The Political Thread

[Frank]

Not really political at all, but folk get upset if you post anything contentious or upsetting on threads like Threadjacking. NY Times piece telling the story of US hostage James Foley and other US/UK hostages in more detail than I've read elsewhere - I didn't know, for example, that Foley had converted to Islam during his captivity (apparently genuinely), or even where and how he came to be captured in the first instance:

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/10/26/world/middleeast/horror-before-the-beheadings-what-isis-hostages-endured-in-syria.html?referrer

[The Legendary Shark]

I called in to see the boss this morning after another lettuce Odyssey over the weekend. He asked me if there had been any problems and had a natter about how smoothly everything had gone and what a bloody good bloke I am.
.
On my way out, as a genuine afterthought I asked, "oh, what's your policy on parking tickets?" I produced same to demonstrate the perils of Nottingham.
.
His eyes narrowed. I think he's been expecting this conversation, or one like it, for a while now. "More to the point," he said slowly, "what's your policy?"
.
I told him my policy and outlined my plan.
.
He sighed. "So, you're not going to pay it?"
.
"There's nothing To pay," I said, "the law on such matters is clear and simple and easy to... Hoy!"
.
He snatched the ticket from my hand. "I'll pay the bloody thing," he said. I tried to dissuade him but he'd have none of it.
.
I understand his fears, although I don't share them, and it upsets me that my personal policies have cost him money. I think it would be fair to meet him half-way and pay him half the money but, in order to assuage my morals, order him to spend it on something real like shopping or getting pissed. That way me trying to stick to my principles and him succumbing to his fears costs each of us only half of what it might have.
.

[The Legendary Shark]

Another excellent article from Adam Curtis over on his BBC blog: www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/posts/HAPPIDROME-Part-One
.
I look around me, watch how people behave and listen to what they talk about and I know, I really know, that what Curtis writes is spot on - right down to being excluded from rewards if you don't play along.

[The Legendary Shark]

Another excellent article from Adam Curtis over on his BBC blog: www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/posts/HAPPIDROME-Part-One
.
I look around me, watch how people behave and listen to what they talk about and I know, I really know, that what Curtis writes is spot on - right down to being excluded from rewards if you don't play along.

[TordelBack]

That was a great read/watch Sharky, many thanks. He's a bright boy Curtis, and while his vaious analyses aren't massively original, the way he brings the different threads together definitely is.  Although one does permit oneself a cynical 'we are all individuals!'-type chuckle at the juxtaposition of these particular bits:

...[A]ll systems of power create 'submissive persons', and that the only way to really create a true revolutionary world was to build one without any hierarchies. He ... proposed instead a completely decentralised system of government...

... Ocalan sent out instructions to all militants that they should read The Ecology of Freedom.

[The Legendary Shark]

It is a good point, Tordels - how does one promote individual freedoms without some form of mass movement? It seems an insoluble conundrum. I suppose that everyone must be given, en mass, the tools and information they need and then just let them go - trust them to do the right thing. After that it's really just a question of mechanics and a leap of faith in Ourselves.
.
But we're still left with the biggest problem of all, how do you free people who don't know they're enslaved? This is where people like Curtis come in, contradictions and all, to say with far more eloquence and knowledge than I ever could the things we all need to hear and think about. The guy should have his own weekly half-hour show on prime time. That would be a great start.

[Robert Frazer]

It must have been a slow day in the Independent news room on Tuesday, because they gave a front-page column and an entire interior page to the tiresome Argentine bleating over the Falklands (like when dog bites man, this is not news). I fired a letter off to the paper complaining about their hypocrisy because it's actually the case that today, with all the land stolen from Mapuche Indians, Argentina is a bigger colonial power than we are! They printed it as well, which was a nice treat over this morning's cornflakes.

[Theblazeuk]

Sharky, is your policy on parking tickets that you haven't entered into a contract with the parking wardens so you can park where you like?

