And what do you base these totally unsubstantiated statements on?Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Printable View
And what do you base these totally unsubstantiated statements on?Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Unless Mr. P sends little green men the referendum will come to naught except might-have-beens.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
The figures for the referendum and the election? Or the belief that the majority of people will ultimately vote for the status quo, viz Europe?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ja'chyra
Well, aside from using my brain I read the BBC webpage and the papers where the figures were reported, and as to the EU - people generally vote for status quo vs economic uncertainty.
I really don't think that is the case.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
It is not an unreasonable argument to say that we should give more in taxation in order that government can do more good with it. But a party needs to put that in its manifesto, and the electorate needs to agree. Labours problem, as the party that would like to do more good, is that it hasn’t been able to win a mandate to tax us all some more. The message has always been we’ll take a little more from ‘other’ people, but not ‘you’. Continental consensual social democracies rest on the foundation of a greater collective responsibility which implicitly accepts state spending north of 40% of GDP. That does not exist here, and while its fine to hope otherwise, it seems a little strange to brand the rest of society as callous and immoral for not meeting ‘your’ values.
How much magic money can we invent, and do we get to magically un-invent the debt interest too? Debt interest is roughly £47b this year, up from £44b last year, and broadly the same every coming year we have a deficit north of 5%. That is much more than gets spent on defence (£35b), and more than spent on education (£44b), every single year. It is nearly half that amount spent on the great shiny shiny in labours sky; the NHS.
Bear in mind, this is how much we pay with historically low bond rates. What happens when the BoE is forced to raise rates with the return of inflation, and to halt the erosion of our savings culture? Or, when bond rates sky rocket when Greece finally gets squeezed out of the euro and the world panics over another euro meltdown? You thought that had gone away…
There was an excellent working paper from 2010 by the bank of international settlements looking at the debt trajectory of western nations. The Assumptions took into account the preelection debt reduction programme of all the main parties. Britain by 2040 was forecast to have a national debt of 400% of gdp, with debt interest repayment occupying over 25% of all government spending. This is explained by our declining demographic and technological advantages which gave our economy the breadth and depth to churn out ~3.5% growth year on year throughout the 20th century.
Then there is the small matter of Keynesian economics, recommending a surplus at the peak of the economic cycle, in order that the eventual downturn (with its impact on tax revenues), can be absorbed without massive service cuts of enormous deficit spending. But Gordon called the end of boom and bust, so no need to worry about the downturn, it was peak fun from here on in with the deficit sluice amped up to the Max. Oh wait…. We are far from being able to ignore the deficit!
Labour losing the vote of ordinary working people in Scotland and to UKIP is the reason why they lost the election, the polenta munching metropolitan master race with their hipster friends just can’t seem to connect. For that reason, much as I like MilliD, my money is on one Alan Johnson. Not to win 2020, but to stop the rot in the north.
Are Labour looking to sell something that a majority are not interested in, something that is perhaps now a niche interest? I’ll say this again: real parties seek to win on the common ground, they are interested in what is saleable, and they will promise to deliver it.
I appreciate that you may be a little bitter about this.
i don't remember people saying how unjust it was the labour won on 23% of the electorate back in 2005...Quote:
Originally Posted by Ja'chyra
The media has been full of articles bemoaning the tribal nature of the Tories, and how essentially decent people were being duped into supporting their evil agenda. The presumption is that I might be slightly misguided, tempted to vote for the Tories, yet in ignorance of their many failings. That isn’t even close, I am not a Tory. Rather, I am generically right wing and want limited government. What does that mean?
For me, it means spending less than 40% of GDP, and not flooding day to day life with a million regulations ‘guiding’ me down the approved path of life. As a negative-liberty kind of kind of guy (pace Isaiah Berlin), I see a greater threat to liberty from government through its two primary tools (tax and law), than I do from being free to starve in the desert. You may disagree, that is your privilege. Orthogonally to the question left/right question, I also believe in:
1. An activist foreign policy, with the military means and the public backing to conduct the messy jobs in international relations. Not just another aid power like japan, or a soft power like Germany, occasionally someone needs to do the dirty work required of a UNSC member.
