The Political Thread

[Modern Panther]

You can pretend that laws and taxes and trade don't apply you all you like, but let's not pretend you have any sort of moral high ground.  You throw insults at anyone who questions your view of the world, then play the victim.

[The Legendary Shark]

I'm sure that was true of my arguing style in the past, Panth, but I think I've learned not to use it any more - at least I hope I have. Like most people, I strive to improve and learn. I had no college or university education and I wasn't taught how to argue properly during my state school days. Indeed, I had no idea what a logical fallacy even was until a couple of years ago, nor that there were so many of them, and was horrified to learn that I had been using them myself without knowing it for most of my life - emulating teachers and politicians. I try now to be better than that because, you know, what's the point of me saying, "here's my opinion and I'm going to beat you over the head with it until you agree with me"? All that does is get people's backs up, which does nobody any good.

I will continue to stand my corner and write about what I believe in but that's it. Agree or disagree, that's your choice - as an anarchist, how could I possibly believe otherwise anyway?

Also, I'm pretty sure I never called you a "Holocaust sympathiser." I remember making the point that the Holocaust, being legislated for and undertaken by a perfectly legitimately installed government, was entirely legal and that to accept government rights/power is to accept the possibility of legal crimes against humanity occurring but accepting the possibility is in no way equivalent to condoning it.

I do not think you are a Holocaust apologist. I do not think anyone who posts here is a holocaust apologist.

I do, however, think that most people who post here believe that governments have and deserve more rights, responsibilities and powers than the ordinary people they are designed to serve and, furthermore, are above (or at least to one side of) the common or natural law that binds everyone else.

I do not. I think that politicians have no more or fewer rights and responsibilities than the rest of us.

If you, or anyone here, wants to follow Corbyn or May or anyone else then that's fine - follow away and good luck to you - I have absolutely no problem with that. Do you have to force me to follow the same person, though?

[Professor Bear]

Yeah, I had thought of that as well - someone mentioned Len McCluskey's comment as being similar from the other side.

Maybe that's giving both sides too much credit.

Polling companies are used to shape public opinion, not measure it.  They're businesses, run by Tories and peers of the realm, and on the few occasions that they couldn't manufacture numbers to suit the prevailing narrative, they publicly trashed their own data.  Polling is just another one in the establishment's tools.

For what it's worth, I don't think the Tories are trying to lose the election, and "the Tories can only lose if they want to" sounds like something someone would say if they were heavily invested in an anti-Labour narrative but felt they had to hedge their bets.

[Steven Denton]

I remember making the point that the Holocaust, being legislated for and undertaken by a perfectly legitimately installed government, was entirely legal and that to accept government rights/power is to accept the possibility of legal crimes against humanity occurring but accepting the possibility is in no way equivalent to condoning it.

Without whishing to open a can of worms.

The collapse of the political system in Germany before the second world war is still a hotly debated topic. To gain power the Nazis essential had to dismantle the system so their legitimacy is an elected sense is up for debate.

It was, until after the second world war, entirely, internationally legal to inflict as much damaged as you liked on your own people. As a direct result of the Holocaust that ceased to be the case. No government Legitimate or otherwise can legally commit 'crimes against humanity'. The repercussions for such crimes depends on the scale and risk/reward for intervention.

It's possible for any group or individual to inflict harm and suffering on others. Democratic governments are, at least in part, an attempt to mitigate that danger. results may vary.

[The Legendary Shark]

I get that governments might be trying, or at least trying to give the impression that they are moving in the right direction and in some small ways I suppose they are. The fact is that the Holocaust is at the extreme end of the spectrum of violence employed by all governments, with coercive theft at the other.

And no, I'm not claiming that taxation is the same as mass murder. I'm saying they're on the same spectrum of violence. There is no doubt that governments are violent. For example, what would happen to me if the tax man showed up on my doorstep and I refused to bow to his demands?

[Steven Denton]

A Bailiff could remove property. if you refuse with force then you would have instigated the violence. Violence in not inherent in the situation.

Violence is not limited to governments, neither is coercion. Governments are a form of control, that's true and that control can be negative or positive. Things that are positive for a larger group may be negative to some individuals. Humans  live in social groups that are now country sized, and will one day be world sized. maybe many worlds if we don't wipe ourselves out first.

