“For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'. This government will conclusively turn the page on this failed approach.” -- David Cameron
true, but if you add the words TAX infront of the word law then those same words ring a much different perspective.
Though not the finest hour in word choice; The old idiomatic antithesis "The letter of the law versus the spirit of the law" is in effect what he probably meant.
So long as they (the Proles) continued to work and breed, their other activities were without importance. Left to themselves, like cattle turned loose upon the plains of Argentina, they had reverted to a style of life that appeared to be natural to them, a sort of ancestral pattern...Heavy physical work, the care of home and children, petty quarrels with neighbors, films, football, beer and above all, gambling filled up the horizon of their minds. To keep them in control was not difficult.
A few more policies like this and a No vote in the EU referendum by the UK and a Yes vote in Scotland and I can see another independence referendum happening before 2020 - which I personally think is too soon, even though I did vote Yes in the last one.
Scotland isn't really that left wing, I'm saying this from the perspective of someone who lives in Scotland (currently and for most of my life) and has lived in England and abroad. People here just like to pretend they're superior, you're no better or worse, frankly you're not even very different, you just have a chip on your shoulder.
Have you noticed a change in the air since the referendum? It seems to me that people are pretty sour about the outcome, it's the second time in a row that Scotland has voted almost unanimously against the Tories and still ended up with a Tory government.
I'm seeing even staunch anti-independence voters start to reconsider their positions.
My own view was that I was fairly happy with the status quo after the referendum and before the general election - but it turned out that keeping that wasn't an option.
The rUK has swung decisively to the right (e.g. UKIP 12%), the Conservatives have a majority on their own without the moderating influence of the Lib Dems - which is fine as we are a democracy but the people of Scotland clearly have wildly different views (SNP 50%, UKIP 1.6%).
Then of course there is the prospect of BoJo as PM - which I think would pretty much guarantee a rapid dissolution of the UK.
For those who don't know what we're talking about: this map of the recent UK election results should illustrate the huge divide between Scotland and England:
I don't think that's really fair — that makes it look like Scotland almost unanimously voted SNP, which they didn't. While yes, the SNP got 50% of the vote, that's far from the 94% of constituencies they won. Similarly, it also overstates the Tories' success in England — actually only 41% of the vote. (And it doesn't look like Labour has anywhere near the same number of seats that the Tories do, even though they're only a hundred off, out of 650.)
Being disenfranchised with Westminster is far from a Scottish phenomenon: the SNP's success one can easily argue comes in significant part from the fact they've managed to position themselves as a viable winner in a large number of constituencies, not least through leading the Scottish Government since 2007, as a large proportion of voters end up voting for one of the two largest parties in their constituency given a single-winner system. Convincing the electorate a vote for your minor party isn't a wasted vote is a major part of the challenge of making a small party a real challenge in a large number of constituencies.
You might be able to show that but not with these election results - is Edinburgh a different culture to the rest of Scotland (well it is, but not any more than Glasgow is different to Aberdeen), is Orkney & Shetland a different culture (same thing applies)? Bradford and Bridlington [2 conurbations in the region of Yorkshire in the UK] are probably more culturally diverse than most random pairs of Scottish and rUK places.
>but the people of Scotland clearly have wildly different views //
Really? Having lived in Scotland, Wales and England this doesn't seem to be true.
The swing to the right I think is in part due to apparent immigration pressures and in part [much more speculatively] a selfish response to poverty (someone has to be poor make sure it's someone else and not me).
Scotland doesn't have the same immigration issues as other parts of the UK as far as I can tell in this [1] map you can see the areas with major cities are clearly home to more migrants - Glasgow, Edinburgh and I'm guessing that's Dundee and Perth and Aberdeen [which might be skewed by oil workers?]. Same in England and Wales except that some areas have seen a huge increase in migrant populations [2] indeed in 2012 the migrant population in Scotland was ~7% vs ~13% in the rest of the UK [3].
[Note I'm trusting the stats here, please provide corrections if they seem wrong.]
Personally I don't think that Scotland will react more gracefully with similar immigration patterns. Indeed if Scotland secedes from the UK and is successful in gaining entry to the EU then they will be outside the Schengen Area [4, it's been agreed that all new applicants will be accepted as outside the Schengen Area]. That would mean Scotland would likely get a big increase in immigrants too and I suspect the response would be similar.
>Then of course there is the prospect of BoJo as PM - which I think would pretty much guarantee a rapid dissolution of the UK. //
So there's not much difference between BoJo and SNP then? /s
So why have 50% of Scots voted for a political party with notably different policies to UK-wide parties? Presumably if we thought the same way as everyone in the UL (excluding NI) we'd have picked Labour or Conservative like the good old days?
Did anyone else in the UK have SNP on their ballots?
So, you can't use "voted SNP" to prove your point. SNP policies seem largely coterminous with the underlying politics of a mix of other parties? I'd be interested in a refutal of that if you have one.
Indeed there was a joke around the time of the election that many in England would have voted for Sturgeon if they could have; it seemed grounded in some reality, as most jokes are.
Suppose that most people voted selfishly this time around, whatever would net them the most cash at the end of the day. SNP worked for Scotland, Tory worked for England. The whole of the UK could just be equally selfish and not care a hoot about anything other than the cash in their pocket. This perhaps isn't the case but I think it helps to demonstrate that different voting doesn't necessarily bely a cultural schism.
London always votes against the Tories and we have still ended up with a Tory government. Are you suggesting that London should declare independence from England?
Well, it would be funny, especially if you did it at the same time. Could become a sort of Singapore style city-state. Perhaps then have an English parliament back in York. Though Liz might then abdicate, though confusingly except for viewers in Scotland, and go live in Balmoral.
No, the vote makes perfect sense: Scotland wants political autonomy hence voting SNP in this election, but would like to keep the English money tap flowing, hence voting to stay in the UK in the referendum. It remains to be seen how long this will be possible. Certainly if it were up to the English taxpayer-voter, Scotland would be fiscally autonomous faster than you can toss a caber.
So if there are so many people in England keen to see Scotland go, and I know that there are a lot of people who feel that way, why was so much effort put into the effort by UK organisations to keep Scotland in the Union?
The rUK never had a say in it - this point is kinda where things are right now. As of 2011 census the population of Yorkshire, as an example, was just marginally higher than the population of Scotland. Except Scottish people get more money from the treasury and their MPs got to vote on what happens in Yorkshire, the converse largely not being true. It wasn't until the referendum that this situation got the spotlight.
Nonetheless I think in general, as a UK citizen myself, that the British (ie UK citizens, the nomenclature gets convoluted!) consider the Union to be central to UK strength as a nation in terms of society and business and much else (education, sport, language, identity, history, position on the world stage, defence, ...).