2. Parliamentary sovereignty, and the sovereignty of parliament (not the same thing). There is no such thing as fundamental rights, there is no tablet of stone with the writ of humanity inscribed, there are only things that society deems important and that are best enacted and protected in parliament. Likewise, I wish to see Parliament free to enact law as it deems fit as representative of the (British) people, and so reject the transfer of fundamental sovereignty elsewhere.
These are not strictly right-wing or Tory, but they are ideas that are most closely held by the right. I want spending at less than 40% of GDP, with more than 2.0% spent on Defence, less than 1% tithed to the EU, and do whatever good can be most sensibly achieved with the rest. Which of course includes public services and social benefits. Oh, and I want a bonfire of law and regulation, starting with the absurdity expressed by the need to transport Tolley’s Tax Guide in a wheelbarrow, and likewise the restrictions on public conduct.
While we are on the subject of my callous disregard for the lamentations of the afflicted and dispossessed, it’s worth making the point that I see this as a question of compound interest… or compound growth to be precise. There is research to suggest that other factors withstanding (making cross comparison between nations essentially futile), the smaller a government is the faster it will grow. Again, this is economics so nothing is hard and fast (barely deserving the title of ‘science’ in fact), but rough figures suggest that between spending levels of 35% of GDP and 50% of GDP every five percentage point increase in spending reduces annual growth by point five percentage points. Year on year, every year thereafter. Other research suggest that the optimal size of government to maximise growth is around 40% of GDP for a large open economy. An advanced western economy, facing relative technological and demographic decline, should not be spending more than 40% of GDP lest it do serious damage to the long-term growth rate that will preserve the standard of living we enjoy for our children too:
What this boils down to is the assumption that within 20 years my government spending 37.5% of GDP (with an average growth of 2.75%) will be spending in absolute terms a very similar amount to your government spending 42.5% of GDP (with an average growth of 2.25). The difference is that in your scenario the next twenty years sees more spending, where in mine every single year beyond that point for the rest of time sees higher spending. That means more benefits, more services, more Defence, and more money left in peoples pockets. It isn’t just government revenue that benefits, it is everyone, and economic growth has done a better job of lifting billions out of poverty than every other measure combined. In short; choosing not to elevate the act of moralising over the act of being moral.
I know exactly what I want.
The real question is, why are rich people rich?
You will obviously say things like "Money", "Assets", "Stock Market" and "Tax Avoidance", but this misses the fundamental point, where do this Money and Assets come from?
These assets come from society. When you work and pay for that new tv, that car, that money is collected within that company, along with hundreds and thousands of other customers, pooled together, and just splashed out. This works all the way from retailers, banks, and media.
Average hard working people sees around 37.5 hours a week. This is generally 5 days of 8 hours, with those pitiful 'breaks' where you are stuck in a place far remote, having the luxury of not being paid to be there.
Through this, depending on the level of work, the average is £26,500 (skewed by those earning a lot more). This is what you expect anyone to be earning, there are a few higher, but a lot more earning less.
Some of those earning higher are arguably well deserving of that money, such a a consultant with over a decade of experience, constantly updating their skills, over 15 years in education, including teaching in it. People of a very high essential skill base start to peak out at £100,000, sometimes even £150,000 for those true specialists.
This is a lot compared to the average person, but without those skills, society would suffer greatly, so hopefully the argument that their wages are acceptable are easily shared.
Now, let's look at the wage of the average premier league football player. In 2011 (will be far higher now..), this was £22,353 per week, or £1.16 million per year (10 of those essential specialists!). What great boon does football provide for society? Football is a sport which is done for entertainment, it typically involves getting a crowd of around 70,000 of those earning £26,500~ to sit down to watch for 90 minutes, including those who watch from TV. For this, one of those many people on that pitch is earning £22,353 for that session. Whilst it might seem I am picking on football, this is something which the whole entertainment system suffers from greatly. There are other services like banking, high-flying corporate managers, etc.
