The Political Thread

[JLC]

Disgusting

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/kensington-resident-tells-shocked-radio-host-if-grenfell-families-moved-in-id-leave-a3572066.html

[Jimmy Baker's Assistant]

I hope Donna does move out. The last thing the survivors of the Grenfell Tower disaster need is an encounter with such a person.

[GordonR]

Disgusting

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/kensington-resident-tells-shocked-radio-host-if-grenfell-families-moved-in-id-leave-a3572066.html

"I've lost everything I own, my neighbours horribly burned or asphyxiated to death, emergency service workers are still sifting through the charred wreckage trying to find their any identifiable human remains, and my family and I narrowly avoided the same fate."

"Yes, but now you're getting something for nothing!  WHAT ABOUT THE SERVICE CHARGES!!??"

[The Legendary Shark]

I'm enjoying our debate, Steven, thanks for indulging me with such aplomb.

In this post I want to concentrate on your last sentence, "rights are a social construct," because I think this is the crucial point in this discussion. What are rights? Who has them and who does not - and why?

I think that the basic and possibly only right is to be what one is. That is to say, a tree has the right to be a tree, a penguin has the right to be a penguin and a human has the right to be a human. The right to be a tree includes the right to try and put down roots but this right is not a guarantee of success or an exemption from beavers. The right to be a penguin includes the right to try and eat fish but the right to be a fish includes the right to try to avoid penguins.

To my mind, then, the fundamental right of a human being is to be a human being. Human beings are social animals which, as far as we are aware, possess thinking abilities unique in this world. We each of us, then, have the right to try to integrate with the social whole and the right to try to think.

The idea of rights as a social construct is, I think, an entirely valid one - the result of human thinking attempting to put into words the fundamental characteristics of being human. A human being, then, has the right to try to do anything a human being is capable of doing just as a penguin has the right to try to do anything a penguin is capable of doing.

This is a worrying and potentially dangerous conclusion because it suggests that we all have the right to try and, for example, murder anyone we choose. I'm capable of stabbing someone, this line of thought runs, therefore I have the right to try it. Our human instincts towards sociability, however, run contrary to this right and, 999,999 times out of a million, stop us from going around arbitrarily stabbing one another. We mostly, then, exercise our fundamental right to not stab each other (which would probably more properly be called a responsibility rather than a right) rather than our right to stab each other.

A right, then, seems to me to be a contained phenomena, each one explainable and quantifiable externally throughout entire species and societies but applicable only within individual beings. You and I may have exactly the same rights and responsibilities but I cannot transplant mine to you nor you yours to me any more than we could swap fingers or feelings. My rights are therefore my responsibility and mine alone.

Thus any group of people calling themselves "government" has the right to tell me what they believe my rights should be but I have the right to disagree, just as they have the right to disagree with my assessment of their rights. If they exercise their right to force me to comply (a right most people eschew due to our social instincts) then I have the equally valid (perhaps more valid) right to resist. So long as I am not infringing on the rights of others then there is no reason for others to interfere with my rights.

I have said in the past, and still maintain, that I do not believe in black rights, white rights, gay rights, straight rights, women's rights, men's rights, children's rights, senior's rights, patient's rights, doctor's rights, prisoner's rights or officer's rights because all those are just bullshit designed to keep us apart and distract us from the fact that we all have the same individual rights and responsibilities as social, thinking human beings. Governments want us to believe that all our rights begin and end at their door and that without their approval we have no rights at all. Well, they have every right to try and convince us of that but we have every right to disagree, right?

[Tjm86]

Disgusting

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/kensington-resident-tells-shocked-radio-host-if-grenfell-families-moved-in-id-leave-a3572066.html

Oh come on.  This has got to be trolling.  Are you honestly telling me that this Sloan Ranger mentality exists.  Seriously.  This has got to be the product of a fertile imagination.  The LBC presenter fell for it hook line and sinker.