[The Legendary Shark]

Partially, yes, but mainly due to the fact that there is no due process. Technically, without being tried by a jury of my peers, nobody can arbitrarily impose fines on persons who have broken no law (no actual loss, harm or damage caused) - even if they are wearing costumes.
.
Another way to look at it is that governments, councils, etc., have no more powers under the law than you or I - how could they when they are a) non-living administrative entities, b) owned by you and I and c) made up of normal human beings with exactly the same powers under the law as you or I? If you were to paint double yellow lines on the road outside your house and issue private tickets to parking offenders, would that be lawful? Well, absolutely - if the council/government can do it then so can you - it's just a matter of scale, nothing more. Would the people to whom you issued your private parking tickets have to pay you? Nope, because it's a public highway (unless it's not - you'd have a much better chance extracting fines if you did the same thing on a private road). If the naughty parker has caused loss, harm or damage in some way, then that's a matter for the constabulary and the courts.
.
And yes, technically I can park wherever I want but common sense must prevail in the end. If I wanted to give an extreme example, I could park up on a motorway without incurring a fine. If, however, my parked vehicle caused an accident then I would be tried by a jury of my peers for that crime, and I think they'd throw the book at me. Also, in such a case, police constables (or anyone, really) would be within their rights to tow my vehicle out of the way and leave it somewhere away from the danger zone (but not impound it). I might also get taken to court for causing actual danger and receive a fine or imprisonment for that but, without any court sanction, nobody could arbitrarily fine me even for parking on a motorway (good luck arguing that, though!)
.
Another example - speed cameras. A mechanism assesses your speed and sends a message to a computer which prints out a speeding ticket and posts it to you. In this, again extreme, example not one human being is involved. Literally nobody is asking you for money. Even if a police officer is the one with the speed-gun and types your registration into the system which sends you the ticket, no judge or jury is involved so this officer, this person in a costume who has no more powers under the law than you have, is demanding money without any basis in either law or contract. Again, what would happen if you bought your own speed gun and started issuing private speeding tickets to police cars?
.

[Professor Bear]

They'd beat you up because they're the cops.

Getting ticketed isn't really a human rights violation, it's more of an avoidable inconvenience.  Driving slower near speed cameras and not parking where you're not supposed to park ought to take care of it.

[The Legendary Shark]

How blithely people seem to accept police brutality - like a dog resigned to yet another beating. Extraordinary.
.
The rest of your argument seems  to be that either one takes personal responsibility for everything or submits wholly to legislation with no middle ground. Legislation is meant to be advisory to one's exercise of personal responsibility, not a replacement for it. The two are meant to work hand in hand but somehow we've got it into our heads that legislation is the Word of God. Well, God has nothing to do with arbitrary fines - that's all about having to find ways of raising revenue to pay off the unpayoffable government debt. They therefore use legislation as a cash machine, subverting and abusing its lawful purpose. The government/councils are using the letter of the law to defeat the spirit of the law, in the vernacular, but have a great advantage in that they get to choose the wording of the laws they intend to abuse.
.
The law, just like our governments and councils, needs to be rescued from the malign influence of this crazy fakemoney system and put back to work properly.
.

[Jimmy Baker's Assistant]

Whilst I respect the principled stand of our beloved Legendary Shark, I accept the rule of law, not because of fear of violence or subjugation, but because I believe in society.

My family is somewhat dependent on a functioning society, particularly for education and health provision, and I have no wish to (very slightly) endanger that by advancing highly unconvincing arguments as to why I am allowed to park where I want.

[Proudhuff]

and all this driving on the same side of the road malarky what's that about? oppression man, that's what.

[IAMTHESYSTEM]

For those already concerned about corporate power a little bit about the cloud future. Predictive software giving you what you want or- what they believe you should like?

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/31/opinion/david-brooks-our-machine-masters.html?action=click&contentCollection=Middle%20East&module=MostEmailed&version=Full&region=Marginalia&src=me&pgtype=article

[The Legendary Shark]

I also accept the rule of law - what I don't accept is law being subverted and used as a cash machine.