that to mean that we believe that all poverty is equally bad, take it to mean that we are arguing for lifting poverty in countries where we can actually make a political difference.

Oh and National Socialists are not Socialists.

[Mangudai]

You will also find that most Socialists (At least those worthy of the name Socialist) want increased foreign aid so that we can drag these people out of the poverty cycle. However, this isn't a position that most governments are willing to take, and as such it is easier to argue for removing poverty in your home country - people are far more likely to get the message. Don't take that to mean that we believe that all poverty is equally bad, take it to mean that we are arguing for lifting poverty in countries where we can actually make a political difference.

Oh and National Socialists are not Socialists.

What type of government policies do the most to pull people out of poverty?

Here is a test: For each pair of countries, which has the worst poverty?

1 Argentina - Chile
2 Nicaragua - Panama
3 Haiti - Dominican Republic
4 North Korea - South Korea
5 China - Taiwan
6 Cambodia - Thailand
7 Russia - United States

If you picked the country on the left for all seven options, you are correct.

Here is another test: For each pair of countries which one historically has the more leftist government.

If you picked the country on the left for all seven options, you are correct.

QED left wing government policies are less efficient than free markets for pulling people out of poverty.

[CountArach]

1 Argentina - Chile
2 Nicaragua - Panama
3 Haiti - Dominican Republic
4 North Korea - South Korea
5 China - Taiwan
6 Cambodia - Thailand
7 Russia - United States

If you picked the country on the left for all seven options, you are correct.

Here is another test: For each pair of countries which one historically has the more leftist government.

If you picked the country on the left for all seven options, you are correct.

QED left wing government policies are less efficient than free markets for pulling people out of poverty.
:laugh4: Your lack of historical knowledge is astounding. For example:
1) The IMF has ruined much of Argentina's economy.
2) Nicaragua was completely destroyed by the US...
3) Haiti was completely destroyed by the US... multiple times...
4) Few would use North Korea as an example of a leftist government.
5) China has almost no shred of Socialism remaining.
6) See 2 and 4.
7) The Soviet Union had guaranteed jobs for everyone and there was no unemployment. With the fall of the SU this policy left and suddenly there was unemployment and subsequently poverty...

[Watchman]

I offer up Scandinavia as the poster child of how you do applied Leftism right. Not that say most of Western Europe has done too badly with it either...


Where exactly is he rightwing? Let's start there, first thing about the political spectrum thingie, top down vs bottom up, state control vs power of the individual.Oh right, because the Left-Right distinction is solely about the degree of control the regime exterts on the society. And the sole difference between the two is that the Leftists are the micromanaging control freaks. How could I forget ?
:dozey:
Did you forget somewhere that the Nazi political program was basically ultranationalist reactionarism - both traits of the far Right - taken to something of a logical extreme and beyond ? They pretty much rejected wholesale the heritage of Enlightement ideas about universalist human equality, "as much good for as many as possible" and w/e - which conversely as it happens are the very philosophical lineage the "Marxist"/Leftist end of political spectrum largely hails from.

[Watchman]

Also, Mangu's comparision list is made of fail and tendentiousness as it entirely disregards differences in historical starting points, resources etc. Plus seems to forget most of the LatAm examples at some point of another were ruled by some kind of tyrant, military junta or similar unpleasantness with definite Right leanings (the US made sure of that, anyway). Quite often the Left-wing regimes thereafter have been busy trying to undo the damage and socioeconomic retardation those jolly folks left behind...

Also, why's Cuba not there somewhere ? Far as I know it's a decent enough place to live as LatAm states go (as long as you don't get in trouble with the authorities anyway), and by the yardstick of LatAm autocrats Castro has really been a real softy. Plus AFAIK the improvement in general standard of living, healthcare etc. under the Communist regime has been pretty noticeable compared to what was before...
Would it have muddled the grossly simplistic equation presented too much or something ?

[Husar]

7) The Soviet Union had guaranteed jobs for everyone and there was no unemployment. With the fall of the SU this policy left and suddenly there was unemployment and subsequently poverty...

Which leads to the fact that some actually wish the good old times back. Same with the DDR, many think living there was actually nicer, people weren't as harsh, heartless and competitive. Ripping eachother apart over a job is not exactly utopian for everybody. For every winner there is a loser. Only compromise can lead to win-win situations. :eyebrows:

[Fragony]

Oh right, because the Left-Right distinction is solely about the degree of control the regime exterts on the society. And the sole difference between the two is that the Leftists are the micromanaging control freaks. How could I forget ?
:dozey:
Did you forget somewhere that the Nazi political program was basically ultranationalist reactionarism - both traits of the far Right - taken to something of a logical extreme and beyond ? They pretty much rejected wholesale the heritage of Enlightement ideas about universalist human equality, "as much good for as many as possible" and w/e - which conversely as it happens are the very philosophical lineage the "Marxist"/Leftist end of political spectrum largely hails from.

not so much

"We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions." --Adolf Hitler

That really gets the blood pumping doesn't it

[Watchman]

...your argument is based on taking Hitler's populist BS at face value...?
:no:
Jeez.

[Tribesman]

That really gets the blood pumping doesn't it

Wow hitler talked of unseemly evaluation of human beings :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:


We are racists, we are enemies of today's Jews for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of the master race being according to wealth and property instead of respectable lineage, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions

[Fragony]

...your argument is based on taking Hitler's populist BS at face value...?
:no:
Jeez.

Like you do with the marxist theory's?

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

4) Few would use North Korea as an example of a leftist government.

:inquisitive:

From Wiki:


Many commentators, journalists, and scholars outside North Korea equate Juche with Stalinism and call North Korea a Stalinist country.

Stalinism is leftist, and widely recognized as such (and if you try to say Stalinism isn't leftist, then perhaps you would care to realize that you are arguing precisely the same thing as Fragony from the other end of the spectrum?). Therefore, Juche is leftist. End.


5) China has almost no shred of Socialism remaining.

:inquisitive:

(Didn't work while they had it in full swing either.)


7) The Soviet Union had guaranteed jobs for everyone and there was no unemployment. With the fall of the SU this policy left and suddenly there was unemployment and subsequently poverty...

Guaranteed jobs, mass murder, disappearences, starvation, etcetera.

[rory_20_uk]

North Korea is a left win authoritarian state

The Soviet Union had rampant underemployment with people going to work and doing nothing useful.

~:smoking:

[seireikhaan]

:inquisitive:

I don't suppose anyone taking part in this "enlightening" discussion would like to "enlighten" me as to the point of said exercise?

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

North Korea is a left win authoritarian state

Yes. Still left-wing.


The Soviet Union had rampant underemployment with people going to work and doing nothing useful.