Interestingly the EU, by being a larger group, by representing a more dispirit set of interests, tended to lean towards the common good as it's harder to push ideas that benefit the few at the expense of the many when those rules then have to be applied to a very large group of the many.

[The Legendary Shark]

So, the bailiff has the "right" to steal my possessions. Ordinary people like you and I do not have the right to steal property, so how do we authorise others to do it for us?

The violence is in the threat - pay up or suffer. It makes no difference whether payment is being demanded (without any contract or agreement) for bandages or bullets; it makes no difference whether the money is going to be used for something good or something bad; it makes no difference whether the person refusing to pay up is right or wrong - it's not okay to extort money from people under threat of violence.

I cannot see the difference between defending your person or property against a burglar or mugger and defending it against a bailiff or other officer. Both are just human beings like everyone else with the same rights and responsibilities. The only difference between the mugger/bailiff and the victim/taxpayer is in power - the mugger may have a knife or a gun and the bailiff a gang of police officers with tasers and truncheons - which is more than the victim/taxpayer has. Payment is then made in both cases not because of the mugger/bailiff's rights but powers. In both cases, the victim/taxpayer pays up to avoid further harm, not because of lawful obligation.

(This is all in respect of government taxation where payment is simply demanded under threat for whatever reason and not in relation to the breaking of a lawful contract or agreement.)

I agree that humans are social animals and live in social groups, millions of years of evolution and instinct help us live this way. People understand this and help each other all the time with no need for coercion. What "government" does is exploit our instincts and drives and pretend that we're all really destructive and violent savages who need to be ruled and policed and charged for the privilege - holding up the few miscreants as examples of how utterly terrible we all are. We do not need that.

I dispute the idea that pushing policies which benefit the few at the expense of the many is hard. Look at quantitative easing as a prime example; the few all but destroyed the banking system, and with it financially crippled several countries, and were (and continue to be) bailed out by the majority - who are taxed to pay for the mistakes of the few whether they like it or not. The majority are also taxed for weaponry which the few could deploy to devastating effect for the many. The few also impose restrictive and protectionist rules, tariffs and regulations on the free market, increasing prices and restricting competition which affects everyone negatively. The few also write legislation, which they pass off as laws, which benefits the few at the expense of the many.

But this is all academic and concentrates on the bad aspects.

I think what we should be focusing on is the common ground. I don't think anyone here will be voting to cause harm to others but to do what they believe is best for themselves and their society. It's a shame, in my opinion, that both left wing voters and right wing voters want to do good but approach that good in different ways and don't seem to realise that "the other side" is actually the same side. This makes for groups of people who argue and argue and argue, each one afraid to concede that the other may have a point on some things, and are so afraid to be wrong themselves that the very idea of cooperation or compromise is regarded as disgraceful defeat.

Division, along with violence, is what "governments" do best.

[NapalmKev]

There's a clear and simple choice here - either vote Left and save the NHS, workers rights, care for the disabled and elderly, or... - vote Right and Lose the NHS, workers rights, care for the disabled and elderly. Plus we get to spend Billions on Nukes that will never be used, cosy up with Trump and give more money to those that are already fabulously wealthy!

I'm happily voting for Corbyn and I encourage you all to do the same!

Cheers

[Professor Bear]

But "he can't win", Kev.  We have literally no choice but to vote for a fascist dystopia.

[Hawkmumbler]

Kev you are preaching to the converted here.

[IndigoPrime]

My take: vote non-Torykip. If you live somewhere where Labour has a chance, vote for them. If you live somewhere the Lib Dems could potentially win but where Labour has historically done badly, vote for them. Exception: Brighton Pav. If you're a Labour voter there and don't vote Green, you should take a good, long, hard look at yourself.

[Steven Denton]

So, the bailiff has the "right" to steal my possessions. Ordinary people like you and I do not have the right to steal property, so how do we authorise others to do it for us?