Dissent grows though - once the Pandora's Box of the West Lothian Question had been opened and it started to sink in, and we saw that many in Scotland wanted to ditch the rest of the UK and make a run with what they perceived to be vital resources, that I feel rather unsettled people. Why shouldn't the rUK have voted at the same time whether to kick Scotland out of the Union too - that would have only been fair.
Her Majesties government certainly made efforts to retain Scotland in the Union, that could well be key.
"education, sport, language, identity, history, position on the world stage, defence, ..."
I can see that there is an impact in defence - Trident is based here and the Scots have always been over-represented in the UK military. The rest just sound like potentially damaged pride to me...
Can you expand on that - you mean that people who're proud to be British feel that they've been stabbed in the back to some extent? I don't see how that helps the Unionist position??
"consider the Union to be central to UK strength as a nation"
Really? Scotland is a small and relatively unimportant part of the UK. What possible direct impact could our gaining independence have on the rUK apart from damaged pride in that whoever is PM at the time would get made fun of at the next G8 summit for losing part of his/her country?
It's unimportant like your eyes are unimportant because they're small. Or like only one of your family dying is unimportant because there are several family members.
I'm British and have lived part of my life in Scotland, I don't consider it another country, it's part of our country and my relatives who live there are the same nationality as me.
It's a visceral, and probably illogical, thing to a certain extent - like feeling attached more to family members than to other people.
Also Scotland ain't that small, it's population is that of Yorkshire, it's geographic size is pretty big as a proportion of the UK (~1/3 I think).
Very much so. It would be another bit of the Empire leaving, and a refutation of the idea of the UK as the greatest country in the world.
There's also a weird strain of Protestant Unionism that is stuck in the 18th century but seems just below the surface (and on the surface when the Orange Order are marching)
There will be no No vote in the UK, it is a useful cudgel with which to beat back some rather overbearing legislation out of Brussels and the best option available at the moment is to get a few concessions and then have a fast vote.
OTOH, the Scots really should be careful. At the rate they are going the next time there is a vote we will open it up to all voters and the rest of us will get to decide if we want to kick out Scotland. For now the beat-down SNP gave Labour will make it much easier for us to claw back some of those West Lothian subsidies in bits and pieces.
So, do people really think they are contributing by putting this (somewhat out of context) quote everywhere the UK government is mentioned during the last week? I am honestly curious.
Well it is not totally unrelated, and I think it bears repeating, due to shear audaciousness, if nothing else.
It would be the equivalent of Obama publicly stating on TV that Americans have been "getting a bit too uppity with the free speech" and "we are about to change all that!"
IMO, yes. Taking it out of context is great because it shows the true horror of that kind of thinking. Nearly all oppression starts with some lovely quote about catching the terrorists or protecting the children. You need to take that context away to see the idea the way it really is.
Maybe I am thick, or maybe it's just that I haven't finished my coffee yet. Please tell me what context that I am missing that makes Cameron's quote acceptable.
The article identifies: "The need to tackle radicalism in Britain has been underlined by the flow of hundreds of Britons to join Islamic State militants in Iraq and Syria - most notably Kuwaiti-born Londoner Mohammed Emwazi, who has appeared in videos showing the beheading of Western hostages." [reuters article linked above]
So... What Cameron is saying is that... too long have we been passively tolerant of people who are actively seeking to kidnap, shoot, and bomb us, just because they haven't broken the law. We need to reject that approach, be more careful and watch out. He is not advocating for an overbearing state as a social model in and of itself.
Myself, I think that quotes like this are the empty calories of politics, like Hilary's "what difference does it make" (which was about prioritizing embassy safety over discovering the perpetrators of the incident in the ultra short term) or Bush's "is our children learning" (which, if you haven't watched the video for that, was an awkward rendition of "that question is: are children learning?")
DISCLAIMER. (UN)DESIRABILITY OF AND ACTUAL IMPLICATIONS OF ANY POLICIES ARE LEFT AS AN EXERCISE TO THE READER.
Well here is my context. The UK gov't, and other governments around the world have clearly demonstrated incompetence WRT their ability to tell dangerous individuals from harmless ones[1], to act appropriately in dealing with suspects, and to acknowledge mistakes when they happen. Those are the kinds of problems that need sorting out before even considering whether to give the gov't more and broader powers with which they will most certainly do more harm, and then fail to acknowledge their inevitable mistakes, and then fail to correct the mistakes when forced to acknowledge them.
>He is not advocating for an overbearing state as a social model in and of itself.
The UK gov't, and other governments around the world have clearly demonstrated incompetence WRT their ability to tell dangerous individuals from harmless ones
There's also the position that they (the government) are somehow uniquely positioned to be able to do this better than anyone else, and yet keep failing at it.
>passively tolerant of people who are actively seeking to kidnap, shoot, and bomb us, just because they haven't broken the law.
WTF? This statement doesn't have a modicum of sense in it. Seeking to kidnap or murder in the context of terrorism[1] is an inchoate offence[0] that is definitely against the law in UK.
I am at total loss why would you defend Cameron on that. I am not from UK and I've been able to find relevant statutes and laws in 5 minutes. I am really interested, can you elaborate?
Relevant precedent[1]:
R v Barot [2008] 1 Cr. App. R. (S.) 31.
Conspiracy to murder. Appellant trained as a terrorist and proposed terrorist attacks in America and Britain. One attack contemplated in Britain was to fill three limousines with gas cylinders and explosives and detonate them in an underground car park with the expectation of causing hundreds of casualties. Guilty plea. A life sentence with a minimum term of 40 years should, save in quite exceptional circumstances, represent the maximum for a terrorist who set out to achieve mass murder but caused no physical harm. Minimum term reduced to 30 years.
Why would I defend him on the quote? To repeat and expand, soundbite quotes like this are the empty calories of politics -- incredibly delicious and good for getting you a quick jolt of energy!!! but ultimately not good for the overall health of critical thinking in the electorate at large, or even in your own brain, a shallow exercise in confirmation bias. I feel one should be particularly careful about this, especially where your own political enemies (or policies you don't like) are involved.
So skip the soundbites and the Two Minutes' Hate, as a rule; surely there's plenty to indict him with otherwise.
Soundbites are so prevalent precisely because they work. The other authoritarian side will be using them and many other methods of propaganda. I agree that in every individual case it is preferable to have a reasonable discussion, but that usually not possible. Not using soundbites like that is like bringing knife to a gunfight.
As long as soundbite as a talking point/ persuasion vessel doesn't misrepresent wider context of the statement(in this case it doesn't), I think it's fine to use them.
Cameron's government is expanding the definition of extremist to include 'non-violent extremists', which is people who disagree with the vague 'British values' or are opposed to the current democratic system. So it is very clearly and explicitly not just about people who support ISIS violence, although of course that is what the government wants people to think.
Which is why there is every reason to assume that when he says this, what he means is like to be more along the lines "people whom we say, or think, are seeking to kidnap, shoot, and bomb us, but where we're unable to find any evidence that they are actually conspiring or inciting others to commit crimes".
Except that there are already laws against planning to do those things. What this is is a move towards non-evidence-based police harassment of certain groups. If there were evidence, it could be used to secure convictions. For an illustration of how police harrasment of minorities works out, see whichever US city has an anti-police riot going at the moment.
(In particular, I think this is about using intercept material to target people without letting it anywhere near a court.)
And the very situation that has allowed the growth of things like the Islamic State demonstrates the failure of the kind of authoritarian approach that Cameron seems to crave:
A less tolerant government has never historically lead to a more tolerant populace other than in the very short term.
It sets a undesirable precedent. It was only a few years ago that the word terrorist was being used, now it's extremist. It may seem like nothing at first glance but it's a pretty worrying shift. A terrorist though already quite vague is a much less vague term than extremist. Extremist can mean anything to anybody. Where will we be in another 10-15 years?
Yeah, Cameron was talking about how they have (in the UK) groups who openly* support ISIS and terrorism, and who are known to have contact with terrorists, but the UK gov't heretofore can't do anything about because they can't prove they've broken any laws.
Yes, that's why he's challenging how the rule of law works. Otherwise people wouldn't be so obsessed with this quote. Surely when it comes to a topic like this, you could come up with some reasons why a change to the status quo is bad other than "that's not how we do it now"?
Indeed and in this case the laws get flaugnted, the laws that protect free speech and human rights being abused.
Interestingly in the Boston area churches etc openly collected money for the IRA upto 9/11 and then perspective of what there money was supporting was clear.
But with ISIS, I do not think anybody can be in doubt about what any money for them is supporting.
Still laws be them TAX laws, have loop-holes and they get abused, not by the common people who they were done to protect but by those without ethics.
Unfortunately that solves nothing. Banning something has never done anything but push it underground. It's the equivalent of taking pain killers to cure cancer.
The biggest problem we face in Western society is the proliferation of extremist conservative agendas in the halls of power. The only way to solve all the issues we face with extremism whether it be in the guise of Western conservatism, Islamism, Neo-Liberalism or anything other toxic ideology is to focus on tolerance and education. Western foreign policy (colonialism) over the past centuries has created the situation we find ourselves in. When you create the conditions for cancer to prosper then you have to deal with the consequences. Instead of altering our policies we double up on them and then wonder why people hate us. We create conditions where people have nothing to lose (for example Iraq/Syria) and their only options are to fall back into impulsive/conformist organizational structures because that gives them some sort of security and purpose. Too many people have been ostracized by the contemporary world and we do nothing to help them, instead our political policy is to kick them while they are down.
In my mind what David Cameron represents is as toxic as what ISIS represent however since it affects me much more in my daily life I would say it is a far greater danger to my way of life than ISIS will ever be.
Banning something has never done anything but push it underground.
True, but that's not always a bad thing. Some things that are pushed underground happen a lot less. Murder, for example, is banned. Instances of it are (often) vigorously investigated, and the perpetrators dealt with (to varying degrees of effectiveness). I suspect that if murder was not banned, it would happen a lot more.
You're right but I'd wager that the more educated and therefore better equipped someone is to express themselves in non-violent forms of communication the less likely they are to commit murder. It's also no coincidence that murder is a more prevalent crime in poorer societies. If people have better opportunities and something to lose they are much less likely to throw it all away in a fit of rage. They are even less likely to enter into a fit of rage in the first place as they will be more contented in life.
>The details are still not clear and won't get much clearer until the Queen's Speech – or probably afterwards. But we do know three things: 1) that the definition of an extremist is being expanded 2) that the process for how someone is officially designated as an extremist is shrouded in mystery, and 3) that the list of restrictions which applies to them once they have been designated an extremist is now extremely broad and intrusive.
>What is an extremist?
>Towards the end of the last parliament, Theresa May started expanding the definition of extremist to include 'non-violent extremism'. Those who spread or incite hatred on the basis of gender, race or religion were included, as were those who undertook harmful activities "for the purpose of overthrowing democracy". Groups which sought to "undermine democracy" or "use hate speech in public places" were also included.
>This morning the Home Office sent me this statement, which is similar but different. "The government defines extremism as 'the vocal or active opposition to fundamental British values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and the mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs'. We also regard calls for the death of members of our armed forces as extremist.”
>How are we designated extremists?
>Extremists will find themselves on the national extremism database. This database is shrouded in secrecy. We know it is managed by the Met police, and there is no judicial oversight over who is put on there. We know the security agencies are very secretive about who is on it and what is held about them. There was a long battle between Big Brother Watch, the Met and the Information Commissioner's Office over simply releasing details about how many people were on the database and what information about them was held.
>What we do know is that it includes people who no rational person would consider an extremist. One Green councillor who organised a public meeting about the transportation of animals from Calais to Dover is understood to be on it. Jenny Jones, the green peer, is understood to be on it.
>What happens when you’re considered an extremist?
>The proposals going into the Queen's Speech next month will be very broad. Police will be able to apply to the high court to limit the "harmful activities" of extremists. These "harmful activities" include anything with a risk of public disorder, a risk of harassment, alarm or distress, or creating a "threat to the functioning of democracy".
>In response, the high court can grant a ban on broadcasting or a requirement for the so-called extremist to submit all publications for the web, social media or print to the police in advance for authorisation.
The government defines extremism as 'the vocal or active opposition to fundamental British values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and the mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs'.
then surely
For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'.
"Just look at what these loonies are doing! We can't have people openly supporting the slaughter of innocent people and baby seals.
They are undermining the values we hold dear, and corrupting the youth with their hateful message! Obviously, we need to place certain limits on free speech"
What? Of course you have the right to free speech, as long as you don't misuse it!
There is no right to free speech in the UK. You can go to prison for a racist tweet, for example, which is a whole lot less reasonable than putting a great deal of scrutiny on people who go on the TV news and talk about how they want to become terrorists (e.g. http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2455xy_bbc-interviews-isis...http://www.cnn.com/videos/world/2014/08/26/ctw-dnt-paton-wal... ). Which is absolutely ridiculous and would never be tolerated in the US, the only country in which there's anything approaching an absolute right to free speech.
Still, the quote from David Cameron almost suggest an extra-legal approach, and definitely insinuates increased spying on it's own citizens. The whole "terrorists propaganda" issue could be dealt with by introducing new laws, as things should go in a rule-of-law, perhaps one which classifies certain groups as hate-groups and bans the promotion of their ideals, I believe similar laws exist in many places in Europe.
There is the ECHR Article 1 right to free speech. It has qualifications on it which are different from the US ones, but in both countries it's not absolute. It's not correct to say there is no right to free speech.
Rights don't work in degrees though. For example, no one has a sort of right to control his own property as he sees fit.
It's also worth noting that governments don't give us our rights - they're inherent in our nature as human beings.
