Org Mobile Site
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat:
2)
Actually that law was brought in in 1998. Other than that I don't disagree with much in the post. On the other hand I get what Furunculus is saying in that it is indicative of an approach to crime that just reeks of Authoritarianism.2)
Also illegal: causing a nuclear explosion.
Legislation was brought in after 9-11, to close loopholes that might prevent terror suspects from being prosecuted. 'Illegal to cause a nuclear explosion' - nothing wrong with that law. In fact, it is so bloody obvious that perhaps previous governmets forgot to mention it, leaving room for crafty lawyers to get terrorists of the hook, even when caught red-handed with a nuclear device on the London Underground.Originally Posted by CR:
Most political parties, especially those on the left, are authoritarian. The whole platform is based on forcing people to behave - they are told how they can go about business, how they should raise their children, what car they should drive, that they should recycle, what fair trade food they should buy, what insurance they must have, etc.
Well that depends on if your definition of Authoritarian extends to economic matters as well. Clearly yours does, and mine does not. Given that difference any arguing by either of us would just be banging our head against a wall.Most political parties, especially those on the left, are authoritarian. The whole platform is based on forcing people to behave - they are told how they can go about business, how they should raise their children, what car they should drive, that they should recycle, what fair trade food they should buy, what insurance they must have, etc.
Originally Posted by CountArach:
Well that depends on if your definition of Authoritarian extends to economic matters as well. Clearly yours does, and mine does not. Given that difference any arguing by either of us would just be banging our head against a wall.
Of course it does. Social conservatism is generally authoritarian, just as left-wing economics are authoritarian. You just support fiscal authoritarianism. That's fine, we allow different opinions here, but at least come out and admit it.Well that depends on if your definition of Authoritarian extends to economic matters as well. Clearly yours does, and mine does not. Given that difference any arguing by either of us would just be banging our head against a wall.
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars:
Of course it does. Social conservatism is generally authoritarian, just as left-wing economics are authoritarian. You just support fiscal authoritarianism. That's fine, we allow different opinions here, but at least come out and admit it.
Nope, I simply view Authoritarianism as a solely social descriptor. I would say that I support Collectivism, absolutely, but I don't see that as Authoritarian because it seeks to do away with perceived coercive institutions - as opposed to Authoritarianism, which I see as the active use and reinforcement of coercion.Of course it does. Social conservatism is generally authoritarian, just as left-wing economics are authoritarian. You just support fiscal authoritarianism. That's fine, we allow different opinions here, but at least come out and admit it.
I don't want to turn this into another my-system-is-better-than-your-system thread so I won't say more.
Originally Posted by CountArach:
Nope, I simply view Authoritarianism as a solely social descriptor. I would say that I support Collectivism, absolutely, but I don't see that as Authoritarian because it seeks to do away with perceived coercive institutions - as opposed to Authoritarianism, which I see as the active use and reinforcement of coercion.
I don't want to turn this into another my-system-is-better-than-your-system thread so I won't say more.
I agree with CountAnarch, and his points.Nope, I simply view Authoritarianism as a solely social descriptor. I would say that I support Collectivism, absolutely, but I don't see that as Authoritarian because it seeks to do away with perceived coercive institutions - as opposed to Authoritarianism, which I see as the active use and reinforcement of coercion.
I don't want to turn this into another my-system-is-better-than-your-system thread so I won't say more.
Read the definition of Libertarian Socialism, it is the most anti-authoritarian realistic system. How in anyway can it be considered Authoritarian.
On the otherhand, having a monarchy, that is an authoritarian aspect to a system.
Originally Posted by Beskar:
I agree with CountAnarch, and his points.
Read the definition of Libertarian Socialism, it is the most anti-authoritarian realistic system. How in anyway can it be considered Authoritarian.
On the otherhand, having a monarchy, that is an authoritarian aspect to a system.
i'm not aware of ever meeting anyone who'd subscibe to that particular ideology.I agree with CountAnarch, and his points.