The violence is in the threat - pay up or suffer. It makes no difference whether payment is being demanded (without any contract or agreement) for bandages or bullets; it makes no difference whether the money is going to be used for something good or something bad; it makes no difference whether the person refusing to pay up is right or wrong - it's not okay to extort money from people under threat of violence.

I cannot see the difference between defending your person or property against a burglar or mugger and defending it against a bailiff or other officer. Both are just human beings like everyone else with the same rights and responsibilities. The only difference between the mugger/bailiff and the victim/taxpayer is in power - the mugger may have a knife or a gun and the bailiff a gang of police officers with tasers and truncheons - which is more than the victim/taxpayer has. Payment is then made in both cases not because of the mugger/bailiff's rights but powers. In both cases, the victim/taxpayer pays up to avoid further harm, not because of lawful obligation.

(This is all in respect of government taxation where payment is simply demanded under threat for whatever reason and not in relation to the breaking of a lawful contract or agreement.)

I agree that humans are social animals and live in social groups, millions of years of evolution and instinct help us live this way. People understand this and help each other all the time with no need for coercion. What "government" does is exploit our instincts and drives and pretend that we're all really destructive and violent savages who need to be ruled and policed and charged for the privilege - holding up the few miscreants as examples of how utterly terrible we all are. We do not need that.

I dispute the idea that pushing policies which benefit the few at the expense of the many is hard. Look at quantitative easing as a prime example; the few all but destroyed the banking system, and with it financially crippled several countries, and were (and continue to be) bailed out by the majority - who are taxed to pay for the mistakes of the few whether they like it or not. The majority are also taxed for weaponry which the few could deploy to devastating effect for the many. The few also impose restrictive and protectionist rules, tariffs and regulations on the free market, increasing prices and restricting competition which affects everyone negatively. The few also write legislation, which they pass off as laws, which benefits the few at the expense of the many.

But this is all academic and concentrates on the bad aspects.

I think what we should be focusing on is the common ground. I don't think anyone here will be voting to cause harm to others but to do what they believe is best for themselves and their society. It's a shame, in my opinion, that both left wing voters and right wing voters want to do good but approach that good in different ways and don't seem to realise that "the other side" is actually the same side. This makes for groups of people who argue and argue and argue, each one afraid to concede that the other may have a point on some things, and are so afraid to be wrong themselves that the very idea of cooperation or compromise is regarded as disgraceful defeat.

Division, along with violence, is what "governments" do best.

Bailiffs do not steal property. They are court appointed agents who after a process (that is not always fair because, humans) are authorised to recover a debt that has been shown to be legally owed.

The next few paragraphs pre-suppose I accept that debt is false and rules/laws/society is equitable to violence. This has been discuses at length here before. I'm not bringing anything new to the discussion.

Humans are social animals they understand social groups of about 100. Even within those social groups there is conflict, allegiances and exploitation. Interaction between these groups is the root of the framework we have for society and governments. Bigger groups, like a society tend to need more impersonal, abstract thought.

You could argue that the banking bubble benefited the many and raised the quality of life (standard of living) across two continents. Buy bailing the banks out the governments chose to continue to prop up that bubble that will one day burst. From a perspective this is good for the many in the short team. You could also argue that saving the banks benefited the many. Although the rich few always benefit the most. What's good for the many is often counter intuitive and abstract.

I try to vote for what I think is best for society over what's best for me. But in the end what's best for society is probably better for me than any personal advantage I would gain by what's best for me.

[Theblazeuk]

Yes. Vote tactically for anything but the Tories or UKIP.

[IndigoPrime]

Unsure? Try https://www.tactical2017.com

[Modern Panther]

I had no college or university education and I wasn't taught how to argue properly during my state school days.

Jesus, did you just blame the state for you behaviour?  I didn't go to university, and I was also state educated.  (Horray for the existence of taxation).  Someone I managed to pick up the important lesson of not throwing insults around along the way.

You said that I "did not care about the holocaust" and regarded its dead as an "acceptable price", because I believe in democracy.

Then you tell the forum how much you love and respect everyone. 

When your hypocrisy is pointed out, you say that its okay for you to throw incredibly offensive names at me, because you accept me despite my flaws. 

Believe whatever you want to believe this week, but don't pretend you treat anyone here with respect.