Entertainment is stereotypically very overpriced sector, which overcharges the customer in the name of big profits. Whilst it does brings us some happiness, the costs are not proportional to the value it provides society. Leading to extravagant results for those at the top.
What people seem to miss out is that these services are essentially a redistribution of wealth from the poorest to the rich. We are in fact being 'taxed' by the Rich. Whilst it doesn't have the ominous name of 'taxation' applied to it, that is what it essentially boils down to, those at the bottom of society are being taxed. An apple for me, costs the same as an apple for Wayne Rooney, except where an apple actually costs me something of a %, he can afford to keep %%% in high interest savings accounts. So where I need to work those 37.5 hours a week just to afford all my needs, eating almost all my wage packet, Wayne Rooney can pay for all that with a weeks work, then he has 51weeks worth left just to swim in like Scrooge McDuck.
Now, as you might start to realise, I am in favour of progressive taxation. This means the poorest in our society are not taxed at all, and dare say it, in many circumstances they receive money to live instead being corpses laying in our streets, whilst those on the other side are taxed a lot. What is very interesting is when we get to these arguments is how those who are not even receiving the impact of these higher taxes voice outrage on behalf of their richer cousins who can afford in the media to demonise any fair taxation system. Shouldn't those with the broader shoulder carry the most weight for our society, especially those who got those broader shoulders through stealth taxation of our goods and services?
Now, before I get the charge of "more more taxes, always more!" that is not actually true as you saw hinted above. I do believe there should be 'negative taxation' in circumstances, but in general, a removal of a lot of taxation we face today, such as possibly VAT. The biggest issue facing this would be the current debt situation which means the fairer taxation and closing of loopholes would be implemented, correcting the debt problem, then having the taxation of the poorest being lifted (done in stages). I believe that government should earn surpluses, not only to provide for emergencies, but also for future generations, and countries like Norway are awesome examples where the government can provide for its people.
Whilst some people are tutting at things like NHS, Education, and many other services which for example cost us 1/10th compared to our free market American brethren, they seem to forget something very important:
Why is us paying 10% (compared to private sector/USA) for Healthcare bad, whilst paying 1000% of what currently pay for healthcare good?
Why is that these 'profits' the US system has, are fantastic, compared to the 'drain' of people on minimum wage being able to survive cancer?
So who wins with a private healthcare system?
Those with a higher standard of living who can afford to live very healthy lives, typically not needing to use services, or those working their socks out in downtown packed urban district, struggling to make ends meet, which would require greater health investment, and unable to afford it when it truly goes wrong.
Must be great having the money so you don't have the talk when you discover your eleven year old daughter called Lucy has leukemia and you are getting charged £200,000 for a course of chemo whilst earning £23,000 per year.
People who do demonise the public services such as the NHS really do live in a fantasy land where there is a 'Private good, Public bad' mantra contrary to the actual facts of the situation, completing ignoring the massive benefits it has on society, which means you, me, our families and friends.
Society should be judged on its poorest and average people, not those at the very top.
Cameron will never allow a referendum, no matter what he says on record.
He, personally, has no interest in breaking the UK away from the EU. Additionally, a YES vote on the question "should the UK exit Britain" would immediately result in another Scottish referendum to exit the Union and join the EU as a sovereign state, and it would be waaay morel likely to succeed.
While I love the idea of the UK devolving and/or dissolving, I suspect that Tory leadership is much more interested in clinging the last vestiges of an ancient imperial order. Sure, it's under the guise of "we're stronger together", but who cares? I'd take weakness.
Anyway, this election was a huge victory for UKIP. The entire purpose this round was to inflame sentiment against the electoral status quo. When you see 4 million voters - the third largest party in the UK by vote share, far and away - have almost 0 representation in government, it pegs a huge bullseye on FPTP and will encourage devolution of England within the UK. I was very happy with that outcome, because victory was defined apart from representative outcome.
Ah I was wondering how long it would be before the irish Americans would come along to impotently sing the songs of the long dead war.
