The Political Thread

[The Legendary Shark]

Definition of slave in English:
noun
1(Especially in the past) a person who is the
legal property of another and is forced to obey them.
.
1.1A person who works very hard without proper remuneration or appreciation. (Nurses, firemen, police, you?)
.
Oxford.

[IndigoPrime]

Modern slavery exists, even in the UK, but to suggest the default position of a citizen is being the legal property of another is absolute hogwash. As for the second point, that's stretching the meaning to—possibly beyond—breaking point. It's about literal bondage and exploitation, without compensation and, frequently, rights. Nurses might be underpaid, but they are not slaves. To suggest that is ridiculous and also insulting to people in that profession.

[The Legendary Shark]

I understand your anger, JPM and IP. I've been through it myself. I'm questioning your deepest religious beliefs (Statism). I might as well tell Muslims that Allah doesn't exist or a Christian that Jehovah doesn't exist. At least with traditional religion it's difficult to prove or disprove the existence of a supernatural deity living on some higher plane of existence. Disproving the existence of government is fairly easy - it's just a small group of people pretending to have rights the rest of us don't in the name of a supernatural entity, "authority," which nobody can point to and say, "there it is."
.
You can't travel abroad unless they allow it, can't drive unless they allow it, can't live somewhere unless they allow it, can't earn money unless they take their cut, can't run a business unless they allow it, etc., etc., etc. All in the name of a fiction. That sounds more like slavery than freedom to me.

[JPMaybe]

I understand your anger, JPM and IP. I've been through it myself. I'm questioning your deepest religious beliefs (Statism). I might as well tell Muslims that Allah doesn't exist or a Christian that Jehovah doesn't exist. At least with traditional religion it's difficult to prove or disprove the existence of a supernatural deity living on some higher plane of existence. Disproving the existence of government is fairly easy - it's just a small group of people pretending to have rights the rest of us don't in the name of a supernatural entity, "authority," which nobody can point to and say, "there it is."
.
You can't travel abroad unless they allow it, can't drive unless they allow it, can't live somewhere unless they allow it, can't earn money unless they take their cut, can't run a business unless they allow it, etc., etc., etc. All in the name of a fiction. That sounds more like slavery than freedom to me.

For the love of... I thought you'd hit peak sanctimony, obviously I was wrong. Please though, keep characterising people you disagree with as doing so out of religious (i.e. irrational) commitment, and yourself, obviously, as the internet bodhisattva whose exhortations aren't the trite, sub-sixth-form philosophy, google-scholarship derived homilies they appear to be.  I reject your ideas for how society should be organised because they're fucking stupid, not because you're like, shaking my worldview, maaaaan.

[Jim_Campbell]

I reject your ideas for how society should be organised because they're fucking stupid, not because you're like, shaking my worldview, maaaaan.

Put some extra swearing in that and pretend I said it, eh?

Cheers!

Jim

[ZenArcade]

Nothing wrong with a bit of swearing. Z

[The Legendary Shark]

Yep, I'm only saying this to annoy you - not because I credit you with enough decency and intelligence to run your own lives.

[NapalmKev]

Yep, i'm only saying this to annoy you - not because I credit you with enough decency and intelligence to run your own lives.

Here's a question - if every Government in the World disappeared (for whatever reason) what should we (as an all-loving collective) do first?

Cheers

[JayzusB.Christ]

Call Miracleman? I have quite a few anarchist views myself, but if what you describe happened overnight, we'd be fucked.  Work with what you have,  I say,  and there are some very good benefits there, a half-decent healthcare system and a welfare system being two of them .
And sorry, Shark,  but I have to agree that it's extremely patronising to suggest that dissenters to your world view are only arguing because they can't handle you challenging theirs.

And

[JayzusB.Christ]

Excuse the lonely 'and'. That was all I decided to say

[Tjm86]

Modern slavery exists, even in the UK, but to suggest the default position of a citizen is being the legal property of another is absolute hogwash.

Actually, no.  Technically we are all subjects of the crown and therefore HRH's 'property' rather than citizens. Granted the reality is that if she turned up on our doorstep and demanded our house there might be a bit of a kerfuffle over it but then when you consider the bowing and scraping / obeisance demanded every time she or one of her offspring show up you can see part of the problem.  This is why I have a problem with 'citizenship' in schools as it perpetuates this lie.

[The Legendary Shark]

NK, if every government in the world disappeared overnight, we wouldn't get dragged into wars we didn't want for a start. Then we'd have to carry on living our lives and getting on with whatever needs doing. A lack of government does not mean that organisation and cooperation cease to exist.
.
Anyone who thinks I'm being patronising is free to prove to me that 'authority' and/or 'government' actually exist in as patronising a manner as you wish.

[Modern Panther]

government and authority can only exist if the are accepted by the people being governed, or who authority is held over.
The last UK general election saw a turnout of 66.1% of the electorate.  Since the number of deliberately spoiled ballots is negligible, I think its safe to assume that at least two thirds of the people in the country accept, in principle, the notion of elected government.

Two thirds are so in favour of the notion of democracy and elected government that they took time out of their day to go to a voting place, maybe stand in a queue, gave their names, and made their mark.  They may not have a huge amount of influence in how the country is run, but if they were unwilling to accept the very principle of authority, I think its unlikely they would do that. 

The acceptance of the notion of government is the acceptance of the authority of that government.  Therefore, government holds authority. 

Sharky, you also didn't answer Kev's question.  What would we do first? 

[The Legendary Shark]

If 66.1% of the tribe pray to the Volcano God asking for it to please not erupt and to bestow blessings on the tribe, that does not prove the existence of the Volcano God. Voting is the Statist's equivalent to praying to government asking it not to hurt us and to bestow blessings on the people and does not prove the existence of government.
.
Government requires authority otherwise it would not be government - but how do 66.1% of the voting population pass on authorities they do not themselves possess (to take other people's money and push them around) to those they voted for? Even if 100% of eligible voters voted, they cannot delegate rights and authorities they do not possess to anyone else. Government, then, logically has no authority and, without authority, cannot exist.
.
Belief in government, therefore, is not proof for the existence of government - just as belief in God is not proof for the existence of God.
.
And I can't answer Kev's question, "what would we do first?" That question is rooted in the religion or superstition of Statism; ie, asking someone else for answers. A far better question is "what would I do first?" And nobody can answer that question but the questioner. The first thing I'd probably do is celebrate with a beer.

[Hawkmumbler]

I'm so lost and confused as to how to even understand how to deal with the so called "migrant crisis". It's just such a touchy and awful subject i'm not certain i've enough worldly experience about me to have an opinion on the matter despite it being a hot button topic right now.