[Modern Panther]

"What's the naughtiest thing you've ever done?"

"Industrialized election fraud"

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8RWPwdqpzO0

[sheridan]

Disgusting

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/kensington-resident-tells-shocked-radio-host-if-grenfell-families-moved-in-id-leave-a3572066.html

Oh come on.  This has got to be trolling.  Are you honestly telling me that this Sloan Ranger mentality exists.  Seriously.  This has got to be the product of a fertile imagination.  The LBC presenter fell for it hook line and sinker.

Did you read the full article?  The first paragraph or two?  Or just the name of the link?  The article goes on to refer to other articles where (rich) Kensington residents have gone on about house prices and hard work and the usual tosh.  If you look at the comments you'll see more - accusing the dead of being illegal immigrants, scroungers and the like.  (and anybody who tries to defend the dead are 'playing the race card').

[The Legendary Shark]

I can pretty much guarantee that your refusal to accept that you were being charged is not the reason the charge didn't go to court.

Okay, I'll bite - what's your theory on why events played out as they did?

[JLC]

Disgusting

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/kensington-resident-tells-shocked-radio-host-if-grenfell-families-moved-in-id-leave-a3572066.html

Oh come on.  This has got to be trolling.  Are you honestly telling me that this Sloan Ranger mentality exists.  Seriously.  This has got to be the product of a fertile imagination.  The LBC presenter fell for it hook line and sinker.

Yes. I am honestly telling you that this Sloane Ranger mentality exists, & its wilfully naive to think that this mentality doesn't exist. Why has it got to be the product of a fertile imagination? Why do you think we are in the mess we are in?!?

[Steven Denton]

I'm enjoying our debate, Steven, thanks for indulging me with such aplomb.

In this post I want to concentrate on your last sentence, "rights are a social construct," because I think this is the crucial point in this discussion. What are rights? Who has them and who does not - and why?

I think that the basic and possibly only right is to be what one is. That is to say, a tree has the right to be a tree, a penguin has the right to be a penguin and a human has the right to be a human. The right to be a tree includes the right to try and put down roots but this right is not a guarantee of success or an exemption from beavers. The right to be a penguin includes the right to try and eat fish but the right to be a fish includes the right to try to avoid penguins.

To my mind, then, the fundamental right of a human being is to be a human being. Human beings are social animals which, as far as we are aware, possess thinking abilities unique in this world. We each of us, then, have the right to try to integrate with the social whole and the right to try to think.

The idea of rights as a social construct is, I think, an entirely valid one - the result of human thinking attempting to put into words the fundamental characteristics of being human. A human being, then, has the right to try to do anything a human being is capable of doing just as a penguin has the right to try to do anything a penguin is capable of doing.

This is a worrying and potentially dangerous conclusion because it suggests that we all have the right to try and, for example, murder anyone we choose. I'm capable of stabbing someone, this line of thought runs, therefore I have the right to try it. Our human instincts towards sociability, however, run contrary to this right and, 999,999 times out of a million, stop us from going around arbitrarily stabbing one another. We mostly, then, exercise our fundamental right to not stab each other (which would probably more properly be called a responsibility rather than a right) rather than our right to stab each other.

A right, then, seems to me to be a contained phenomena, each one explainable and quantifiable externally throughout entire species and societies but applicable only within individual beings. You and I may have exactly the same rights and responsibilities but I cannot transplant mine to you nor you yours to me any more than we could swap fingers or feelings. My rights are therefore my responsibility and mine alone.

Thus any group of people calling themselves "government" has the right to tell me what they believe my rights should be but I have the right to disagree, just as they have the right to disagree with my assessment of their rights. If they exercise their right to force me to comply (a right most people eschew due to our social instincts) then I have the equally valid (perhaps more valid) right to resist. So long as I am not infringing on the rights of others then there is no reason for others to interfere with my rights.