I agree with both, let's turn Britain into a Dutch party island and move the UK to some corner of Australia.Quote:
Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg
While we're at it let's split Germany back into the fragments of the HRE and give hannover back to the Windsor family. You know now we've given up pretending to care about nation states sovereigntyBitter? Perhaps.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
I don't hate him for his economics or really for his politics, I hate him for Iraq.
I myself opposed labour based upon the trend of minority pandering censorship that ended with the Islamaphobia promise, seeing Blair come out and support miliband and not being shown the door did little to make me reconsider. I can imagine there were a lot of people who felt the same.
That's a straw herring. Noone was talking about splitting up the UK or taking away its sovereignty, it can keep all the sovereignty it has in its own corner of Australia.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
No, just no.Quote:
Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg
Cameron has committed, unconditionally, to a referendum. He has quite specifically poo-pooed the "no more powers" argument, and it's part of what swung the vote for him. If the Cons don't deliver a referendum they will be wiped out in 2020, and in fact if they DO deliver one and the UK splits from the EU, and Scotland splits for the UK, then they will be in an even better position.
Or, to put it another way, your argument is neither sufficiently idealistic or sufficiently cynical to be correct.
And Germany can keep its sovereignty in whatever tiny state is elected emperor each year.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
A state cannot be emperor, using American values, a corporation might become emperor, but states are not people even there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
The people who moan about london contolling the union would disagree.
The long and short is this; the UK is on its death bed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
If they remain a part of the EU, it is merely a puppet state, destined to lose all power to the central authority.
If they leave the EU, the Scots will break away, and after that it will only be a matter of time before the N Irish do the same.
The only way that Cameron can save the UK is to use their position of strength to devolve the EU itself and cripple the EU's hold over other nations. Further, Cameron can devolve-max England within the UK.
I believe that he will put the referendum off until he can extract massive concessions from Brussels, and that then he will use the new position to campaign AGAINST a vote to split. If he can't exact the concessions,y bet is no referendum at all.
Yes, Merkel will lead the EU to new glory, but Britain will only be that island with all the banks and not get 50% of the seats with 10% of the population as they are used to from their own election system.
Yeah, no. The northern irish won't leave (unless they were to go with scotland, they are too weak right now to stand on thier own and they wont rejoin ireland as long as the ex-IRA are still alive), and another Scottish referendum wont happen for at least another twenty years, what with it being "settled for a generation... perhaps for a lifetime" in they eyes of everyone outside the SNP.Quote:
Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg
As for falling into irrelevancy, people have been predicting we'd become that for every major event we've been in for the last half a century, we're still here.
But please, keep dreaming for the fall of a nation you have nothing to do with over the the misdeeds of people long dead against other people long dead, neither peoples you have ever met, if it helps you sleep at night.
http://i1.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/...55/782/20f.jpg
I can understand OOTers sharing the feeling over the glory of a team that they identify with. However, OOTers sharing in the gloating over the misfortunes of a team they have nothing to do with, is something I won't understand. If ICSD wants to support a second team, he should pick one and show his support for them. Instead of pointing his finger at someone he has no relationship with and gloating.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
Like many other worldwide popular entertainments, such sports as football, basketball, ice hockey have grown into huge enterprises for earning money (tickets, broadcasting rights, advertisement placing, journalists, commentators, T-shirts and other attributes of athletes...) and thus providing a substantial segment of people with work.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
Slave plantations also provided a lot of people with work...Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
Yeah, right, Schweinsteiger and Neuer work like slaves.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
They would be the prized Gladiator, whilst the majority would be in the slave pits. On the grander scale, their wages are in the top 1% (maybe even 0.1%).Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
Reductio ad absurdum and/or completely missed the point?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
My argument was that not everyone profits just because a lot of people have work and you name the examples of people who may actually profit too much from it compared to a lot of others who you previously used to justify the high prices of sports merchandise. That Schweinsteiger makes too much money does not help any of the children who have to produce the tricots for 10 cents an hour in some asian village so that some corporation can sell them for 80 bucks or whatever inflated price they cost.