Read the definition of Libertarian Socialism, it is the most anti-authoritarian realistic system. How in anyway can it be considered Authoritarian.
On the otherhand, having a monarchy, that is an authoritarian aspect to a system.
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit:
what car they should drive, that they should recycle, what fair trade food they should buy, what insurance they must have, etc.
I should be able to have the freedom from the negative externalities that those activities will create.what car they should drive, that they should recycle, what fair trade food they should buy, what insurance they must have, etc.
Did I include "how much pollution they should spew out"? No, I did not. 
I see no logical reason to exclude any aspect, especially work, from being possible authoritarianism, only the political reason allowing one to claim socialism isn't authoritarian.
CR
Originally Posted by :
Well that depends on if your definition of Authoritarian extends to economic matters as well. Clearly yours does, and mine does not.
How could it not? Authoritarianism is the government telling you what to do, or what not to do, in some aspect of your life.Well that depends on if your definition of Authoritarian extends to economic matters as well. Clearly yours does, and mine does not.
I see no logical reason to exclude any aspect, especially work, from being possible authoritarianism, only the political reason allowing one to claim socialism isn't authoritarian.
Originally Posted by :
Read the definition of Libertarian Socialism,
That's a stupid definition of libertarian.Read the definition of Libertarian Socialism,
CR
I consider my view completely valid because otherwise you are making the term Authoritarian so reductionist as to say that any Government that has ever existed and could conceivably ever exist is, in some way or another, Authoritarian. Just as I don't like people labelling Bush as a Fascist because it reduces the term Fascist to an epithet of everything that you hate whilst ignoring the actual definition of the word. If we label everything as Authoritarian then we forget what Authoritarianism is.
EDIT: Never mind.
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit:
That's a stupid definition of libertarian.
CR
Looks like that definition and your definition of "free market" have a lot in common then.That's a stupid definition of libertarian.
CR
Beskar.
Really, Beskar? My definition of the free market is shared by nobel-prize winning economists (Or more accurately, they expounded on it and I agree with it).
That definition of libertarian-socialism means libertarianism without natural human rights, like the right to property. Why not just call it 'decentralized socialism'?
Given the nature of Authoritarian governments, and the huge role the economy plays in a state, it seems natural and expected for an authoritarian government to have authority over the economy.
And it seems prevalent in left wing economic issues because both left wing economics and authoritarianism oppose individualism.
CR
That definition of libertarian-socialism means libertarianism without natural human rights, like the right to property. Why not just call it 'decentralized socialism'?
Originally Posted by :
I consider my view completely valid because otherwise you are making the term Authoritarian so reductionist as to say that any Government that has ever existed and could conceivably ever exist is, in some way or another, Authoritarian.
Perhaps that view was overly broad, but even a narrower view would include work place regulations as the possible purview of an authoritarian government. Even if you say a an authoritarian government is one more like the Wikipedia definition, that leaves open the possibility for economic authoritarianism.I consider my view completely valid because otherwise you are making the term Authoritarian so reductionist as to say that any Government that has ever existed and could conceivably ever exist is, in some way or another, Authoritarian.
Given the nature of Authoritarian governments, and the huge role the economy plays in a state, it seems natural and expected for an authoritarian government to have authority over the economy.
And it seems prevalent in left wing economic issues because both left wing economics and authoritarianism oppose individualism.
CR
“Like the right to property”:
Err, the right of property is not a natural human right.
This one is a cultural right (as nature oppose to culture), as nomad will not impose property right in the same meaning than sedentary…
If you want property as natural right you have to give property (of what by the way) to each newborn baby.
Err, the right of property is not a natural human right.
This one is a cultural right (as nature oppose to culture), as nomad will not impose property right in the same meaning than sedentary…
If you want property as natural right you have to give property (of what by the way) to each newborn baby.
true, but i think CR's point is that the right to own property is a accepted and expected right whose legitimacy is without question in the society we exist in.
the concept of the natural right is not the be all and end all of rights.
the concept of the natural right is not the be all and end all of rights.