I have said in the past, and still maintain, that I do not believe in black rights, white rights, gay rights, straight rights, women's rights, men's rights, children's rights, senior's rights, patient's rights, doctor's rights, prisoner's rights or officer's rights because all those are just bullshit designed to keep us apart and distract us from the fact that we all have the same individual rights and responsibilities as social, thinking human beings. Governments want us to believe that all our rights begin and end at their door and that without their approval we have no rights at all. Well, they have every right to try and convince us of that but we have every right to disagree, right?

Defining what rights are, and if rights even exist in a form outside a human social construct is quite a tricky area of philosophie. You start with some biological survival imperatives of non human life and say theses are rights. but then rather than biological survival imperatives you define them as 'being the thing they are' which I disagree with, which allows you greater scope to build your logic pyramid for 'human rights'. it's at this very early point that I disagree with you.

If rights are defined by 'nature' then all we really have is the right to survive and reproduce at any cost. the rest of your argument is more speculative fiction than philosophie (one of the reasons that I have previously suggested you collect your ideas within a narrative). The human social construct of individual rights are almost the opposite of that, they define what as a society we will support beyond survival of the fittest. results may very depending on where and when you were born.

There has been an attempt since the middle of the last century to define the difference between Human rights and legal rights with a narrower remit for human rights that legal rights must adhere too. in essence it's the low bar for society. laws should not cause the treatment of individuals to fall bellow the human rights minimum. raising that low bar is often contentious and causes much wailing and gnashing of teeth.

[Modern Panther]

Okay, I'll bite - what's your theory on why events played out as they did?

Really, there are two possible options here:

1) criminal legislation only works if the criminal in question is accepting of that legislation, and yet, no-one other than you and a handful of individuals, have noticed such a glaring omission in society's most fundamental tenants.  The police, indeed the entire criminal justice system, is aware that they have no authority other than that granted to it by those who have broken legislated laws, but no steps have been taken to address this powerlessness - they have simple hoped that no one would notice.

2) the police and crown prosecution service have better things to do that waste tax payers money and their precious time on a bloke with some weed. Such as prosecuting drunk drivers (under legislation), or , I don't know...arms traffickers (under legislation).

Now, I am willing to accept that I am possibly wrong, but on balance of probability I'm going to go with the underfunded system idea, rather that the one you proposed.

[Steven Denton]

Okay, I'll bite - what's your theory on why events played out as they did?

Really, there are two possible options here:

1) criminal legislation only works if the criminal in question is accepting of that legislation, and yet, no-one other than you and a handful of individuals, have noticed such a glaring omission in society's most fundamental tenants.  The police, indeed the entire criminal justice system, is aware that they have no authority other than that granted to it by those who have broken legislated laws, but no steps have been taken to address this powerlessness - they have simple hoped that no one would notice.

2) the police and crown prosecution service have better things to do that waste tax payers money and their precious time on a bloke with some weed. Such as prosecuting drunk drivers (under legislation), or , I don't know...arms traffickers (under legislation).

Now, I am willing to accept that I am possibly wrong, but on balance of probability I'm going to go with the underfunded system idea, rather that the one you proposed.

You can totally be arrested for the possession of cannabis. Small amount for personal use, first offence is a warning, second a fine, third is being arrested.

[JLC]

Grenfell fire survivors moved out of hotel with just hours notice. More disgusting behaviour.

http://news.sky.com/story/grenfell-fire-survivors-moved-out-of-hotel-with-just-hours-notice-10925401

[Modern Panther]

And several tower blocks evacuated overnight, without warning, and residents moved to sleeping on the floor of nearby leisure centres, because their homes are so dangerous.

Never mind, soon we won't have to follow those pesky EU safety rules.

[JPMaybe]

In the pantheon of lolbertarians thinking they've found the cheat codes to reality "I didn't get charged cos I didn't sign a form" is even better than "sir, that flag makes this an admiralty court!"