I want to see every nation collapse into devolution. I'ts nothing to do with the UK - I love the various countries and wouldnt like to see their aggregate influence reducedQuote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
You just live under a monarchy. What is wrong with you? I'd like to see monarchies and the concept of nation states go away
My own nation is not exempt from this feeling. I'd like to see it devolve or break-up too.let people experiment with new ways of governing themselves and living their lives.
We live in an age of great centralization. It could just as easily be followed by dissolution. Start in the places of least resistance. That place today is the UK.People say it will happen until it happens. Then they say that it happened.
So you're in favour of imposing your ideals on other peoples and letting them deal with the consequences. Were you a neo-con last decade?Quote:
Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg
Reminds me of this.Quote:
Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg
The bold part is very explicitly the plan - Cameron is pro-Europe he's just not pro all the regulation. However, he has also said that he will allow a referendum regardless and if he can't exact de-centralisation from the EU he won't defend the status quo.Quote:
Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg
You may think you understand the UK but the fact is we have very little in common with you Americans. Americans are the people who left the oppression of Eureop so they could oppress other people even more in the "New World", slavery is a purely colonial thing that was illegal in the UK and most of Europe even before colonialism really got started.
An American friend of mine was over during the referendum, she said people were emailing her excitedly going "what's it like there right now" after it was a No - her response to them was "nobody here cares, maybe in London, but not here."
The only real concern in England regarding Scottish independence was where we would base our missile Subs. Even taking account of the oil reserves the fact is that Soctland is a net drag on the UK economy and the public purse, and now that they've decided to vote in one party across the board they've become a genuine political problem which might actually require amputation. Northern Ireland is in an even worse state, decades of Civil War have wrecked it's economy and it didn't produce anything of special value before, Wales was valuable but its mines are mostly tapped out and it, too, is a net drag.
Basically, all the money in the UK is made in England and most of the money in England is made in London.
Now, given that you want to see Europe fracture into hundreds of pieces that presumably means you want war (it's the inevitable result of the ensuring economic collapse) so what kind of war would you like, Nuclear or post-apocalyptic?
Stop it, we can have globally catastrophic war without nuclear apocalypse. Just you watch.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Regarding "a place to moor your missile subs" - spend the time attempting to break Shetland & the Orkney's away from Scotland. They aren't Scottish and don't support this brand of secession anyway. Just promise them greater devolution than the Scots will offer and keep all of your precious subs there.
People are the same everywhere. They may have different political opinions (or none) based on their environment, influences, or upbringing - but they are the same in general. We have an unbelievable amount of statists here and you have a ton of right-leaning anarchists over there. The vast majority of people have almost zero understanding of anything that is going on and can be swayed in any direction based on the skill of the arguer or the weight of their argument. It is just a balance and it will change this way and that over time. 80% of people are a malleable fluff conductor; heat this moment - cold the next. The rest of us like riling people up. That is what keeps the world interesting
So have you ever considered that you are part of that 80% and that your belief, that anarcho libertarianism is desirable, is also a result of your environment, influences, or upbringing?Quote:
Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg
I like that article, thanks. I am against the American Presidential system. As I've said, I believe in crippling most forms of central power.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
Of course that is possible, but it the most fun political perspective that I have held yet.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
Technically, I'm a constitutional minarchist. Sometimes I call myself a Libertorian (Libertarian/Victorian).
But I am a believer in secession. You have to start in the mind; first you break away from the laws of men in your thought, then set out to work on breaking the hold of other men over laws and power.
An effort to "cripple" central power would require ongoing collectivist efforts in creating an alternative political unit that is constantly suppressing opposing centralist efforts.
The irony is of course lost on libertarians.
I actually know people who remember a time before a strong central authority, and their own village/town used to be a regional power before said strong central authority took over. They've experienced the reality that libertarians dream about, and they have no fantasies about it. Despite their relatively greater political power back in the day, the strong central authority led to greater social connectivity, with central authority being a prerequisite for trade and business. American libertarians pretending to favour libertarianism in other countries are simply weakening others in the name of "ideals", so that they're in a relatively better position to lord it over them. It's pathetic, and it doesn't even come up front with its aims like old school imperialism.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
ICSD, if your'e truly in favour of libertarianism, perhaps you can observe the first rule of libertarianism. Mind your own business.
