Main Menu

The Political Thread

Started by The Legendary Shark, 09 April, 2010, 03:59:03 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

The Legendary Shark

Quote from: TordelBack on 02 March, 2017, 09:23:14 PM
Quote from: JayzusB.Christ on 02 March, 2017, 09:00:44 PM
Quote from: The Legendary Shark on 02 March, 2017, 05:14:58 PM
Actually...

Authoritarian. (Favouring or enforcing strict obedience to authority at the expense of personal freedom.)



Which personal freedoms exactly are denied by EU membership and will be restored by leaving?

Well if you're keen on polluting rivers, building on protected habitats, using hazardous chemicals without restriction, poducing substandard goods, abusing workers and dictating where your citizens can live and work, the EU can definitely cramp your style.

The personal freedoms to, for example, refuse to fund an EU army or contribute to the ruination of Cyprus, Ireland, Greece, Portugal and currently Italy and Spain. However, none of these personal freedoms will be restored by leaving as we're simply leaving an authoritarian superstate for an authoritarian state, which could just as easily force us to do anything and everything in just the same way.

The EU could protect the environment if it wanted but it doesn't want. Where I live, fraccing companies are moving back in - intent on carrying out a process that has already caused one local earth tremor and ruined large swathes of land in other countries, not to mention poisoning crops, livestock, aquafers, rivers and people. And where is the EU? Looking the other way, of course, too busy counting the big piles of money it extracts from the fossil fuel industries. So, who's protecting the environment? Not the EU, not DEFRA - it's ordinary local people, spending their own time and resources to do a job that we supposedly pay the EU and DEFRA to do for us. So yeah, it's lovely to think that the EU protects people and the environment but it just doesn't (it didn't prevent a recent widespread radiation leak, after all) - all it protects is its own position and revenue stream, and woe-betide anyone who threatens either.

The EU does not prevent the manufacture and sale of substandard goods - how many times have you purchased something like earphones or speakers that lasted only a few months? More than once, I'll wager. Nor does the EU prevent fake designer goods appearing on market stalls - you can find such stalls all over the place. When it comes to abusing workers, the EU hasn't stamped that out, either - nor has it eradicated such horrid practices as the ongoing sex-trafficking rings, some of which even include children. Just because the EU happens to pen a directive saying "making fake Gucci handbags is illegal" or "working your employees to death is illegal" or "sex-trafficking is illegal" or "manufacturing Teddy bears with razor blades in their eyes is illegal" or "spilling cyanide into rivers is illegal" means next to nothing. All of these activities could be prosecuted by police and courts without the permission of the EU. As for dictating where people can live and work, where was the EU with its Article 7 respect for my home when I was thrown out on the street? Where was it with it's respect for and right to my personal property while the council was throwing my stuff on the tip? Nowhere to be seen, that's where. But when I wanted to get a job driving, it was there with its hand out, demanding money for a series of five mandatory courses - and it didn't matter if I took the same course five times so long as the EU got its money. The EU's never there when you need it but, boy, is it quick off the mark when it needs you!

But what's the point of me saying any of this? I'm a libertarian and you're all statists. We will never see eye to eye on the fundaments of society:

Libertarians believe in freedom, statist believe in freedom of choice; libertarians believe in violence as a last resort in self defence, statists believe in violence (or at the very least tolerate it) as a matter of course; libertarians trust their fellow humans, statists distrust their fellow humans; libertarians believe in  exercising personal responsibility, statists believe in abdicating personal responsibility; libertarians believe in cooperation, statists believe in coercion; libertarians believe we should all stand together, statists believe we should all kneel together; libertarians believe in voluntarily following leaders who set good examples, statists believe in following the least bad leader from a small pre-selected group; libertarians believe all humans have equal rights, responsibilities and powers, statists believe that a small group of humans have more rights, responsibilities and powers than the majority; libertarians believe in free markets, statists believe in controlled markets; libertarians believe that which is not forbidden is allowed, statists believe that which is not allowed is forbidden; libertarians believe in voluntary participation, statists believe in mandatory participation; libertarians prefer trivium style education, statists prefer the Prussian method of education; libertarians believe in freedom of speech, statists balieve in politically correct speech; libertarians believe in the property rights of the individual, statists believe in the property rights of the state; libertarians believe the vast majority of people can be trusted, statists believe the vast majority of people cannot be trusted; libertarians believe government promotes brutality, statists believe government promotes peace; libertarians believe governments are barbaric, statists believe governments are civilised. In virtually every area, libertarians and statists are at odds. This is a shame, I think, as each perspective can learn from the other and neither perspective is perfect. There may be some lessons to be learned from each under current growing interest in the field of spiral dynamics which does, I think, offer both statists and libertarians hope for understanding, integration and growth. (I've only been looking at spiral dynamics (which is not an especially new idea but recently gaining wider attention) for a month or six weeks, and then not in any significant depth, but it is an intriguing idea with potential.)

Being the only (it seems) libertarian in a sea of statists is tiring but I don't intend to give it up because of that - nor is it my intention to convert anyone. Human beings should not be converted, they must convert themselves, or not, as they desire. Statism and libertarianism are very similar to religions, both are based on deep-seated beliefs and when one is questioned or derided it can feel like a personal attack. Rest assured, though, just because I regard statism in much the same way that Richard Dawkins regards creationism, that doesn't mean I regard statists themselves as stupid, evil or in any way inferior. When I oppose or attack statism, I am not opposing or attacking the person, integrity or intelligence of the statist - at least, I try my best not to.
[move]~~~^~~~~~~~[/move]




NapalmKev

I'm not a "statist". I analyse information and garner opinions from many walks of life, then I arrive at an (hopefully) informed opinion. Stats and Polls are useless, as has been evidenced to great degree - " Hilary is going to win" being a prime example!

Cheers
"Where once you fought to stop the trap from closing...Now you lay the bait!"

The Legendary Shark

Statism. A political system in which the state has substantial centralized control over social and economic affairs.

If you support statism you are a statist; if you don't, you're not. Simples.
[move]~~~^~~~~~~~[/move]




TordelBack

Quote from: The Legendary Shark on 04 March, 2017, 09:21:31 AM

The personal freedoms to, for example, refuse to fund an EU army or contribute to the ruination of Cyprus, Ireland, Greece, Portugal and currently Italy and Spain. However, none of these personal freedoms will be restored by leaving as we're simply leaving an authoritarian superstate for an authoritarian state, which could just as easily force us to do anything and everything in just the same way.

The EU could protect the environment if it wanted but it doesn't want. Where I live, fraccing companies are moving back in - intent on carrying out a process that has already caused one local earth tremor and ruined large swathes of land in other countries, not to mention poisoning crops, livestock, aquafers, rivers and people. And where is the EU? Looking the other way, of course, too busy counting the big piles of money it extracts from the fossil fuel industries. So, who's protecting the environment? Not the EU, not DEFRA - it's ordinary local people, spending their own time and resources to do a job that we supposedly pay the EU and DEFRA to do for us. So yeah, it's lovely to think that the EU protects people and the environment but it just doesn't (it didn't prevent a recent widespread radiation leak, after all) - all it protects is its own position and revenue stream, and woe-betide anyone who threatens either.

Obviously I don't believe environmental protections are remotely strong enough, if it was me calling the shots on the environment you'd know the real meaning of 'authoritarian', and you'd never have heard the word fracking outside of BSG, let alone been subjected to Cuadrilla's homemade quakes. But I can assure you - because I make my living, such as it is, from environmental compliance - that the EU imposes far more stringent and effective measures than either of our national governments have or would. Everyone who studies or works in the environment sector will tell you the same, while insisting it should be better. And it isn't the EU that's granting licences for fracking, that's your own central and local governments.

Your preferred model of commendable community opposition exists in parallel with environmental legislation, as it should, but as a replacement all you get is unfettered NIMBYism that often runs counter to sustainable planning. I prefer the argument 'no fracking at all, it's a shit solution' to 'no fracking near me, I don't like it', and there's more chance at arriving at that from an international perspective than a local one.

Anyway, as you say, you'll be at the mercy of your smaller (more) authoritarian outfit soon, so not to worry.

The Legendary Shark

How does the EU enforce environmental compliance? (Just wondering, I'm guessing it's through paid licenses and fines.)

QuoteAnd it isn't the EU that's granting licences for fracking, that's your own central and local governments.

Agreed - which means the EU is either unable or unwilling to intercede, which begs the question, what good is it in this case?

Quote...you'll be at the mercy of your smaller (more) authoritarian outfit soon...

We already are.
[move]~~~^~~~~~~~[/move]




NapalmKev

Quote from: The Legendary Shark on 04 March, 2017, 09:47:49 AM
Statism. A political system in which the state has substantial centralized control over social and economic affairs.



Apologies. When I first read your lengthy post I was under the impression you were talking about "Statistics" not "States".

Cheers
"Where once you fought to stop the trap from closing...Now you lay the bait!"

The Legendary Shark

63.5% of all statistics are made up on the spot! :-D
[move]~~~^~~~~~~~[/move]




Mikey

#12307
Not a fanny hair between the DUP and Sinn Fein then. The good news could be that no single  party can use the petition of concern to block socially progressive proposals, the bad news is there could be a third election if they don't manage to form an Executive. Still, good to see Alliance get some backing and there's still a Green Party presence no matter how small. Speaking of which...

Quote from: TordelBack on 04 March, 2017, 09:51:26 AM
Obviously I don't believe environmental protections are remotely strong enough, if it was me calling the shots on the environment you'd know the real meaning of 'authoritarian', and you'd never have heard the word fracking outside of BSG, let alone been subjected to Cuadrilla's homemade quakes. But I can assure you - because I make my living, such as it is, from environmental compliance - that the EU imposes far more stringent and effective measures than either of our national governments have or would. Everyone who studies or works in the environment sector will tell you the same, while insisting it should be better. And it isn't the EU that's granting licences for fracking, that's your own central and local governments.

*fistbump*
To tell the truth, you can all get screwed.

Goaty

What is the fucking wrong with Trump? His ranting tweets last two days was crazy!

IndigoPrime

He's a blowhard narcissist who for years has had very few people actually say "no" to him.

blackmocco

#12310
Quote from: Goaty on 05 March, 2017, 02:47:53 PM
What is the fucking wrong with Trump? His ranting tweets last two days was crazy!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

Essentially: "what I accuse you of being, I am."

For instance: "I'm being investigated by the intelligence agencies because I'm a lying sack of shit but Obama should be investigated because it's all his fault."

But more worrisome: "Projection tends to come to the fore in normal people at times of personal or political crisis but is more commonly found in the neurotic or psychotic in personalities functioning at a primitive level as in narcissistic personality disorder or borderline personality disorder."
"...and it was here in this blighted place, he learned to live again."

www.BLACKMOCCO.com
www.BLACKMOCCO.blogspot.com

Steve Green

Or in schoolyard terms...

He who smelt, dealt it.

Definitely Not Mister Pops

Whoever said the rhyme, did the crime!
You may quote me on that.

Hawkmumbler

I've a much more simpler explanation than that.

He's a narcissistic twat.

Modern Panther

Dead cat strategy.  Say something absurd and abusive to distract attention for the real issues.  Trump has read something on Breitbart, who were repeating something from a far right radio show, which will appeal to his core supporters whilst discrediting the security services.  Most importantly, it distracts attention from Jeff Sessions and contact with Russian officials.  If we look too long at that, we'll see a sorry tale of corruption and greed involving a $500 billion contract which couldn't continue as long as post-Crimea sanctions were in place.