When a government declares that its citizens have the right to free speech, they mean it with the caveat of "as long as they're not a threat to our continued rule". The fact that's exactly how they operate can be seen throughout history.
You are correct - but I also vividly remember a message playing as I went through security in a US airport a couple of years ago saying that things like inappropriate jokes etc. could result in arrest.
Well, an arrest is not the same as being convicted of a crime. There's no way for airport security to know whether you were joking or mentally unstable and dangerous, and it's reasonable that they detain you whilst they find out.
Anyone could be a psychopath too, and highly dangerous. I guess they should detain everyone just in case, and grill them for hours.
Of course, it's not like a psychopath could lie convincingly so that he could proceed with his evil plans, so I guess they can't actually let anyone in, ever.
Nice strawman. Limiting your free speech by detaining you if you joke about bombs when talking to airport security is completely reasonable. It's very well defined and limited, and giving up this right causes you no harm physically or mentally. Also, there's no slippery slope involved. I dislike airport security as well, but some of the things they do are reasonable.
What strawman? You supported the idea of detaining people on any suspicion. I suggested that there's no point in going down that road because anyone could be a threat anywhere.
Sure, sometimes someone is suspicious because he's actually up to no good. But that doesn't mean detaining people on various subjective suspicions is a good idea.
Come now. If someone says "I have a bomb in my luggage" (as a joke), that's hardly "on any suspicion". The person has spoken what amounts to a possibly serious, realistic threat, and the security person has literally no other means of determining whether it was a joke or not.
Yes, and that's.. what? Not acceptable, but not resisted anyway? Do you think "putting scrutiny"[1] on people who support terrorism is fine, but imprisoning people for a tweet is not?
[1] Violating the right to free speech
What Western person in their right mind would proudly proclaim his support for actual terrorists? Do you think there are enough people in the UK to find that many people deranged in that particular way, or do you think some of them might be paid to act like it?
> What Western person in their right mind would proudly proclaim his support for actual terrorists?
One persons terrorist is another persons freedom fighter.
The IRA, for example, was well funded through donations to give one of the most recent examples. The ANC is another one that springs to mind:
"'The ANC is a typical terrorist organisation ... Anyone who thinks it is going to run the government in South Africa is living in cloud-cuckoo land" - Margaret Thatcher, 1987
Going back a bit further, many European countries actively tried stopping recruitment to the International Brigades fighting against Franco in the Spanish civil war, up to and including imprisoning people.
Irgun is another example: A zionist military organization with several massacres to its name that was considered a terrorist organization by Britain at the time, as well as by some important contemporary Jewish organizations. Irgun is one of the direct predecessors to the Israeli Likud party, that has been part of most Israeli governments since th late 70's.
There's a long range of causes that various subsets of Western civil society have given support to that have been considered terrorist by contemporary authorities.
Some of them are still seen as terrorists in retrospect, some of them are seen as heroes and freedom fighters. Some are seen as either/both depending on who you ask.
You're right. But to be more accurate, who in their right mind would proudly proclaim their support for an organization that beheads innocent bystanders because they're infidels or something?
Usually, a "terrorist" is anyone who poses a threat to the established ruling elites somewhere. But we're told we need to be very afraid of some desert loonies somewhere in Hellholeistan. Naturally then, we need governments to protect us by snooping in on everything we do anywhere. For safety.
Who in their right mind would proudly proclaim their support for an organization that carries out bomb attacks on busy commuter streets during rush hour?
Quite a lot, as it happens: The ANC did that.
Who in their right mind would proudly proclaim their support for an organisation that tried to blow up the UK cabinet?
Well, quite a lot of people proclaimed support for the IRA.
Who in their right mind would proudly proclaim their support for an organisation that attacks a village and kills over a 100 civilians?
Quite a lot, given that a lot of people from Irgun (Deir Yassin massacre) have been central to the leadership of Israel.
The thing is, a lot of atrocities will seem necessary, or at least excusable, to those who see themselves as freedomfighters, whether or not the future will be kind to them.
I don't expect the future will be kind to IS, and the past is littered with terrorist groups - and freedomfighters - who are still hated and detested, and many of the ones "we" tend to see as freedom fighters today still have dirty hands and/or are seen as terrorists by others, so who knows...
I agree with the second part of your comment, though. It's played up because it's convenient to have enemies. Doesn't mean I don't think e.g. IS needs to be countered, but I don't think it'll get countered by snooping - on the contrary, it will fuel the paranoia of those that are intrigued by their cause.
To take a personal example: In my youth I was member of a marxist group. The knowledge that Norwegian intelligence services carried out extensive surveillance of the members of lots of left wing organizations (highly illegally, as it happens - but while the extent of their illegal surveillance was first "discovered" years later, everyone in the organisations in question knew about it; just that nobody believed them) did not deter me. On the contrary: It made me more certain my decision was correct: It was evidence of the oppression I was against.
The organisation in question was (and is) fully legal, participating in elections, and does not (and did not) advocate violence in any way, but I don't believe the overall principle is different: If someone is considering a cause opposed by government, then surveillance will not stop most of them, but spur them on and prove to them that they can not trust their own government.
> The thing is, a lot of atrocities will seem necessary, or at least excusable, to those who see themselves as freedomfighters, whether or not the future will be kind to them.
Well maybe they weren't in their right minds?
> If someone is considering a cause opposed by government, then surveillance will not stop most of them, but spur them on and prove to them that they can not trust their own government.
You can both believe in your cause, and distrust your government, but while being scared shitless of speaking out. So, I wouldn't say that surveillance works against governments.
There's a certain point before which awareness of mass-surveillance may cause negative sentiment towards the government, especially without being managed effectively with propaganda, but after another point.. you're in North-Korea.
Why that would be the people to whose power your speech might be a threat in some way, of course. Coincidentally, that's exactly when you need to be punished for "misusing" your free speech.
Well consider that Thatcher's "no such thing as society" quote was actually in the context of calling on people to take positive action to look after their neighbours and their community rather than waiting for someone else e.g. society to do it for them. Yet her opponents twisted it to imply the exact opposite.
Terrifying language from a civil liberties stance, but not altogether shocking given the existence of radical groups within the UK territory.
What scares me about government, both in the US and abroad, is not the polarization of parties, but how quickly the dominant ideologies cycle from left to right. The pendulum swings to fast.
> What scares me about government, both in the US and abroad, is not the polarization of parties, but how quickly the dominant ideologies cycle from left to right. The pendulum swings to fast.
That swing wouldn't inherently be a bad thing, if the parties on the right were more about the smaller government and more freedom that they market themselves with (at least in the US; I don't know if that's even part of the marketing message in the UK), and less about tearing down civil liberties.
Does the UK have any parties that are actually in favor of smaller government and preserving civil liberties? Does anyone pay attention to those parties, or are they mostly ignored like third parties in the US?