What you have described is what defines cancerous centralism.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
The irony is lost on you.
Mind your own business in law. It says nothing of how you should comport yourself in your personal life. I can rail against gays and Jews, Christians and puppies - but I cannot outlaw them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
You can be the Pope, the Businessman, Cage fighter, philosphical socialist - whatever you choose
Pompey and Caesar phoned - they want their fratricidal war back.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
There is one phrase in the Bible that you have to accept regardless of your confession - "there is no new thing under the sun".
The breakup of Yugoslavia is a lesson on what happens when people want political self-dtermination, and what happens when that triggers economic collapse.
Your business is none of mine. My business is none of yours. Our business is none of yours.Quote:
Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg
I'd have thought an American, of all people, would understand the principle that others should not presume to preach to them how they should think. That was why youse lot went over there in the first place, wasn't it?
:laugh4: You can't be serious... :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg
ICSD would be happy with that, as it promotes conditions for US hegemony, which is what he really wants (in the guise of libertarianism for others, in his prescribed form). Of course, libertarianism in a prescribed form is an oxymoron, but then that's not really what ICSD preaches. He just wants a certain form of libertarianism for others, so that they can be more easily exploited by his like.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
No, people left because of destructive legal policies that forced them to, in order to stay alive or in one piece.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Your business is my business. My business is your business. We are able and encouraged to voice our opinions and proselytize to our hearts content. The line comes at the point of force, compulsion. Have you really not gotten this?
Nobody is talking about invading the UK to force our ideas on you. I'm just sitting back with the popcorn and heckling the actors. You know what that's like.
Please, preach to me.
Perhaps you should learn more about Brits before you continue raffing on. We hate evangelists, of any colour.Quote:
Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg
man-up
Once again, to maintain libertarianism you would need extraordinary coercive power (i.e. "force") - and then you're clearly not libertarian at all, no?Quote:
The line comes at the point of force, compulsion.
I'm a strong believer is extraordinary coercive power. All of the dogs of war to defend oneself or those who need it to protect them from coercion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
What does this have to do with "British Election, peaceful revolution"?
My points were/are:
-This was an important election
-UKIP made a dent
-Scotland will vote in another referendum in the event that the UK has the opportunity to vote to secede from the EU
-Devolution for England is coming and could also prompt Scotland to Secede once financial benefits are cut
-Cameron is using the promise of referendum purely as a political tool to curry votes and will do anything to keep the football in play as long as possible. He wants the EU, and the best way to keep it is to not have a -referendum at all. He is exactly the same as Labour in that he has absolutely no intention of holding a referendum, merely using it as a weak threat against the EU (it won't pass, so it isn't a threat) and as a vote magnet for those who hate the EU to keep them from voting UKIP.
http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/...76/653/0d7.jpg
Quote:
Of course that is possible, but it the most fun political perspective that I have held yet.
Technically, I'm a constitutional minarchist. Sometimes I call myself a Libertorian (Libertarian/Victorian).
But I am a believer in secession. You have to start in the mind; first you break away from the laws of men in your thought, then set out to work on breaking the hold of other men over laws and power.
Fair enough.Quote:
man-up
I have a much better idea -
All men shall serve SPQR, we shall elect a new Augustus, we shall speak only Latin, we shall have a Pax Eterna and we shall all be free to trade, farm and make as much money as possible without having to worry about our political rights or having to make any political decisions.
I'm sold - who's with me?
All we have to do is conquer the entire world and force every government to submit.
That sounds terrible. The fight is what is best about life.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
https://41.media.tumblr.com/4fd04ccc...vujo1_1280.pngQuote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Proving that what you really want is a good war - and you claim we Brits are pining for the past.Quote:
Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg
http://rs2img.memecdn.com/logic-in-c..._c_4215613.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Yeah, I realize I'm just spamming at this point.