You still have property and accomendation in that model and again, you can wallpaper it how you like, it. So it is not as if you are missing anything.
So the argument is redunant.
So the argument is redunant.
i'm not argueing that, merely trying to disentangle Brenus's knickers over the point about whether the right to property is a natural right or not, because i believe the importance of CR's statement was that owenership of property was a fundamental right (as defined by the society he lives in), regardless of whether it is natural or not.
If you talk about nature. Humans were quite normadic. They used to go around in packs, settling in an area, sharing the resources between them. Working together as a community...
Wait.. it is natural to be communist?
Wait.. it is natural to be communist?
Originally Posted by :
Wait.. it is natural to be communist?
Don't equate co-operation with collectivism. So the answer is plainly no.Wait.. it is natural to be communist?
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit:
Did I include "how much pollution they should spew out"? No, I did not.
Negative Externalities != Pollution Did I include "how much pollution they should spew out"? No, I did not.
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit:
Given the nature of Authoritarian governments, and the huge role the economy plays in a state, it seems natural and expected for an authoritarian government to have authority over the economy.
And it seems prevalent in left wing economic issues because both left wing economics and authoritarianism oppose individualism.
CR
I'm gonna dispute that since the most individualistic nation in the world looks to be Sweden... http://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/Given the nature of Authoritarian governments, and the huge role the economy plays in a state, it seems natural and expected for an authoritarian government to have authority over the economy.
And it seems prevalent in left wing economic issues because both left wing economics and authoritarianism oppose individualism.
CR
And here's a note on why Is the Swede Human?
Radical Individualism in the Land of Social Solidarity
in an effort to further the defence oriented election debate i give you a link to the BBC series empire of the seas, and episode 2 is now showing on iplayer:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/search/...of%20the%20sea
the army head is making the case for an expanded counter insurgency army (global guardian), so it seems fair to make the case for why the Royal Navy made and sustained the wealth and institutions we enjoy today, and how this might prompt a more navy oriented defence in future (strategic raiding). ;)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/search/...of%20the%20sea
the army head is making the case for an expanded counter insurgency army (global guardian), so it seems fair to make the case for why the Royal Navy made and sustained the wealth and institutions we enjoy today, and how this might prompt a more navy oriented defence in future (strategic raiding). ;)
Originally Posted by Ironside:
I'm gonna dispute that since the most individualistic nation in the world looks to be Sweden... http://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/
And here's a note on why Is the Swede Human?
Radical Individualism in the Land of Social Solidarity
Genius link. Thanks for that.I'm gonna dispute that since the most individualistic nation in the world looks to be Sweden... http://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/
And here's a note on why Is the Swede Human?
Radical Individualism in the Land of Social Solidarity
Originally Posted by Furunculus:
in an effort to further the defence oriented election debate i give you a link to the BBC series empire of the seas, and episode 2 is now showing on iplayer:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/search/...of%20the%20sea
Pity, the episodes don't play outside of the UK.in an effort to further the defence oriented election debate i give you a link to the BBC series empire of the seas, and episode 2 is now showing on iplayer:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/search/...of%20the%20sea
When a nation controls the seas, it controls trade, and consequently it's law and political ideology will favour open seas (See: Paul Kennedy).
The UK was neither the first nor the last country on top.
Assuming - and I know this is strictly hypothetical so please take no offense - but assuming that the UK is no longer the world's biggest power, ruling over an Empire on which the sun never sets, perhaps it is time to move on and re-invent means of generating British wealth.
(No need to worry, the UK has not fallen for the trap that crippled several previous top-dogs for centuries after their relative decline. The UK already re-invented itself, London already is the global financial and services hub.