Is that even the right's marketing message in the US? I feel like the "headline" messages from the right, at least here where I'm spending some time in Houston, are demanding more law-and-order and a more authoritarian government, not a smaller, more hands-off government and more civil liberties. The two big pet issues of the right here are: 1) cracking down on illegal immigration by any means necessary, and 2) cracking down on terrorism by any means necessary. Billboards are full of advertisements from prospective politicians, elected judges (a nutty situation itself), and elected sheriffs, promising how they're going to wield the arm of government more often, and more ruthlessly, than their predecessors did. Double the number of cops, build a border fence, put drones on the border, institute surveillance of mosques, allow no-warrant stops of vehicles, require citizens to carry an ID card at all times, etc., etc.
And when issues get to the Texas Supreme Court, politically it seems to almost always be various liberal groups sending in amicus briefs on the pro-civil-liberties side, and conservative groups sending in briefs on the pro-government side. The one exception is gun rights, where basically both sides are in favor (in Texas), but the right is more strongly in favor.
Marketing messages vary. The right in the US definitely markets to fear and safety, though they're usually less direct than the recent UK government regarding issues like surveillance. But there's also a pretty strong "lower taxes, smaller government" message. (Yes, those are contradictory messages; even stranger when they appear in the same ad.)
But most of the marketing is already done and widely perceived, even if it doesn't match reality. The expectation of many voters is that you vote left for more government or right for less. It's unfortunate that the reality is you'll get more government either way, and it'll just be used for different things.
Totally agree. We don't have a system that benefits moderates at all. Even if you are lucky enough to find a moderate within the party system, they inevitably caucus with the group.
> What scares me about government, both in the US and abroad, is not the polarization of parties, but how quickly the dominant ideologies cycle from left to right
I think you may be conflating shifts in fairly narrow political majorities with shifts in "dominant ideology".
I'm referring to control of government. Yes, those majorities are narrow, but impact on policy is quite strong. Given the proclivity of the current administration to use executive orders willy nilly I anticipate that trend will only continue. The executive branch loves power, regardless of neocons or progs running the show.
I think you would have to admit that the 1945 general election that removed Churchill from being PM and that went on to introduce the NHS was most definitely a swing to the left.
Considering that was 70 years ago, that's an unusual definition of "fast".
It was also the last peak for the left. The trend since then has an acceleration rightwards.
Don't forget the UK came close to removing a democratically elected prime minister in a right-wing coup - not just once, but twice.
The last genuinely left-wing prime minister resigned not long after the second alleged plot - and by a divinely-ordained coincidence his replacement was so utterly useless the electorate found themselves voting for the kind of right wing government the plotters had been working towards.
Do you mean Callaghan - my recent readings of the relevant histories (particularly those by Dominic Sandbrook) paint him in rather a positive light. Callaghan and the other "real" socialists were as appalled by the behavior of the unions then as everyone else.
> A second foreign policy adviser to Mr Romney said: “Cameron’s contacts with Republicans are really quite limited, and have been going back to when [George W.] Bush was president.” The adviser added: “In many respects Cameron is like Obama.”
Like, this whole "Democrats are leftists" is just a Republican meme at this point in almost all respects.
I don't understand the point of your argument. You're talking about absolutes. Politics is all relative. Relative to the GOP, the Dems are Left.
Statements along the lines of "well, you don't know what Left is if you think the Democrats are Left" don't apply. I don't even get what the point of that line is. Are we in the States supposed to look at entitlement expansion in the US and suddenly say "gee, I guess that is OK because it isn't as much as Europe"?. Is there an objective you're trying to get to? I could just as easily say "Oh no, you don't get it: what you call the Left is actually the FAR LEFT" and put you in the same position.
The whole meme that "Democrats are moderates and Republicans are extremists" is just an attempt at pushing populism into the mainstream.
Are you claiming that Obama is a socialist? If not (as I assume), then what was the point of your anecdote? I don't see where the guy you replied to claimed that Obama wasn't in some broad sense to the left of those he ran against.
I think you're making the assumption that the President is the movement. That is simply inaccurate. The President, or any politician for that matter, is a vessel through which objectives are carried out.
I will happily claim that the Progressives are socialists. The standing President is part of that clan within the Democratic party.
(I am strongly against the government's stupid changes; I strongly support the human rights act etc)
All the children travelling to Syria? All the money being raised for terrorist organisations - from people who know the money is going to be used for terrorist purposes? The murder of English soldiers on British streets? The plot to kill other soldiers by a british teenager? The recent IRA plot to assassinate Prince Charles and Camilla? The fact that PREVENT is a "toxic brand" and widely distrusted?
There is a bunch of stuff happening that causes some concern to UK government.
Yet we live in a society that accepts locks on doors and the need for encryption and pin codes for bank cards which equally oppress our time and our trust in others, yet we accept that as a balance in that it protects us from bad people, even if we never know or come across any.
Not a perfect solution by far, but this is not a perfect World and until you get a society in which people do not lock doors as no need etc, is when security becomes oppression.
How many children went to Syria? A few thousand at most and that's being generous. Hardly a cause for concern. It's statistically inconsequential beside I can think of a thousand and one ways to prevent this happening in a non-aggressive, inclusive and progressive way. All these policies are going to do is disillusion even more people.
That's still a huge amount. I too am in favour of "doing something" about Islamist extremism, but I don't have any good specific ideas and neither it seems does anyone else. We should learn more from the NI peace process; in some ways the new anti-extremism policy reminds me of when Gerry Adams couldn't speak on TV. It was stupid and ineffective then and unlikely to help now.
The first thing to do is to stop acting morally superior whilst bombing the out of any country that doesn't fall in line in the name of democracy. Anyone with even the slightest ability to think for themselves can see through this and views evil as evil regardless of the badge worn. Others unfortunately don't make it this far and either throw their weight behind such policies or resist them by joining the 'enemy'. These are the kids that went to Syria and honestly it's difficult for me to see them as any different as the kids that join the UK or US armed forces. They are naive and misinformed otherwise they would never consider joining any armed forces.
Second is to do everything possible to reduce the income inequality that is ever expanding in the world.
Thirdly we also need to focus on education and tolerance.
The current establishment has proven themselves to be inept on all three counts. No other tactic has any chance of succeeding.
Similar thing here in Germany: Government brought up the so called "Vorratsdatenspeicherung" (data preservation law) again, only to prevent terrorist attacks. Similar laws where cancelled by our "Bundesverfassungsgericht" (German constitutional court) and also at the EuGH (EU constitutional court).
But still they brought it up again, because "the terrorist danger is so high" ... and of course they said, that the data will only (we promise!) be used in these cases.
Now, short time before the law shall be passed (it should be rushed threw the parliament, of course!), they added some additions to the law, that the data can be also used at any crimes committed in the internet. That is exactly, what was criticized by our constitutional courts before.
The law makers try to install such laws again and again. They are not interested, whether it is constitutional or not. When they fail, they wait for the next terror activity and bring up the same bullshit again.