You know, it's surprisingly hard to find a good roman empire meme.
You think that war is "the past". nonsense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
I didn't necessarily mean "the fight" as war per se. That is a component of conflict, but not the only way to fight.
Funny you don't find your slave exmple reductio ad absurdum.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
My point is that any enterprise gives work to some people and at the same time inconveniences/disadvantages other people. While Beskar claimed that sports has no positive input whatever into the welfare of a country.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
It was meant to showcase a much broader point that just having work does not necessarily mean you benefit from it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
I wasn't even sure whether your point was one, that's why I said "and/or" and put a question mark behind the entire thing, but you are free to ignore that of course.
And my point was that sports is one of the prime examples of the rich exploiting everyone else. Even the players themselves are not good examples for rich people as many of them lack the education to hold on to their wealth for long after their retirement and get stripped of their wealth by hawkish people. So in the end they are often just exploited as well. Also consider that professional sportsmen often demand so much from their bodies that they get health problems in the medium or long term. The US NCAA does also not pay their players and pretends to pay them with education while it signs them up for fake classes where they hardly get educated.1 Meanwhile the league rakes in millions from advertising and merchandise etc. They get a few years of a good time and lots of promises and then often end up as poor as they began. Some also don't of course, but I'm also convinced that some of the money spent on all the sports stuff would advance our societies more if it were spent elsewhere. It's great that it makes people happy and it shouldn't be banned or abandoned, it's the way it is commercialized and the way people are exploited all around it that should be changed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
Whether it has an effect on the welfare of the country is debatable. If most of the wealth created ends up with rich people who invest it to drain even more wealth from the middle class then it probably just advances our wealthy elites.
1:Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Like I said: not neccessarily "you", but someone surely does. Sometimes the number of those "someone" is so great that whether "you" benefit doesn't matter (on the national scale).Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Any business that attracts so many consumers does it by default. So we might as well be indignant at the rich exploiting others by means of arms production, modern gadgets manufacture, chocolates or movie making... The list is pretty long, so there is no need to be especially hard on sports. It is the way modern world works and I don't see any prospects that it might be otherwise.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
I'm sure if you do that to sports those who invested the money into it will find other ways of "exploiting the others". This money will not find its way into your or my pockets.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
This is the way business is run: one can never stop making money and say "nuff'z'nuff". Business thrives as long as it expands and takes what profit it can wherever it sees it. To change it one's gotta change the whole philosophy of the society of consumption, which is again what isn't gonna happen in the foreseeable future.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
So how about we try to find a way to stop people from exploiting others and fix sports in the process?
I didn't know that I was especially hard on sports, I said it's a good example, but that doesn't mean it is the only example.
And the change isn't going to happen in the foreseeable future if everybody denies that it will happen and just gives up.
As Americans will surely tell you as well, change is brought about by those brave enough to attempt it against all the odds, it's the American way.
Starting exploiting others was starting the modern civilization as we know it today. To stop it one has to undo millenia of development. I don't think it is possible. And railing against it and demanding fair play is like crying foul that Norway doesn't get as much sunshine and warmth as California.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
100 years ago the idea Europe could peacefully coexist was considered impossible.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
200 years ago the idea Slaves would ever be treated equally in the US was unheard of.
1000 years ago the idea the common man could pick their leader and not just except the noble who held his land was unthinkable.
Things change - they change by railing against them and demanding change.
Exploitation exists much longer than the dates you mentioned. It is so deeply entrenched in minds, social instututions and business that if you start railing today the results will not be felt in the foreseeable future.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Moody
And as for people picking up their leader - this forum is most pessimistic about the picking up pointing that in fact there is no choice and all of them are the exploitators (or nominated by the exploitators to protect their interests). Only now they get elected rather than seize the power by force.
Anyway, the world without exploitation was attempted in Russia 100 years ago - the results were lamentable.
Or perhaps these changes are merely superficial...Quote:
Things change - they change by railing against them and demanding change.
On the other hand, that aspect of the attempt was superficial too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
And if you start even later than today, the results may never be seen. Your excuse is invalid.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
That's why people are still railing for change, the difference is that without the superficial changes we wouldn't have even tried. And a few of the changes did bring improvements, at least temporary ones or ones not related to the core issues.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
agreed on the minority greievance culture.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
but not bitter, no, quite elated in fact that we aren't headed in the direction of 40+ percent of GDp on spending.
As far as I understand, you have begun your struggle against exploitation for making the world just and fair. I'll watch your progress closely.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Yes, please cast skepticism about western European attempts at democratization and meritocracy. Because as we all know, the eastern Europeans that are massively migrating away from their countries simply want to enjoy some sunny weather in Britain.
So, you want to change climate as well? Good luck.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
Whilst Rhy attacked Mhairi Black harshly, calling her a clown, she has just made her maiden speech in Parliament.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...itics-33585087
I don't think it was bad at all. :shrug:
The Sottish accent is horrendous and they should be exterminated.
She needs to slow down when she talks.
"Anyway, the world without exploitation was attempted in Russia 100 years ago - the results were lamentable." When?
While I don't disagree with any of the points made. I do feel they're missing one important nuance about the US Presidential system. From the perspective of the patriots they were just democratizing the system they already lived under in the Colonial governments. Colonial provincial governments until the late 1840's operated much more like Tudor era English/British governments. That is the sovereign (or rather their deputy, the Governor) was supreme and only partially accountable to the local legislature. And the legislature was more of a consultative body. Denizens of the mother islands have little concept of Responsible Government something we dominion residents learn a lot about. If you're not interested in the link it's a top down imposition of the glorious revolution on colonial government. Starting in 1849 in the colonies that formed the nucleus of Canada.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
Don't judge us by Mhairi Black's fake put-on ned accent - she's from a middle-class family, her dad's an academic and she went to Glasgow University.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
Anyway, I finally made my TV debut:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nwsjJwPPvos
I wanna adopt that guy.
Having been defeated in the last referendum the SNP are considering holding another one, how European of them.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...itics-33668976
This bollocks is going to make Scotland a toxic country for investment, to say nothing of the repeated battering Scottish and British national identity is getting.
Would James Bond vote Tory or Labour?
Which James Bond?
If we're talking about James Bond as a character, then he almost-certainly wouldn't be voting at all. Though he serves his country to the utmost, he does not do so in the usual civilian capacities.
He could send in a postal vote. All he needs is a UK address and someone to forward the letters to him, and once he's filled in his details and sent them back, he can vote in all his local elections.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
Well let's break it down I guess:
Ian Flaming's Novelization version: Tory or Labour?
Sean Connery's version: ? (lol jk, we know it would be SNP)
Roger Moore's version: ?
Pierce Brosnan's version: ?
Daniel Craig's version: ?
That's beside the point, which is that he specifically functions as a non-existent citizen. That's his life, his sacrifice.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
To vote in a UK general election a person must be registered to vote and also:Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
. be 18 years of age or over on polling day
. be a British citizen, a qualifying Commonwealth citizen or a citizen of the Republic of Ireland
. not be subject to any legal incapacity to vote
Additionally, the following cannot vote in a UK general election:
. members of the House of Lords (although they can vote at elections to local authorities, devolved legislatures and the European Parliament)
. EU citizens resident in the UK (although they can vote at elections to local authorities, devolved legislatures and the European Parliament)
. anyone other than British, Irish and qualifying Commonwealth citizens
. convicted persons detained in pursuance of their sentences (though remand prisoners, unconvicted prisoners and civil prisoners can vote if they are on the electoral register)
. anyone found guilty within the previous five years of corrupt or illegal practices in connection with an election
http://www.electoralcommission.org.u...neral-election
Nothing there to disqualify Mr. Bond from voting in an election.
Apart from him being fictional, of course.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
I want to know how would Robin Hood vote, though. And especially Disney's fox version.
Pannonian I think he's referring to the idea that bond is a non-person, he's been wiped from every record by the Secret Service so legally he doesnt exist. So he wouldnt have citizenship.