Britain's position in the centre of international trade and institutions is where it's at, where Britain generates its wealth. No need to cripple the UK and its taxpayers to build a navy to fight last century's war. The Hong Kong firm has it's exports to all of Europe insured in London not because of some British guns pointed at him)
Originally Posted by Ironside:
I'm gonna dispute that since the most individualistic nation in the world looks to be Sweden... http://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/
Unless I have misread something, the idea of self-expression, as he defines it, does not seem very individualistic to me at all. He seems to define it as "diversity" and "tolerance", and raising children to be part of his multicultural idea, not as actual freedom or individualism. I'm gonna dispute that since the most individualistic nation in the world looks to be Sweden... http://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/
Nonetheless, that's only social. Once you factor in economic freedoms, Sweden shoots down the scale.
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat:
Pity, the episodes don't play outside of the UK.
Pity indeed! A significant portion of the 2nd episode was dedicated to explaining how, after we duffed up the Spanish, we duffed up the French even more! I feel this series should be shown to all Frenchman, just so they know we can always put them in their place if need be... Pity, the episodes don't play outside of the UK.
Haven't even gotton to Nelson and Trafalgar yet either...that's saved up for episode 3
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat:
Pity, the episodes don't play outside of the UK.
Assuming - and I know this is strictly hypothetical so please take no offense - but assuming that the UK is no longer the world's biggest power, ruling over an Empire on which the sun never sets, perhaps it is time to move on and re-invent means of generating British wealth.
(No need to worry, the UK has not fallen for the trap that crippled several previous top-dogs for centuries after their relative decline. The UK already re-invented itself, London already is the global financial and services hub.
Britain's position in the centre of international trade and institutions is where it's at, where Britain generates its wealth. No need to cripple the UK and its taxpayers to build a navy to fight last century's war. The Hong Kong firm has it's exports to all of Europe insured in London not because of some British guns pointed at him)
the first episode was pretty good, covering the birth of the royal navy, the second which i have not yet seen should be the really interesting episode as it covers the period when royal navy was a global force, and how it was necessary to bring about indusrtialisation and a professional civil-service in order to manage a global navy.Pity, the episodes don't play outside of the UK.
Assuming - and I know this is strictly hypothetical so please take no offense - but assuming that the UK is no longer the world's biggest power, ruling over an Empire on which the sun never sets, perhaps it is time to move on and re-invent means of generating British wealth.
(No need to worry, the UK has not fallen for the trap that crippled several previous top-dogs for centuries after their relative decline. The UK already re-invented itself, London already is the global financial and services hub.
Britain's position in the centre of international trade and institutions is where it's at, where Britain generates its wealth. No need to cripple the UK and its taxpayers to build a navy to fight last century's war. The Hong Kong firm has it's exports to all of Europe insured in London not because of some British guns pointed at him)
lol, i am well aware that the UK no longer has an empire and nor too is it a superpower by any stretch, but given that there is the beginnings of an election defence debate going on which is centering on which strategic capabilities the UK can afford to keep, i feel it necessary in the name of balance to stop the army hogging the debate by constantly pointing to afghanistan and saying; "Look, dirty men with beards and kalashnikovs, everywhere! We need more feet on the ground, think of our Tommies for the love of God!"
Under current funding Britain can only maintain Great Power* status via two means**:
Prolonged and theatre level army operations of high intensity - aka Global Guardian
Brief amphibious and expediationary warfare of high intensity - aka Strategic Raiding
Given that we remain and island nation, as well as a trading nation, only the latter of the two options makes sense.
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_power
** http://rusi.org/downloads/assets/FDR2.pdf
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat:
Labour did not at all raise the UK's public debt. (Until the current international crisis)
Public debt:
year - GDP - Public debt as %GDP:
1979 197.438 44.01
1990 560.887 27.40
1997 815.881 43.76
2008 1419.55 43.24
2009 1439 55.20
Thatcher lowered public debt. Major returned it to pre-Thatcher levels again. Labour kept Public debt at the same level until the current crisis.
2009 saw an explosion of public debt throughout the free world. Until that, Labour governed fiscally responsible.