That is the reason, why I come to believe, that our democratic systems are bound to fail (again). With so few people caring about our constitutional rights, we will loose them.
The lack of care for the constitution allowed it, that the NSDAP "legally" changed a democracy to a dictatorship once before. It can happen again -- in any country.
I've tried reading the circular [1] (which seems to be a summary of the changes) and can't see anything about immunity. The article also lacks direct quotes or links to relevant sections.
Does anyone have more specific source on this detail?
Edit: this factsheet [2] on the computer misuse amendments only mentions a clarification that investigation may be performed against UK citizens even if they're located outside the UK at the time of the crime. No mention of immunity or extra powers.
Section 1(1) [Unauthorized access offence definition] above has effect without prejudice to the operation—
(a)in England and Wales of any enactment relating to powers of inspection, search or seizure; and [...]
into
Sections 1 to 3A [Unauthorized access / access with a view to further offences / access with intent to impair / making or supplying artefacts to enable the above] have effect without prejudice to the operation—
(a)in England and Wales of any enactment relating to powers of inspection, search or seizure or of any other enactment by virtue of which the conduct in question is authorised or required ; and [...]
The governments position is that this change (I believe this is the right one anyway) gives ordinary rank-and-file GCHQ officers immunity from hacking offences because their conduct will be 'authorized' (by the government) and 'required' (to protect us from the Bad Guys). Previously what was permissible under the Act could be construed to be tighter than what GCHQ were doing - were they only inspecting searching and seizing? Certainly before the Act didn't give them explicit immunity from the later offences such as intent to impair the system.
Side note 1: Enactment is defined in a legal sense, to mean pretty much any legislation. I'm unusure as to whther the definition it provides allows for e.g. Statutory Instruments (which rarely have any debate in Parliament) to also be covered under the definition.
Side note 2: It also makes the same changes to Scotland, which for legal reasons, tends to get called out in separate subsections with minor variation on the wording if the Act applies at all.
This wasn't mentioned in any of the summaries or fact sheets at the time, which is why no-one noticed it. The first anyone heard about it was when the government's lawyers claimed it granted GHCQ immunity a few days ago. I believe it was also hidden in a deceptively titled section of the bill in question.
It must be clear, at least to those who understand, that no democracy can exist with two laws to govern the same act. One for the people and one for those in power. It comes as a sad conclusion that the UK is in actuality truly an oligarchy. It is not only time to see how long it takes the population to realize how horrible that is.
However don't expect any sympathy from those of us who do understand and have fought against it where possible any more. The citizens of the UK have hanged themselves over and over again simply due to idiocy, media induced hatred, class war and nationalism.
We deserve this fate.
If you want to make a difference now, it's best to do it from the inside as the political winds cannot be stopped. Sabotage is the only answer.
The article doesn't touch on snooping "privileged" conversations, like attorney/client, which are typically considered legally sacrosanct, but GCHQ is known to have listened to. How are UK attornies (forgive me, I don't know the correct term) taking that? How are the judges taking it? Does this "secretly introduced" legislation make that legal as well?
At what point does "secretly introduced" legislation become anything other than tyranny? I would think very rapidly, but what do I know?
Scotland has solicitors and advocates - although some solicitors can also appear in the higher courts (Court of Session for civil matters and the High Court for criminal).
Solicitors can also appear in the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom for civil matters (the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction for criminal matters in Scotland and therefore under Scots law).
Well, people have been out in the streets over the last couple of weeks over a variety of issues. The difficulty is that there was just a general election where the Tories won a majority of seats and got the largest share of the popular vote. The vast majority of things the new government has proposed doing are things that they were quite open about before the election (or which any politically aware person could have predicted that they would do).
So the media narrative is basically just 'sore losers on the left', and there is some justification for that - a lot of people in the country clearly support these kinds of policies.
The difficulty is that there was just a general election where the Tories won a majority of seats and got the largest share of the popular vote.
I would suggest that part of the difficulty here is that while the Conservatives won a majority of seats and the largest single share of the popular vote, they did not win anywhere near a majority of the popular vote.
However you choose to look at our electoral system, the fact is that roughly 3/4 of those entitled to vote did not choose to vote for the Conservatives (or roughly 2/3 if you prefer to look at only those who chose to vote at all).
So even if you believe that voting for a party gives a mandate to every policy in their manifesto -- which clearly not everyone does -- in this case, a heavy majority of the electorate did not vote for a party that has these controversial policies.
It is therefore not surprising that when the new government have picked a series of big fights within a week of taking office, they are already encountering widespread concern about or outright opposition to their actions. Given their narrow majority, I don't expect the new Cameron administration to get much of a honeymoon period or any sort of free ride over controversial policies like this.
Are you joking, or just unaware of how the voting actually ended up in various ridings? With any sort of proportional vote system it would have been a Tory/UKIP coalition running the country. Roughly 37% voted for the tories and 13% voted UKIP. If anyone has a reason to complain it is UKIP, and frankly I am quite happy to accept the downsides of FPTP if it keeps UKIP out of government.
> With any sort of proportional vote system it would have been a Tory/UKIP coalition running the country.
That's not how proportional systems work. The parties choose themselves what alternative they want to negotiate. You will often find "natural" coalition partners shying away from each other to look towards the centre because the risk of indulging fringe parties in a coalition is that you get eaten alive at the next election as your more centrist voters decide "anything but" next time to prevent the same next time.
While Tory/UKIP might have happened, first of all we don't know how proportional systems would have altered who people would have voted for, secondly a Tory/UKIP coalition would require the right wing of the Tory party to be firmly in control, and little indicates they are, and secondly would require the Tory party to be willing to risk exactly that kind of implosion. A Tory/Labour coalition would also be very much possible, as would a minority government with a supply agreement with one or more parties (e.g. you'd find Labour and SNP and pretty much everyone else would be willing to stretch far to appease a Tory minority government to avoid a coalition that included UKIP)
> and frankly I am quite happy to accept the downsides of FPTP if it keeps UKIP out of government.
I'm tempted to say the same, but as horrendous as such a government might be, it would still be more representative of the will of the people. It would also have the bonus of tearing the Tory party to shreds next election.
1. You assume that people's vote would remain the same. I rather think people would be better able to vote for what they believe in, and would be more likely to vote in general.
Following your assumption, though:
2. The Tories would have to choose coalition with UKIP (and vice versa).
3. Even if they managed to do that, they would not strictly have a majority at 49.5%. Tories currently have 50.9% of MPs alone.
So a much less stable government that would threaten to split off and destroy the Tory left. It's not even likely that Cameron or Johnson could agree to those terms.
But, if they were able to agree, I'd far rather have that government than the one we have now.
I am concerned by this attitude in general. Although I don't agree a lick with UKIP, they should have fair representation.
>Even if they managed to do that, they would not strictly have a majority at 49.5%
They would have also almost certainly got the DUP, who had 0.6%, taking them to 50.1%, and the opposition would need to take off Sinn Fein's 0.6% as they don't take their seats.
With any sort of proportional vote system it would have been a Tory/UKIP coalition running the country.
That seems unlikely.
For one thing, as a matter of fact the Conservatives and UKIP did not achieve a majority of the popular vote between them at the general election. Under a fully proportional system, the result on the day would not have given them a working majority to form a government alone. Some sort of minority Conservative government would have been a more likely outcome.
For another thing, you're assuming that people would have voted the same way under another system, which is far from a safe assumption. This was probably the most negative campaign we've had in generations, and a lot of the arguments in the final weeks were about how to vote tactically to block one outcome or another. Knowing that every vote counted could easily have significantly changed voting patterns.
frankly I am quite happy to accept the downsides of FPTP if it keeps UKIP out of government.
That is a very dangerous, short-termist position.
Whether you like it or not, millions of people did vote for UKIP at the election, as is their right in a party-based representative democratic system. Those people have effectively been disenfranchised.
For that matter, so have millions who supported the Lib Dems or the Greens. Along with UKIP, these three parties between them attracted popular support on a similar scale to Labour and the Conservatives (roughly 24%, against 30% for Labour and 37% for the Conservatives) yet have only 10 seats between them in Parliament compared to Labour's 232 and the Conservatives' 331.
National parties are also heavily over-represented now. The DUP (0.6% of the popular vote) has the same 8 MPs as the Lib Dems (7.9%). The SNP (4.7%) has 56 MPs, while UKIP (12.6%) has only a single MP.
There are pros and cons to having a "clear winner" and first past the post does provide that, but the idea that the system has generated a government that is anything close to representing what the people as a whole want this time is even less credible than it was five years ago.
The problem with extrapolating how the result of a proportional vote would have gone from the results of a first past the post election is that people would vote differently. e.g. someone might vote tactically for lib-dem to get a conservative out under first past the post whereas they might vote labour under proportional representation.
Edit: I'm in favour of proportional representation.
I'm not sure why so many people still keep advocating elections in an age when it ought to be clear to any objective observer that the average voter is sleepwalking into a new dark age.
Perhaps it's intellectual laziness, or perhaps it's a trait inherited from a time when a single person's voice still made a difference because communities were only a few hundred or thousand people.
Buckminster Fuller said something that I'm sure will resonate with many HNers, and that seems more likely to bring about positive change:
"You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, design a new model that makes the existing model obsolete."
Eh, the last time any single party got the majority of the popular vote was the 1931 general election — and then a coalition National Government was formed regardless. The last time the Government got the majority of the popular vote was 2010, and before that Churchill's wartime coalition.
The Tories got a larger proportion of the total vote than Labour did in 2005 (35.2%), and I don't remember hearing much uproar about that.
Secret today is no longer hidden. It is simply undisclosed. And with our countless tweets and posts on fb, do we really look for these things? How many other laws were passed in such ways.
Possibly, but this still isn't "secret law" going by the definition in the book. It's a public statute you can easily read yourself, it's not hidden from you, the text isn't secret. But the problem is that, yes, you may not know it exists.
For the most part, the lords are selected using a nomination and approval process by the democratically elected government. The Monarchy I think we all know about, no real power.
The Lords system is quite cool besides the fancy names. You have people who are experts in the field who can check through laws. Politicians in a large part aren't always able to look down through the technicality of laws where some foreknowledge is required. Lots of academic or real life experience among them. Given the corporate influence some of these guys may have there is a couple of restrictions on what they can do when it involves expenditures or taxation, too.
The "monarchy" in GB today, I think, can be compared to the German "Bundespraesident" -- who is on paper the "head of the state" but has nothing to say, but has to sign the laws, others made. He can only delay the signing or call the judges, if he things that the law is against constitution.
The worst thing about the monarchy in GB is, that it costs a huge stack of money -- whereas the Bundespraesident in Germany is relatively affordable.
I don't know. It was just a side note on my side and to be frank, I don't care to much, since I am not British and when the British think they can afford it ....
The Royals received something like £36 million public funds last year - which I think is pretty small compared to the cost of things like the US presidency (£1 billion) and not really that much more than the German presidency (£26 million).
They have no real political influence and, to be honest, I'd far rather have the current crowd than an overtly political head of state - the fact that they choose to serve in the Armed Forces earns them a lot of credit in my book.
Besides, tens of millions aren't really a huge amount at a national level. Roughly £1 per working-person.
I'll happily testify that Her Maj. has provided at least 1GBP of entertainment value each year of my life so far -- so it's still a net gain in my eyes ;)
The British Monarch cannot in practice, delay laws or call judges.
Presidents are not necessarily the ideal solution as to what to do about having a symbolic head of state. Moreover they don't come for free or without controversy (and that, every X number of years - whatever the term of the presidency).
> The British Monarch cannot in practice, delay laws or call judges.
It is very difficult in the British system to clearly determine what is, while theoretically a personal prerogative of the monarch, practically impossible from those personal prerogatives that have simply not been exercised recently, perhaps in part because the possibility of them being invoked constrains the government to work with the monarch in a way which will not result in them being used.
I don't wanted to make a point for the German model. I just wanted to say, how it is and not defend it. There is also sometimes discussion in Germany, if we really need a "President" -- our "chancellor", it seems, better compares to the US president in role.
Sneaking laws in when no one's looking, without a public discussion is pretty much standard practice in all democracies. It's clear they know the masses would object to those laws, but our representatives pass them anyway. Maybe that tells you something about "the system".
I come more and more to the conclusion, that democracy -- at least, how we practice it today -- is not working. At least with this level of commitment of the people, it is just a hide and seek game between politicians and the masses and the masses loose, because they are bored away from the political game.
The big winners are the big corporations world-wide, because they know how to play the game or at least how to pay the people who know.
> The big winners are the big corporations world-wide, because they know how to play the game or at least how to pay the people who know.
It even goes beyond that. The corporations use policies that benefit them to enrich themselves. Some of that enrichment can then be paid out to the politician. What do ordinary citizens do with policies that benefit them? For the most part, they just live their lives in peace. Even when those policies make the people wealthier, it is much harder for the politician to get paid because the new wealth is so disbursed.
Really, it's just the market interacting with the politics. I have come to believe that, far from being natural allies (as is commonly held), democracy and market economics are actually quite incompatible for this reason.
Think of it this way: there's a market for favours given through the use of political power. The problem isn't the existence of "market economics", but rather the existence of this particular market.
But as long as the political system and the market economic system exist side-by-side, this particular market will always exist! It's a feedback loop. The favor generates a return, the return allows acquisition of power, and the power allows more favors.
It's like Rod Blagojevich said, to paraphrase, if you've got this incredibly valuable thing (the ability to make policy), why would you ever give it away for free?! You sell it to the highest bidder. And the highest bidder will always be a "special" interest, because, as I pointed out in my last comment, they are the only ones who can afford it (because they will use the policies to make the money back).
The Koch brothers understand this, they came right out and said that they view campaign contributions as investments. As long as we delude ourselves into believing that the system can be made to work with just the right combination of rules and checks (in other words, as long as we delude ourselves into thinking that markets aren't dynamic and don't route around damage), nothing will change.
> As long as we delude ourselves into believing that the system can be made to work with just the right combination of rules and checks (in other words, as long as we delude ourselves into thinking that markets aren't dynamic and don't route around damage), nothing will change.
You could replace "markets" with "people pursuing their personal gain" there. Of course they will adapt to changes, much like a businessman will just leave the country if he gets tax-raped too hard.
We all pursue our personal gain all the time, and there's nothing wrong with that per se. That's just the way we're biologically programmed to operate.
But go back to what Rod said and take it to its logical conclusion: as long as there is political power, people with it will always be bribed.
But then again, that's pretty much the point of having political power. We're all pursuing our personal gain, and political power is just another means of doing that. The solution, then, is for no one to have political power to begin with.
You make a good point, but I think getting rid of political power is at least as difficult as changing the economic system to provide better incentives. It's like companies that claim to have flat corporate structures. There are bosses, they just aren't identified as such on the org chart.
To look at it another way, in a market economy (at least a capitalist one), the possession of money and property is a form of political power. "If you do what I say, I'll give you a bunch of money", the "Prank Monkey" episode of The Simpsons comes to mind, etc.
My ultimate point is that there are conflicts between the market economy and the democratic political structure. This is contrary to "conventional" wisdom, and I think it is important to start recognizing these conflicts openly (recognizing that they are fundamental) and coming up with some kind of solution (whatever it looks like).
Better incentives? An incentive is just something that drives you towards a certain course of action. How can one be better than another? Isn't the act what matters?
The choices we make can be moral, amoral, or immoral. Incentives aren't really relevant there.
For example, imagine you're walking out alone at night, and for some mysterious reason come across a little old lady on the street. She'll probably have a purse with her, and that's your incentive for robbing her.
But assuming you're not a psychopath, you won't even think of doing that. Even a psycho would be more likely to just mind his own business than rob her.
> the possession of money and property is a form of political power
Why would it be? Political authority is the perceived right to impose your will on others by force. Political power is the position to do that. Asking someone to do something in exchange for money is a potential trade.
There's nothing immoral about offering a woman $500k for a blowjob. She'll probably do it too. But it's her choice - she'll have to figure out if the $500k would be worth any loss of dignity she would experience as a result of selling you that blowjob. As long as it's voluntary, there's no problem. It's just a choice she'll make, and be responsible for.
> My ultimate point is that there are conflicts between the market economy and the democratic political structure.
I'm not sure what that means. But again, as long as there's political power, people with it will be bribed, regardless of what else happens in the economy. The solution is to abolish political power. You might note that coercion is immoral anyway, and perhaps start a line of questioning from that premise.
Yep, incentives that lead to better outcomes, from my perspective. For example, less incentive toward corruption. Chinese emperors supposedly used eunuchs as court officials so that they wouldn't be tempted to favor their children in official dealings. I don't know if that was such a great idea, but it certainly improved the incentives of the public officials from the point of view of the emperor (and possibly the people who had official dealings with the government).
> Political power is the position to do that.
Great wealth is functionally equivalent to political power.
> Asking someone to do something in exchange for money is [always] a potential trade.
I disagree vehemently with this statement. Asking someone who is dangling from a cliff for all their money in exchange for pulling them up, for example, is not a trade I am interested in promoting. Yet this is precisely the kind of trade upon which capitalism is built. It is clear to me that we will never agree, we have completely different moral codes and outlooks on the world.
> As long as it's voluntary...
This is the entire problem. Under capitalism, many / most exchanges are not voluntary. Check out the Center for a Stateless Society (C4SS) and the writings of Kevin Carson if you would like to learn more. Regardless, I never said anything about morality.
> But again, as long as there's political power, people with it will be bribed...
There is always power, regardless of whether you consider it strictly "political" (you can define away almost any problem if you try hard enough). If I'm rich and I hire a private army to coerce you into doing something, does it really make any difference whether I call myself a king? From your standpoint we haven't really "abolished" political power. In fact, the idea of abolishing (political) power is actually rather absurd to me, I would sooner expect us all to join hands and implement full communism...
> Great wealth is functionally equivalent to political power.
You're still behaving as if you didn't understand that it is very much possible to refrain from accepting trades, even if your counterparty is stinking rich. If you don't consider five million dollars worth the loss of dignity from a blowjob, then you won't do it. I can imagine someone choosing to not accept that trade. Maybe they're doing just fine and don't need the money that bad?
> Asking someone who is dangling from a cliff for all their money in exchange for pulling them up, for example, is not a trade I am interested in promoting.
Sure, that would be highly scumbaggy of you, but that's not the kind of deal I was suggesting either.
> Yet this is precisely the kind of trade upon which capitalism is built.
Now there's a claim that requires backing.
> Under capitalism, many / most exchanges are not voluntary.
Complete nonsense. We all go through voluntary exchanges every day, any time you go shopping for groceries for example.
> If I'm rich and I hire a private army to coerce you into doing something, does it really make any difference whether I call myself a king? From your standpoint we haven't really "abolished" political power.
Coercion is immoral, and what you'd be doing is irrelevant to capitalism. But yeah, political power is basically thuggery - it's just that people don't see that from underneath their brainwashing.
Surely democracy starts out as an alternative to war, rather than be the solution to all our problems. We need a Parliament because we are so divided and would come to blows without it.
Of course that assumes that people can be corralled together into groups. The experience of the last ten years suggests that society is dividing into small sub-cultures that don't understand each other, or talk to each other.
> The big winners are the big corporations world-wide, because they know how to play the game or at least how to pay the people who know.
This isn't true equally across democracies, its most true in "democracies" that feature political systems that structurally limit practical choices for the electorate, because that mitigates the ability of the public to effectively check influence peddling. And, unsurprisingly, these limited-choice features also correspond to systems, among established democracies, in which the public has the least satisfaction with their government.
(Note that among the worst systems in this regard among modern, first-world democracies here are those in the United States, United Kingdom, and France.)
As tempting as it is to blame the corporations, due to the ease of blaming a faceless, shapeless enemy, the real problem is powerful people. Corporations do not act autonomously, and you will literally never take powerful people out of politics. Any sort of actual fix will need to take that reality into account.
We're told governments are of the people and for the people and so on, but the reality is that they keep doing things they know are against our interests, and any time the people resist, the government's response is always teargas and batons.
How could this system be anything but bad for us?
The problem isn't big evil corporations - it's the fact that there are people in positions to hand out favours in exchange for bribes.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2015/05/13/uk-britain-militant...