"As long as they pretend to pay us, we will pretend to work."


I don't suppose anyone taking part in this "enlightening" discussion would like to "enlighten" me as to the point of said exercise?

To answer the question "is Labour on the left?"

IA pointed out some reasons, and I believe he is generally correct. It is true that the far-right and the extreme-right also carry some of these traits, but the moderate right generally do not, and the moderate left often do. Of course, there are exceptions.

[seireikhaan]

To answer the question "is Labour on the left?"
Again: what is the point of said exercise?

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Again: what is the point of said exercise?

The same as every other debate we have here. To take out excess anger on other anonymous posters.

[Watchman]

Like you do with the marxist theory's?Marxism at least has a proper theory, although "Really Existing Socialism" as the Soviets rather ambigiously called their system didn't actually have much to do with it.
Do explain where exactly I'm taking it at a face value, though. 'Cause I know for a fact I could write you a short essay on where the man was patently wrong... (Pretty much *no* serious academician these days employs Marxist theories in their pure, classical form; as with any viable school of thought, they have been adapted and modified and whatever as the discourse develops.)

Oh looky, a strawman. Let's BBQ!

The Nazis chiefly had delusions of racial supremacy, a raging case of ultranationalist militarism and copious amounts of wholly shameless opportunism. If they thought they had a reason to tell you black is white, they did - and changed it right back the next day if convenient.
Well, those guys did deny rationality having too much value. They didn't have to be consistent or make much sense...

Anyway, what you're patently missing with your original quote from Adolf is that the Nazis competed with the Communists over the support of the same populist-fodder demographic - angry, disenfranchised working class stiffs who'd just been royally screwed over by the Great Depression. Like any good populist movement both gleefully played the "fat cat capitalists suck" card for the benefit of the audience; among the major differences were that the Communists actually meant it (if you know anything at all about the economic policies of the Third Reich, you know the Nazis were quite cozy indeed with Big Business - as long as it served their purposes, anyway) and that the Nazis were wont to indentify those "fat cat capitalists" as Jews...
Yeah, they actually did think just about everything bad in the world was the work of a vast Jewish conspiracy for some reason hellbent on destroying the German race. I did say they didn't put much stock on rationality, no ?


As for Stalinism, fair enough - although it is actually pretty debatable how much anything at all that has in common with the principles of Marxist theory anymore. But the only thing that proves is that anything taken to extremes turns toxic and insane, and probably not too different from comparable fringe lunacy at the other end of the spectrum. (Well, the nutso-Lefties generally fail to play the nationalism card and instead claim everyone equally should be included in their "happy workers' paradise"; the Right-wing whackjobs conversely have a notable propensity for being exclusivist and racist.)
Probably also worth noting the USSR in peacetime was actually mostly a mellow enough place; the really bad :daisy: happened chiefly on Stalin's watch. That guy seriously should be the illustration by the textbook definition of Dubious Management Practices.
Also, North Korea's "Juche" thingy is pretty crackpot even by Stalinist standards.

I'm incidentally a bit surprised nobody's brought up the Khmer Rouge yet. Probably because it's pretty seriously difficult to see where their stark lunacy had anything to do with any commonly recognised ideological framework, and because the Vietnamese came over and booted tham back into the jungles (and got flak from both the US and China for it... :dizzy2:).

[LittleGrizzly]

Originally Posted by seireikhaan https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/images/sdojo/buttons/viewpost.gif (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?p=2096269#post2096269)
Again: what is the point of said exercise?

The same as every other debate we have here. To take out excess anger on other anonymous posters.

LOL!!

The funniest and truest thing you have ever said...imo

If labour are left wing then so are the tories, and there is no right wing. I don't think it is paticularly accurate to describe them as left wing, they constantly try to out right the tories whilst the tories try to out left them.

What labour is now is a big mess of left right and centerist policys. I would say the most accurate description of both the tories and labour is centerist, you can find policys between the 2 partys where they reach to thier own base and then policys where they reach to the other partys base. Even centre left is streching it imo, they are practically the same as the tory party, and they certainly aren't centre left...

The only thing left wing about labour are its history and some of its backbenchers.... and im only sure about one of those...

but the moderate right generally do not, and the moderate left often do.

I disagree entirely, the whole security appeal of labours anti terror packages is defense from the enemy, which is something right wing voters buy into far more than left wing voters... so in the case of labours authoratarinism it is actually because of moderate right reasons they are doing it...

Personally i have always put down authoritarianism down as a trait that tends to show up more in conservatives...

Considering that right wingers are arguing thats its a trait of the left and lefts arguing the reverse, maybe we both have to accept its eqaully a trait of both, im willing to accept that perhaps through my own bias i have come to my conclusion as everyone else debating this issue seems to be on the side thier bias would put them on....

ohh and frag hitler wasn't a socailist.... unless you use socailist as another word for human, which would make a lot more sense i blame humans for most of the worlds wrongs as well...

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

What labour is now is a big mess of left right and centerist policys.

I can deal with that. :bow:


I disagree entirely, the whole security appeal of labours anti terror packages is defense from the enemy, which is something right wing voters buy into far more than left wing voters... so in the case of labours authoratarinism it is actually because of moderate right reasons they are doing it...


Personally i have always put down authoritarianism down as a trait that tends to show up more in conservatives...

I must respectfully disagree with this. In Germany, we have Die Linke and the SPD (though the CDU isn't to my liking in that respect either, I must admit) as authoritarians, and what I would classify as the primary "freedom" party (if you can even find one in Germany these days...) is the centre-right/free market centrist FDP.


Considering that right wingers are arguing thats its a trait of the left and lefts arguing the reverse, maybe we both have to accept its eqaully a trait of both, im willing to accept that perhaps through my own bias i have come to my conclusion as everyone else debating this issue seems to be on the side thier bias would put them on....

Deal. Perhaps we can compromise and say that the extreme left, extreme right, and the muddled centrists are the most likely to slide to authoritarianism?

An interesting debate is state control, of course (not necessarily authoritarianism), in which case I would say that the moderate left is more likely to enjoy state control of things.

[Kralizec]

Left/right catagorisation has outlived its usefulness by at least three or four generations. An X-Y graph with economy and state power as seperate dimensions is a major improvement, but I particulary like the horseshoe model (https://s269.photobucket.com/albums/jj68/Anathema-nl/?action=view&current=Horseshoe.jpg) as it illustrates how close stalinism and fascism are in practice.

I recall someone mentioned Cuba as communist succes story, and I'll have to disagree. It managed so well during the cold war because the USSR bought their agricultural products deliberately far above the market price to support a strategicly located ally. After the USSR was disbanded Cuba lapsed into poverty. That the USA still won't trade is only one factor, and not a decisive one.

[LittleGrizzly]

Deal. Perhaps we can compromise and say that the extreme left, extreme right, and the muddled centrists are the most likely to slide to authoritarianism?

I think i mostly agree to that, i mean both right and left have thier kind of anti-authoritarian wings, libertarians which is usually right wingers and anarchists who are usually left wingers (and by anarchists i dont mean people who like rioting and starting fires) and then they both have thier controlling urges, left wingers will take more of your money but you (as a man) can marry a man and smoke some soft drugs. so both groups have thier various authoritarian urges imo. then there are thing that both cons and leftys on here disagree with but various conservatives and leftys take away various civil liberties, cons through being tough on law and order leftys through trying to be pc as two more examples

With the muddled cenerists bit i think you are on to something as well, leftys are somewhat more authoritarian naturally on economic issues and conservatives more authoritarian on socail issues, and what some centerists do (or power grabbers) is take policy's from each group to keep both happy, you can end up with them taking authoritarian stances from both sides and end up with a very authoritarian goverment which is a mix of left and right wing policys

Im glad we seem to have some agreement on the matter...

I recall someone mentioned Cuba as communist succes story, and I'll have to disagree.


Its certainly not an economic success but i think the relative success he mentioned was to do with literacy rates and the like... and even then in comparison to other latin american countrys

[InsaneApache]

Personally i have always put down authoritarianism down as a trait that tends to show up more in conservatives...

So personal responsibility is authoritarian? Buying your house is authoritarian? Belief in free trade and de-regulated markets is authoritarian? Lower taxes and smaller government is authoritarian? A belief in personal liberties and non-government interference is authoritarian?

This is what happens when you get brainwashed into the mindset of Tories = evil, left wing ideology = goodness and light. Your brain stops working.

[LittleGrizzly]

So personal responsibility is authoritarian? Buying your house is authoritarian? Belief in free trade and de-regulated markets is authoritarian? Lower taxes and smaller government is authoritarian? A belief in personal liberties and non-government interference is authoritarian?

So if i now write a list of a bunch nice left wing beliefs like charity and eradicating poverty and free health care for all and write is authoritarian ? after them will i convince you of anything ? i doubt it so im not going to bother

The buying your house is not right wing, i now of plenty of left wingers who fully support the activity of buying a house, i have never got why personal responsibility is a right wing thing, if its because someone has a bad start in life and they get into crime and then leftys blame society, leftys are not abdicating personal responsibility they are simply looking at the facts why that person got into what they did, which is entirely sensible and the only way your going to reduce crime.

Smaller goverment personal liberties and non goverment interfernce are great, this left winger thinks uk could use a whole dose more of all of them, ask yourself if the last us administration was right wing or left wing and thenk ask youraself where it came on those last 3 i said i support.... hmm maybe both sides have authoritarians and liberitarians...

you people with the mindset anything bad = left are just laughable, these power hungry people happy to surrender civil liberties on both wings to0 try and say it is soley a condition of other wing... is blind bias.....your far too intelligent for it to be a logical conlcusion you've come to

This is what happens when you get brainwashed into the mindset of Tories = evil, left wing ideology = goodness and light. Your brain stops working.

lol, i have been trying to argue its on bothn wings, you have been trying to argue it solely to the left, if you above example fits anyone perfectly it is you (with the descriptions after the equals signs swopped round)

and tbh what i know of pre labour tories (not a great deal) they were fairly libertarian, it was from various other countries i garnered my impression, don't let that get in they way of your blind bias though.... the left after all is stupid and/or evil....

[Watchman]

This is what happens when you get brainwashed into the mindset of Tories = evil, left wing ideology = goodness and light. Your brain stops working.*cough*
Pot ?
Meet kettle (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?p=2095079#post2095079).

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

So if i now write a list of a bunch nice left wing beliefs like charity and eradicating poverty and free health care for all and write is authoritarian ?

Hate to nitpick, but not only is charity a more right-wing ideal (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/26/AR2008032602916_pf.html) (rather than redistribution of wealth), but the other two can also be authoritarian depending how you go about it.

[Watchman]

I feel compelled to point out that well-managed policies of income redistribution seem to be rather more effective and reliable at reducing poverty and whatnot, though.

[LittleGrizzly]

Hate to nitpick, but not only is charity a more right-wing ideal (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/26/AR2008032602916_pf.html)

well i was just sticking a list of nice things, like i said i had some problems with IA's list, i wasn't actually thinking of charity as a more left wing ideal though i was more thinking in a national sense as in percentage of gdp given to aid,

though i didn't actually now that... im assuming thats american based, any info on if that continues over the atlantic as well, and maybe european vs american, just to get a broader perspective than republicans vs democrats

it also doesn't mention what charitable contributions are used to keep thier own churches going (seems a bit less charitable if the money is going towards your church or spreading your religion) not that i am trying to claim it it a left wing ideal, in terms of goverment more so but personally i wouldn't like to venture which group would be more charitable....

but the other two can also be authoritarian depending how you go about it.

well i was mainly going for a nice list like i said but to give anti authoritarian ones, soft drug legalisation and then you could mention gay marriage and abortion

[Watchman]

:thinking:
...and someone please explain to me how the fig free health care* does "authoritarian", please.


*- it's usually actually "subvented" rather than "free" and you have to pay some rather nominal fee, in my experience...

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

:thinking:
...and someone please explain to me how the fig free health care* does "authoritarian", please.

The government taking more money in taxes = the government having more power over your money = more authoritarian.

[InsaneApache]

:thinking:
...and someone please explain to me how the fig free health care* does "authoritarian", please.


*- it's usually actually "subvented" rather than "free" and you have to pay some rather nominal fee, in my experience...

That's easy. Until recently in the UK there has been several cases of people diagnosed with cancer having all NHS (i.e. free at the point of delivery) treatment withdrawn. Why? Well because these bastards has the temerity to pay for their own cancer drugs that the NHS (i.e. free at the point of delivery) refused to pay for. That meant that everytime they saw a doctor, they had to pay. Every time they had a blood test, they had to pay. Everytime they had an X-ray or a scan, they had to pay. This was in order to prevent a 'two-tier' NHS system sneaking in through the back door. So for a political ideology these people were served with a death sentence. Very progressive and enlightened, I'm sure.

The good news is that the electorate reacted so forcefully against this form a state bullying that the whole thing was quietly dropped. After all even terminally ill cancer patients have votes.

[LittleGrizzly]

Technically it is authoritarian but there is still the freedom to choose different healthcare, its just something essential that the goverment have to take money off you for, like roads, or a police force, or an army, which conservatives usually want to take more money off you to supply like the police force, that is generally speaking so it works both ways imo.....

[Watchman]

The government taking more money in taxes = the government having more power over your money = more authoritarian....uh-huh...

Main Entry: au·thor·i·tar·i·an
Function: adjective
Date: 1879
1 : of, relating to, or favoring blind submission to authority <had authoritarian parents>
2 : of, relating to, or favoring a concentration of power in a leader or an elite not constitutionally responsible to the people <an authoritarian regime>
— authoritarian noun
— au·thor·i·tar·i·an·ism \-ē-ə-ˌni-zəm\ noun

Main Entry: tax
Function: noun
Usage: often attributive
Date: 14th century
1 a: a charge usually of money imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes b: a sum levied on members of an organization to defray expenses
2: a heavy demandHow about you call back when you can tell the difference between the two ? kthx.

Also, you just flunked PolSci 101.

[LittleGrizzly]

Im not sure if you saw my post but as a technicallity any extra money going to the goverment is more authoritarian for whatever nice reason its done for, the same as any expansion of military spending is more authoritarian as more money is going to the goverment

[Watchman]

That's easy. Until recently in the UK there has been several cases of people diagnosed with cancer having all NHS (i.e. free at the point of delivery) treatment withdrawn. Why? Well because these bastards has the temerity to pay for their own cancer drugs that the NHS (i.e. free at the point of delivery) refused to pay for. That meant that everytime they saw a doctor, they had to pay. Every time they had a blood test, they had to pay. Everytime they had an X-ray or a scan, they had to pay. This was in order to prevent a 'two-tier' NHS system sneaking in through the back door. So for a political ideology these people were served with a death sentence. Very progressive and enlightened, I'm sure.

The good news is that the electorate reacted so forcefully against this form a state bullying that the whole thing was quietly dropped. After all even terminally ill cancer patients have votes.
Ie. the UK public healthcare system has idiocy aplenty and is badly managed ? What hasn't been in that country since at least the Eighties ?

I don't really see the connection you're drawing between the issues here. What's pure bureaucratic :daisy: that defeats the whole purpose to do with ideology here, and why are you so sure the cause would be "leftist" rather than "Thatcherite neolib" ideology anyway...?

[LittleGrizzly]

I thought IA would have been pleased this is clearly labour trying to be libertarian by saving money ;)

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

How about you call back when you can tell the difference between the two ? kthx.


More authoritarian as in the government having more control [over you/your cash/your healthcare]. I'm not saying free healthcare makes a dictatorship or an authoritarian government, simply that it gives the government more control. Which it does. :book:

[Watchman]

Except you're still free to go buy private services if you're so inclined. OTOH, the poor sods in the ghettoes can get decent healthcare too, which they wouldn't otherwise...
Why, yes, I actually do consider that worth the tax bill. Why ?

Also, please reread the definition of "authoritarian". Here, I'll even bold a key detail for you:
2 : of, relating to, or favoring a concentration of power in a leader or an elite not constitutionally responsible to the people <an authoritarian regime>

[InsaneApache]

Ie. the UK public healthcare system has idiocy aplenty and is badly managed ? What hasn't been in that country since at least the Eighties ?

I don't really see the connection you're drawing between the issues here. What's pure bureaucratic asshattery that defeats the whole purpose to do with ideology here, and why are you so sure the cause would be "leftist" rather than "Thatcherite neolib" ideology anyway...?

Are you being deliberately obtuse? :inquisitive:

This had nothing to do with bureaucracy and everything to do with government policy. It is a central tenet of the Labour party to resist the idea of a two tier NHS system.


I thought IA would have been pleased this is clearly labour trying to be libertarian by saving money ;)

Unable to discredit my post on how the government discriminates against the bastards who choose to pay for treatment, you thought you'd try and take the piss out of me. Well done sir. :bow:

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Also, please reread the definition of "authoritarian". Here, I'll even bold a key detail for you:

:rolleyes:

A scale of authoritarianism vs. libertarianism. As in this:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9c/Political_chart.svg

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/authoritarian

[Watchman]

Are you being deliberately obtuse? :inquisitive:

This had nothing to do with bureaucracy and everything to do with government policy. It is a central tenet of the Labour party to resist the idea of a two tier NHS system.Which would then make them the idiots responsible. So ? It's not like their policies had been very "left" for a good while now from what I know of it. Heck, neither have our Social Democrats', but at least they're not *that* stupid...

Also, could you please explain to me what exactly about that was supposed to be so "lefty" in the first place ?

[InsaneApache]

I could go on about how universal healthcare is a left wing phenomenon but It's New Years and I'm off a beer.

Happy New Year guys. :balloon2: :balloon3:

[Watchman]

:rolleyes:

A scale of authoritarianism vs. libertarianism. As in this:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9c/Political_chart.svg

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/authoritarianThe first link involved some annoying file format I can't be :daisy: to find a program for, thanks for nuttin'.
The second ?
Basically reiterates what I already quoted from Merriam-Webster in slightly different form but the exact same content. Or are you somehow missing the qualifiers along the lines of "complete", "absolute" and "unquestioning" in the definitions...?

If you're going to roll eyes at me, please at least have a case okay ?


I could go on about how universal healthcare is a left wing phenomenon...And that one rather fails the "universal" bit and generally sounds more like the gratuitiously asinine bean-counting so characteristic of neoliberal "efficiency".

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

The first link involved some annoying file format I can't be arsed to find a program for, thanks for nuttin'.
The second ?
Basically reiterates what I already quoted from Merriam-Webster in slightly different form but the exact same content. Or are you somehow missing the qualifiers along the lines of "complete", "absolute" and "unquestioning" in the definitions...?

Alright, I'll try to make this simple.

https://img205.imageshack.us/img205/175/b47e81b8fe3f4e54829e1ebds0.png

The vertical line there is a scale. At the top, you are authoritarian (there are your "complete" and "absolute" definitions). From the halfway point up, you have authoritarian tendencies, however slight. Therefore, one can in fact be more authoritarian or less authoritarian, while still being on the authoritarian side of the scale.

Or did you miss the entire part of the debate when we were discussing the political compass?

[Watchman]

Ignored it as it was uninteresting. "tl;dr" as they say. Around here "authoritarian" has a pretty specific range of connotations, echoed by them dictionaries exhaustively quoted already, so my hackles are kind of wont to stand up when people start tossing it around casually in the context of policies they dislike.

Especially if it's right-wingers talking about left-wing social policies. I long ago reached my saturation point already with the misuse of "socialism" by Republican partisans who wouldn't recognise proper definitions of terminology if it bit their noses off, y'see.

[Mangudai]

:laugh4: Your lack of historical knowledge is astounding. For example:
1) The IMF has ruined much of Argentina's economy.
2) Nicaragua was completely destroyed by the US...
3) Haiti was completely destroyed by the US... multiple times...
4) Few would use North Korea as an example of a leftist government.
5) China has almost no shred of Socialism remaining.
6) See 2 and 4.
7) The Soviet Union had guaranteed jobs for everyone and there was no unemployment. With the fall of the SU this policy left and suddenly there was unemployment and subsequently poverty...

Yours is worse.

1. Argentina has gone bankrupt 16 times. They've been screwing up their economy since the 1880's. It has been ruined many times before the IMF ever got involved.
2. Panama was subject to more US imperialism than Nicaragua.
3. Like when Clinton reinstated the leftist president Aristide? The Dominican Republic has a similar history of imperialism and homegrown tyrants.
4. :dizzy2:
5. Compare China to Taiwan circa 1970. China has been getting better the more it moves away from socialism.
6. yeah yeah
7. Your praise of the Soviet Union reveals your true colors.



Originally Posted by Leon Blum - For All Mankind
Nothing established by violence and maintained by force, nothing that degrades humanity and is based on contempt for human personality, can endure.

In case you haven't realized this yet. Taxation can only be established and maintained by force.

[Watchman]

If you haven't realized this yet... states and cohesive societies are ultimately created and maintained by force. Namely the gov't being able to smash any domestic challenger to its authority and power should it come down to that. Files under "sovereignty".

Well, it rather handsomely beats feudalism and bandit warlords.

[LittleGrizzly]

Unable to discredit my post on how the government discriminates against the bastards who choose to pay for treatment, you thought you'd try and take the piss out of me. Well done sir.

It was meant in the friendliest way possible, i thought it matched up nicely to your rant about left wing authritarianism

On the actual issue health care should be free to everyone regardless what they bought out of thier own money (i wouldn't want them to be advanced in the system above other people simply because they purchased thier drugs though) so labour was wrong if they were the cause of that situation, and that isn't what healthcare should be about

Ideally if we were a left wing country we would put a bit more money into our healthcare system and there wouldn't be the need to buy these drugs, though obviously i don't now the situation fully so i can't judge, though as i understand labour has increased investment in the NHS.

I don't really consider attacks on labour attacks on left wing policys or ideas, they made a deliberate move to the centre and have a mish mash of policys trying to appeal to all sections, i think most left wingers vote for them out of the idea that the torys are worse and the lib dems can't win.

TBH i would proscribe to both policys, they seem a little better under cameron in a way, but in a way very similar to labour now, very populist, i suppose in the end i think at least the backbenchers are usually inclined towards the partys natural state, so i would prefer labour, though im not sure theres much difference.

That said i haven't voted labour once and i don't think i will anytime soon, i have voted lib dems twice, and i don't think they're great but they seem a lot better than two main parties, possibly they just aren't tainted by power... (probably)

but It's New Years and I'm off a beer.

You should have been off hours ago!

happy new years

[Mangudai]

...uh-huh...

How about you call back when you can tell the difference between the two ? kthx.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars View Post
The government taking more money in taxes = the government having more power over your money = more authoritarian.
...uh-huh...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
Main Entry: au·thor·i·tar·i·an
Function: adjective
Date: 1879
1 : of, relating to, or favoring blind submission to authority <had authoritarian parents>
2 : of, relating to, or favoring a concentration of power in a leader or an elite not constitutionally responsible to the people <an authoritarian regime>
— authoritarian noun
— au·thor·i·tar·i·an·ism \-ē-ə-ˌni-zəm\ noun
Quote:
Originally Posted by same
Main Entry: tax
Function: noun
Usage: often attributive
Date: 14th century
1 a: a charge usually of money imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes b: a sum levied on members of an organization to defray expenses
2: a heavy demand
How about you call back when you can tell the difference between the two ? kthx.

Also, you just flunked PolSci 101.

Also, you just flunked PolSci 101.

"a charge imposed by authority", "submission to authority". I don't see the difference, please explain.

[Watchman]

..."blind submission to authority", thankyouverymuch. No grossly tendentious omissions when quoting please.

'Sides, you're going to get lorded over by somebody anyway. And while everyone has their tastes, I'd rather it were a basically benign elected regime than Tupac Army warlords à la Somalia...

[Mangudai]

May your masters be as kind as possible.

I'd rather be free.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Have I made it clear yet that the authoritarianism is on a scale? :inquisitive:

[CountArach]

7. Your praise of the Soviet Union reveals your true colors.
You really haven't read many of my posts have you? I think that the Soviet Union had many things that were good about it and many things that we can learn from. However, I believe that the complete absence of Democracy was inexcusable. That is not a reason to completely ignore everything they ever did though.

In case you haven't realized this yet. Taxation can only be established and maintained by force.
...because we choose to give the government this authority... nor does it degrade humanity... I truly don't understand what you are trying to say...

[Banquo's Ghost]

Gentlemen,

The temperature of this thread has reached a level suitable for boiling enough water for my morning tea.

Please calm down, cut out the bad language, and respect each other's views whilst tearing them a new one.

Thank you kindly

:bow:

[Hosakawa Tito]

That would be diplomacy: the art of telling someone to go to hell in such a way that they look forward to making the trip.:bow:

[Kralizec]

You really haven't read many of my posts have you? I think that the Soviet Union had many things that were good about it and many things that we can learn from. However, I believe that the complete absence of Democracy was inexcusable. That is not a reason to completely ignore everything they ever did though.

Such as what? That it was a somewhat egalitarian society, spreading misery equally across the vast majority of its population while rewarding the aparatchiks who labour to make it so?

By the mid '80ties the only part of the Soviet economy that wasn't mismanaged horroribly was the military industry. The USA and Soviets usually spent comparable amounts of recources on the military, but in the case of the USA this amounted to about 6 % of the GDP, for the Soviets almost 50%.

Of course, the Soviet union may not be technically marxist because the point was to make the economy subversive to democratic planning. The Soviet Union however shows quite well that command economies don't work; wich becomes even more obvious if you realize that it had a massive black market economy wich more and more people turned to.

[Mangudai]

So the main disagreement is whether authority is justified simply because it's democratic. I say it is not. Since 1870 African Americans have been full citizens with the right to vote. Nevertheless they were subject to unjust authority because the majority of voters were unjust. They did not submit to this authority "blindly", they submitted because they were forced to.

I'm not suggesting that anything in our current political debates is anywhere near that level of injustice. All I'm suggesting is that democracy can impose unjust authority.

[Mangudai]

Nothing established by violence and maintained by force, nothing that degrades humanity and is based on contempt for human personality, can endure.



...because we choose to give the government this authority... nor does it degrade humanity... I truly don't understand what you are trying to say...

There is no question about whether force is involved, it's simply a matter of whether force is legitimate.

A small number of people think riding a motorcycle without a helmet is part of their personality and dignity. A large number of people think riding a motorcycle without a helmet is a bad idea. "We" choose to give the government authority to force everyone to wear a helmet while riding a motorcycle. I say let me do things my way, so long as it doesn't affect somebody else.

Regarding taxes for social programs. If I'm required to pay for programs to support the truly unfortunate, that's OK, I won't complain. If I'm required to be a full participant in these programs, so that I must depend on the government for my retirement and my health care, I have a major problem. The former is all about helping people, the later is about control. In the US we have a program called social security which falls clearly in the latter catagory. Every year about 30 days worth of my wages are siphoned off into this ponzi scheme.

[CountArach]

Such as what? That it was a somewhat egalitarian society, spreading misery equally across the vast majority of its population while rewarding the aparatchiks who labour to make it so?
Such as its social welfare system and the affirmative action programs it had in place for women.

By the mid '80ties the only part of the Soviet economy that wasn't mismanaged horroribly was the military industry. The USA and Soviets usually spent comparable amounts of recources on the military, but in the case of the USA this amounted to about 6 % of the GDP, for the Soviets almost 50%.
And I don't like a command-control economy.

I say let me do things my way, so long as it doesn't affect somebody else.
I completely occur, but again - what is your point?

[Watchman]

It occurs to me Mangu's sounding a whole lot like he wants to have all those nice services a modern state brings - law and order, infrastructure, communal defense, all kinds of little things that improve everybody's quality of life etc. - without having to pay his part of the bill for it...

You freeloader, you. :stare:


In the US we have a program called social security which falls clearly in the latter catagory. Every year about 30 days worth of my wages are siphoned off into this ponzi scheme.And I hope you realize that what passes for social security in the US is regarded as a really bad joke over here, where that thing actually works and does its job...?

[Mangudai]

It occurs to me Mangu's sounding a whole lot like he wants to have all those nice services a modern state brings - law and order, infrastructure, communal defense, all kinds of little things that improve everybody's quality of life etc. - without having to pay his part of the bill for it...

What it occurs to you I sound like bears no relation to what I actually said.

My first point was that socialism is not targeted at relieving the worst human suffering, it is aimed at social control.
Two points that emerged in conversation were: 1. Taxation is authoritarian, and every program based on taxation is authoritarian. 2. Democracy does not necessarily confer legitimacy.

Watchman has not argued those points, he has created a straw man. I never pretended a society could function with zero authoritarianism. I did say that I was willing to pay taxes to relieve the worst human suffering. Socialism goes beyond the legitimate functions of the state.

[Husar]

So if you ride a motorcycle without a helmet and have an accident where you get head injuries, who is going to pay for your treatment? Well, you I guess and what if you cannot afford it? Well, maybe others, but they cannot afford to donate because they have to save money in case they have an accident or an illness themselves, so the medics don't even come until after they checked your credit status because otherwise they'd be wasting precious money because the government won't give them any and people do not give to charity because everybody is on her/his own.

Wow, that must be a splendid capitalist system and hey, nobody is affecting anybody else. :dizzy2:

[Mangudai]

So if you ride a motorcycle without a helmet and have an accident where you get head injuries, who is going to pay for your treatment? Well, you I guess and what if you cannot afford it? Well, maybe others, but they cannot afford to donate because they have to save money in case they have an accident or an illness themselves, so the medics don't even come until after they checked your credit status because otherwise they'd be wasting precious money because the government won't give them any and people do not give to charity because everybody is on her/his own.

Wow, that must be a splendid capitalist system and hey, nobody is affecting anybody else. :dizzy2:

another strawman

[Watchman]

Please define "socialism" for me. 'Cause I know for a fact - and from lenghty experience - the US Right is wont to use the term quite loosely and with rather poor grasp of its meanings and dimensions.

[CountArach]

Please define "socialism" for me. 'Cause I know for a fact - and from lenghty experience - the US Right is wont to use the term quite loosely and with rather poor grasp of its meanings and dimensions.
ZOMFG OBAMA = SOCIALIST!!!!1!1!1

[Husar]

another strawman

You mean it's not true that people die in some countries because they cannot pay for the treatment necessary to keep them alive?

[Mangudai]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist

[rory_20_uk]

You mean it's not true that people die in some countries because they cannot pay for the treatment necessary to keep them alive?

And? Everybody dies. Why waste masses of cash on futile causes?

~:smoking:

[Watchman]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SocialistThat wasn't much of an answer, seeing as how you patently failed to identify which particular brand of Socialism you're referring to.

Although, seeing as how here...

1. Taxation is authoritarian, and every program based on taxation is authoritarian....you pretty much just defined every state ever as 'authoritarian', and "authoritarian" out of any meaning and relevancy as a descriptor, I figure the point is really rather moot. "Socialism goes beyond the legitimate functions of the state" seems to get kind of meaningless on the side, given that you don't seem to regard taxation as a very legitimate activity in the first place.

...what are the "legitimate functions of the state" according to you, anyway...?

[Fragony]

...you pretty much just defined every state ever as 'authoritarian'

Nice trap but a state is naturally born from cultural identity and that's the only social contract there is.

[Watchman]

A state is born out of someone having a big stick and using it to beat everyone else around into submission. Thankfully, most realize right fast maintaining the achieved power status is much more effectively done by befriending your subjects than bullying them...

Seriously Frags, did you sleep through all your history lessons in school or something ?

[Lord Winter]

@Frag So your your saying a state is just a group of people who gather to talk about how great there culture is?

[Watchman]

I htink he's getting it confused with the rather ambiguous concept of "nation" there...

[Fragony]

A state is born out of someone having a big stick and using it to beat everyone else around into submission.

There would have to be a kind of choas before that for that to be, but there really never was any people always have organised, and out of what, not because they wanted a state but because of convenience. When it works it works and it worked for most western countries, and people tend to live near their family's, not so hard to understand where the nation state comes from.

[CountArach]

Nice trap but a state is naturally born from cultural identity and that's the only social contract there is.
Sorry Frag, but that's a nation-state.

[Watchman]

...not so hard to understand where the nation state comes from.Given how young form of a state it is, nonsense. For most of history your "nationality" has been utterly irrelevant to what "state" you live under, that being ultimately a question of who could stake a claim on the place you live in and enforce it. "Ultima Ratio Regnum", "Final Arbiter of Kings", was apparently once the rather succint motto of the French royal artillery, which rather well sums up the gist of it...

A state is formed out of someone bringing all the kinds of little communities people otherwise live in under the aegis of one leading entity. Both the exact details of that snowballing, those component communities, and the actor assuming the leadership/authority are rather cosmetic; as is the scale of the affair. The point is, the pattern is quite universal.

Merely as one example, much of the history of Europe since the fall of Rome is about diverse ambitious actors absorbing other communities, groups and whatever under their rule; and of such budding central states trying to impose their authority internally over any mind-boggling hodgepodge of uncooperative feudal barons, free cities, Church estates, ambitious pretenders, bandit kings etc. refusing to care much about their claimed sovereignty.

The modern "Westphalian" state is more or less the end product of that lenghty and convoluted developement - of the nominal sovereign state making the claim factual inside its dominions.

[Fragony]

For most of history your "nationality" has been utterly irrelevant to what "state" you live under

Oh? WW1? Serbia?

[Watchman]

For most of history your "nationality" has been utterly irrelevant to what "state" you live under

Oh? WW1? Serbia?Since when was "the period after WW1" synonymous with "most of history"...?
:inquisitive:
I'll grant you it explains rather a lot if your perspective's like that, though.

Just as a little reminder, the aftermath of WW1 was when the last "old skool" multi-ethnic empires in Europe - Hapsburg Austria-Hungary, the Ottoman Empire, Czarist Russia - went to pieces and were replaced by a bunch of cranky little nation-states that by and large hated each others' guts as well as the sundry large ethnic minorities that "sullied the purity" of the polity...

But conversely in let's say the 17th-century Swedish Empire around the Baltic it generally mattered preciously little as such what your ethno-linguistical background was.

[Mangudai]

In a nutshell the legitimate functions of the state are "to secure life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." In my view socialism tramples on liberty and the pursuit of happiness. We are drifting into abstract language here, and I doubt we can sort it out in this thread. Socialism comes in different flavors, suffice to say an example of democratic socialism gone too far is Britain circa 1975. An example problem is: Are taxi drivers allowed to charge any fare they choose, or should the prices be controlled by the government?




You mean it's not true that people die in some countries because they cannot pay for the treatment necessary to keep them alive?

In the underdeveloped part of the world people are dying at a tremendous rate because they lack medical care. That is why I accuse socialists in developed countries of being national socialists, more concerned with controlling their fellow citizens than of addressing the worst human suffering.

The US has a broken health care system by anyone's standard, but it is rare for someone to be refused life saving treatment. What is common in the US is bankruptcy due to medical bills after treatment.

I acknowledge that health care is an essential humanitarian service like education. There is a role for government to play and a role for personal responsibility. In between is a large complicated grey area. In my view basic access to health care is important enough to justify the use of force (i.e. taxes). But the government can go too far (Britain's NHS). Obama's plan promises to keep the private insurance and personal choice American's have now, and address the gaps of people who lack insurance. He explicitly promised not to adopt a plan like Canada's that denies people choices. If I understand correctly, the Canadian system has more personal choice/responsibility than most of the European plans.

[Mangudai]

Finnish law forces all workers to obey the national contracts that are drafted every few years for each profession and seniority level. The agreement becomes universally enforceable provided that more than 50% of the employees support it, in practice by being a member of a relevant trade union. The unionization rate is high (70%), especially in the middle class (AKAVA - 80%). A lack of a national agreement in an industry is considered an exception. More flexibility is generally recommended by economists for various reasons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finland#Politics_and_government


This is a clear example of socialism trampling on individual liberty.

[Watchman]

Are you also aware it's been a mutually beneficial and on the whole extremely popular arrangement for decades ? Although the employers' organisations have been quibbling lately...

[Husar]

And? Everybody dies. Why waste masses of cash on futile causes?

~:smoking:

Noone said they're futile, but yes, compassion is not a universal human trait so I may be preaching to the death metal band now and then. :shrug:

[rory_20_uk]

Erm, often I am the one saying is it futile and hence treatment will not be escalated.

~:smoking:

[Fragony]

Since when was "the period after WW1" synonymous with "most of history"...?
:inquisitive:

Missed that sorry, my bad. The nation state is a double edged sword, it was the driving force that pushed european nations upward, but a failed state is misery confined.

Sorry Frag, but that's a nation-state.

I know but I don't regard that to be a bad thing. Culture is music, literature, folklore, language, those are the ties that bind

[Watchman]

Europe got quite far without the nation-state you know. The Westphalian "centralised state" - as opposed to say feudal - seems to have "cut" it quite well enough, and without the ugly ethnic cleansings and "russification" programmes...

Also, it occurs to me most of the really big names of Classical music seem to have worked in the period before nationalism turned up.

[Fragony]

Europe got quite far without the nation-state you know. The Westphalian "centralised state" - as opposed to say feudal - seems to have "cut" it quite well enough, and without the ugly ethnic cleansings and "russification" programmes...

Let's look at it's succes before looking how it can be wrong, the strong (or valid) nations have developed into democracy's and democracy's tend to leave eachother alone can't deny that. Feudalism wan't that bad either there were more rules and rights then people think, hardly anarchy. The Nation-state is a good thing, it's balance pure and simple.

[Meneldil]

And? Everybody dies. Why waste masses of cash on futile causes?

~:smoking:

Why waste cash at all ? Let just regress to a stone age-like way of life. No more healthcare, no more government, no more tax. Awesome I say.


The Nation-state is a good thing, it's balance pure and simple.

Like it or not, the whole idea of Nation and Nation-state are responsible for most of sins of the 20th century. Neither fascism, nazism or communism would have existed without nations.

That's quite a shame, since the concept was firstly born from the enlightnement, but heh.

[Kralizec]

The fact that the Netherlands aren't part of Germany started out as a historical anomaly. Afterwards howerver, they grew apart. "Nations" can be seen as the byproduct of a previously existing state and historical trends.

Secondly, the idea of a "nation-state" is also firmly linked with the idea of self-determination.

Thirdly, ideas can't be responsible for deaths.

[Mangudai]

Are you also aware it's been a mutually beneficial and on the whole extremely popular arrangement for decades ? Although the employers' organisations have been quibbling lately...

You can see the people who benefit, you do not see the opportunity cost. We could get into the purely practical economic arguments, but I think there is a fundamental civil rights issue here.

When I was 19 years old I wanted to work as a carpenter in the construction industry over the summer between college terms. I called dozens of construction companies looking for a job. Needless to say, none of the union companies called me back. A few non-union companies considered me, but said it was too much hassle to hire somebody who is going to leave after 10 weeks. One guy agreed to hire me for $12/hour (about half the union wage) and no benefits. I took the job and it changed my life. The education of that job was worth more to me than a college semester. I've built on those skills and been involved in various related projects some for charity, some for money, some for friends, and some for myself. I don't work in construction now, but employers in other industries seem to be very impressed by that little gem on my resume.

Finnish law would have prevented me from having that opportunity, and nobody would even realize it.

[Mangudai]

Hey CountArach. I apologize for the meanness of some of my comments directed at you. My temper flared up and I was a lot harsher than I should have been.

[rory_20_uk]

Why waste cash at all ? Let just regress to a stone age-like way of life. No more healthcare, no more government, no more tax. Awesome I say.

Good use of "reducto ad absurdiam" Most people are happy with somewhere in between. For this, there needs to be assessment of where money is spent, and where it isn't - where most utility can be gained. In simple cases, that does boil down to decisions made by people such as myself.

~:smoking:

[Meneldil]

That's why most developed countries (with the exception of the US) offer a healthcare system ranging from decent to very effective.

As far as I know, "most people" don't have a problem with that, nor with having their tax money spent on helping others. I'd go as far as saying that most people actually appreciate public healthcare and don't really give a crap about what the gvt is doing with their tax (appart from the usual moaning).

The whole idea that the government is going to oppress you with money gathered from tax is so anglo-saxon :no:

[Mangudai]

For most of us, tax money = time at work. My total tax bill adds up to 2 1/2 months wages every year. There are a lot of things I'd rather do with that time than be at work. I don't mind my taxes being used to help unfortunate people. But, I object strongly to them being used for any unnecessary purpose. On a whole other level, I object to my taxes being spent on me individually as if I were incompetent, or my values irrelevant.

You know, the one thing I like about Karl Marx's vision, he imagined there would be no state and all the workers would have abundant leisure time.

[Watchman]

You can see the people who benefit, you do not see the opportunity cost. We could get into the purely practical economic arguments, but I think there is a fundamental civil rights issue here. Er... not really. Given that it's a tripartite agreement between trade unions (which people are free to be or not be members of), employers' unions (ditto) and the State (which is chiefly interested in being able to fine-tune monetary policy, which after all is connected to the price-wage creep which in turn the agreement is all about) that really just sorts out what degree of wage rise is mutually agreeable and economically sensible for the next year.

Not nearly as distruptive as the strikes the unions would otherwise use to drive their demands home, after all.

'Course, the institution may be getting a bit obsolete these days what with the economic structural changes and the waning of the power of many of the once mighty workers' unions. Did you know there was a time when the union of sailors and dockworkers could virtually dictate its terms on account of being able to bring foreign trade to a screeching halt with a strike ? That was decades ago.


When I was 19 years old...
*snip*
Finnish law would have prevented me from having that opportunity, and nobody would even realize it.Whoa, hold yer horses. Are you seriously trying to tell me Finnish law prevents short-term - say, "summer job" - employement in eg. construction ?
:laugh4:
Mangu my boy, you have absolutely no idea at all WTF you're on about. Serious. Case in point, only a few years ago my brother - who's a damn art student of all things - cheerfully worked on a construction site over the summer, all perfectly legal and whatnot. And never even considered union membership. Said the wages weren't half bad either IIRC. He's also worked in a grocery store, hotel etc. on more or less similarly short spells.

Dude. If you don't know what an icthyologist does... don't start going off about camels.



Let's look at it's succes before looking how it can be wrong, the strong (or valid) nations have developed into democracy's and democracy's tend to leave eachother alone can't deny that.I don't really see what that has to do with the "nation-state" (in the nation sense) as such, rather than the centralised sovereign state which over time evolved into a democratic form responsible and responsive to its citizenry - which it originally wasn't, having developed to extract and aggregate resources for the rulers' disposal as efficiently as possible.

Also worth noting that the "nation" component of the "nation-state" was perhaps at its strongest in derivations that were very distinctly not the least bit democratic or peaceable... think Fascism and in particular its German offshoot, which were all about "The Nation" however now defined. Those are also rather directly responsible for nationalism being a bit passé in Europe these days, at least, compared to what it used to be...

Feudalism wan't that bad either there were more rules and rights then people think, hardly anarchy.I daresay the constant warfare between the barons can be regarded as a certain degree of anarchy... but anyway, vous must be goddamn kidding me. Feudalism sucks :daisy:, especially in the long run as the former "serf states" of East and Central Europe can attest to. (Prussia/Germany apparently jumped off the serfdom bandwagon at the last possible moment.) The root problem of feudalism is that it's not so much a system as an ad hoc replacement to effective state authority, in the form of a genuinely sovereign central authority capable of directly managing, policing and defending the territory and populace it lays a formal claim to. It's not so much "rulership" as a lack thereof - and certainly states retaining a strong feudal strain to their structures (generally, in the form of a powerful and priviledged aristocracy strong enough to defend their hereditary rights from state attempts to dissolve them) were wont to have a rather more downtrodden peasant class, retarded economic structures and some serious problems competing directly with states wielding more effective and advanced models of adminstration.
Unless they had a major advantage in gross resources or something of course, like Russia did, but then that one's not exactly been an unconditional success story...

[Husar]

The fact that the Netherlands aren't part of Germany started out as a historical anomaly. Afterwards howerver, they grew apart. "Nations" can be seen as the byproduct of a previously existing state and historical trends.

Secondly, the idea of a "nation-state" is also firmly linked with the idea of self-determination.

Thirdly, ideas can't be responsible for deaths.

Well, the ultimate form of self-determination would be anarchy, wouldn't it?

[CountArach]

Well, the ultimate form of self-determination would be anarchy, wouldn't it?
:yes:

[Watchman]

After which it takes about three days for some wit to recruit a bunch of impressionable toughs, don a hockey mask, start calling himself Humongous, the Lord of Rock'n'Roll (http://www.inch.com/~william/humungus.html), and start the whole state-building thing all over again from square one.
:dizzy2:
"Go to jail. Go directly to jail. Do not pass Go."

[Husar]

After which it takes about three days for some wit to recruit a bunch of impressionable toughs, don a hockey mask, start calling himself Humongous, the Lord of Rock'n'Roll (http://www.inch.com/~william/humungus.html), and start the whole state-building thing all over again from square one.
:dizzy2:
"Go to jail. Go directly to jail. Do not pass Go."

As we all know that only works until the real american hero(tm) shows up and gives him a beating for the sake of self-determination.

The question is why would someone from Heerlen have a different government than someone from Aachen while someone from Moscow accepts the same government as someone from some small village in Siberia? Why always we vs them and not we + we + we + we vs them bacteria or something? :sweatdrop:

Please excuse my idealism but we got a lot of snow so I'm sure we will have world peace soon.