For those seeking a lowering of public debt, the question is: Will Cameron be a Thatcher, or a Major? If he is Thatcher, he might be just what Britain needs. If little Eton brat David is not of the stature of Thatcher, no need to bother with him if fiscal responsibility is your cup of tea.
using your own link i see a different picture:Labour did not at all raise the UK's public debt. (Until the current international crisis)
Public debt:
year - GDP - Public debt as %GDP:
1979 197.438 44.01
1990 560.887 27.40
1997 815.881 43.76
2008 1419.55 43.24
2009 1439 55.20
Thatcher lowered public debt. Major returned it to pre-Thatcher levels again. Labour kept Public debt at the same level until the current crisis.
2009 saw an explosion of public debt throughout the free world. Until that, Labour governed fiscally responsible.
For those seeking a lowering of public debt, the question is: Will Cameron be a Thatcher, or a Major? If he is Thatcher, he might be just what Britain needs. If little Eton brat David is not of the stature of Thatcher, no need to bother with him if fiscal responsibility is your cup of tea.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/do...ent%20Of%20GDP
besides which, labours financial competance is already starkly obvious:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...&postcount=129
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars:
Unless I have misread something, the idea of self-expression, as he defines it, does not seem very individualistic to me at all. He seems to define it as "diversity" and "tolerance", and raising children to be part of his multicultural idea, not as actual freedom or individualism.
Nonetheless, that's only social. Once you factor in economic freedoms, Sweden shoots down the scale.
The abillity to be yourself and achive your induvidual goals without being forced to comprimise them for the greater good of the group? No laws, but massive social pressure isn't actual freedom or individualism either.Unless I have misread something, the idea of self-expression, as he defines it, does not seem very individualistic to me at all. He seems to define it as "diversity" and "tolerance", and raising children to be part of his multicultural idea, not as actual freedom or individualism.
Nonetheless, that's only social. Once you factor in economic freedoms, Sweden shoots down the scale.
We're nr 21 in economic freedom. Funny link in some cases.
I was thinking of calling that linking as pulling a Louis. Link that shows contradicting data to general perception.. I think you'll like this one as well.
Won't be pulling a case of calling Sweden the freest country in the world, but main point was that left-wing economics doesn't oppose individualism by default.
Originally Posted by Ironside:
The abillity to be yourself and achive your induvidual goals without being forced to comprimise them for the greater good of the group?
I don't think that it how he defined it. The abillity to be yourself and achive your induvidual goals without being forced to comprimise them for the greater good of the group?
Originally Posted by :
We're nr 21 in economic freedom.
I know.We're nr 21 in economic freedom.
Originally Posted by :
I was thinking of calling that linking as pulling a Louis. Link that shows contradicting data to general perception.. I think you'll like this one as well.
Louis didn't actually show data that was contrary to the general perception. In my opinion he abused the statistics to try and prove a point that was tenuous at best, once outside factors are taken into account. Whether he does it to get a reaction or to stimulate thought, or both, I don't know.I was thinking of calling that linking as pulling a Louis. Link that shows contradicting data to general perception.. I think you'll like this one as well.
Originally Posted by :
Won't be pulling a case of calling Sweden the freest country in the world, but main point was that left-wing economics doesn't oppose individualism by default.
No, it does not. I don't disagree with that. But left-wing economics does oppose individual freedom, at least in that one area, more than free market economics does. Everything is on a scale.Won't be pulling a case of calling Sweden the freest country in the world, but main point was that left-wing economics doesn't oppose individualism by default.
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars:
I don't think that it how he defined it.
No, but it's certainly a part of what individualism means. It can't possibly mean the opposite.I don't think that it how he defined it.
And Louis has been pulling that stuff before, part of his posting style. Not sure if he actually always agrees on what he posts when doing that.
Originally Posted by Ironside:
No, but it's certainly a part of what individualism means.
Indeed it is, but to use his data we must also use his definitions.No, but it's certainly a part of what individualism means.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO