The Political Thread

[Tjm86]

I would usually trot out amusing hyperbole at this point to illustrate my point and say something like "he could dress in a thousand pound suit and sing God Save The Queen and the press would still crucify Corbyn" except we actually live in a world where this is what actually happens.

Case in point being the Remembrance Day 'didn't bow low enough' outcry.  You would think that we would reach a point where the media dug itself into a credibility grave so deep they could never get out of it.  They can't be far off at the moment.  Then I listen to some of my younger colleagues in work and just cringe.  (oops, sorry, wrong thread again)   

[Modern Panther]

is the difference between the initiation of force and the initiation of defensive force.

What is the difference? Am I able to defend my property and business by using force? Where is the line drawn?  Is the government allowed to use force if it feels that your behaviour is a threat, or might become a threat? For example, if essential services required to save life and limb must be funded by taxes, and you refuse to pay your taxes, can the government use defensive force to compelling you?

Frankly, it feels like a massive gray area.  Luckily, we've been developing a system which actually works for the last ten thousand years.

You;'ve said in the past that society has no right to do anything that individuals don't have the right to do. If society is allowed to imprison sex offenders, presumably that stems from the right of the individual to imprison sex oftenders.  I don't have a prison, so I'll be using my basement.

If society has no right to enforce its morality upon me, why am I  required to drawing the line at sex offenders? What if I regard shoplifting to be a morally repellent crime, and feel that perps should be harshly punished?

[Definitely Not Mister Pops]

The Blairite wing will never let the party unite while lefties are at the helm.  All the recent polling and surveys have shown their influence and popularity with the membership and voters has been drastically overestimated, so a leftie win at the next GE would mean the end of the Blairites as a power within Labour.  They're far more interested in sowing discord and burning the party down, then claiming that the disunity is because of the lefties.  Kind of like farting loudly and then turning to the only other person in the room with you and saying "EURGH DID YOU JUST FART?"

I've said it before, farts are funny.

[The Legendary Shark]

is the difference between the initiation of force and the initiation of defensive force.

What is the difference? Am I able to defend my property and business by using force? Where is the line drawn?  Is the government allowed to use force if it feels that your behaviour is a threat, or might become a threat? For example, if essential services required to save life and limb must be funded by taxes, and you refuse to pay your taxes, can the government use defensive force to compelling you?

Frankly, it feels like a massive gray area.  Luckily, we've been developing a system which actually works for the last ten thousand years.

You;'ve said in the past that society has no right to do anything that individuals don't have the right to do. If society is allowed to imprison sex offenders, presumably that stems from the right of the individual to imprison sex oftenders.  I don't have a prison, so I'll be using my basement.

If society has no right to enforce its morality upon me, why am I  required to drawing the line at sex offenders? What if I regard shoplifting to be a morally repellent crime, and feel that perps should be harshly punished?

.
The difference, as I suspect you well know, is simple and plain. If Person A punches Person B for no good reason, that is unacceptable. If person B throws a counter-punch to deter Person A, that is acceptable. If Person B then continues to punch Person A after the threat is neutralised, that is unacceptable. If Person B is unable to defend against Person A, then Person C has the right to use defensive force on behalf of Person A against Person B.
.
This kind of knowledge is so basic in humans that it may well be innate. Primary school children get it and I'm virtually certain you do too.
.
The right to self defence extends to include the right to defend lawfully obtained property.
.
Punishment, however, in a truly enlightened society, would not exist. If someone steals something from you, you have the right to recompense in the return of the stolen property or its equivalent and the costs incurred in sorting everything out. The minute you try and add punishment on top of this, even to the tune of a single penny, you are initiating force. In a free society, there could be no prisons as we know them today.
.
In the case of physical assaults or sex crimes, solutions are - as ever - both practically and morally challenging. The first step, of course, must be investigation and arrest. Presuming the correct culprit is apprehended, the force used in the process is justified as defensive force. Then the courts and juries hear the case and make their decision, just like today.
.
If the crime was relatively minor or an act of passion or temporary madness or was otherwise less serious in some way, the sentence might be simply to pay compensation to the victim with no prison time, just like today.
.
If the crime was relatively excessive or an act of malice or long-term madness or was otherwise more serious in some way, the sentence might be compensation to the victim and segregation from society until such time as the criminal poses no further threat, just like is supposed to happen today.
.
Part of the segregation infrastructure might have to include what are, to all intents and purposes, prisons to house the most dangerous members of society. These prisons would only differ from contemporary facilities in their approach: to protect, not to punish.
.
No, the "government" has no right to initiate force to collect taxes. To say "but people will die if you don't pay" might sound like a good moral justification, it might even be true. But it's no reason to initiate force. If Person A's spouse was dying, Person A would have no right to demand Person B pay for treatment unless Person B was somehow responsible or contractually obliged to do so. Person A can beg or borrow from Person B, but that's all. I know that this stinks but it's a consequence of freedom. In any case, non "government" solutions to such problems do exist.
.
You can feel that shoplifting is a morally repugnant crime all you want but the fact is you're only entitled to reclaim what was taken or lost and not a penny more. Be content with that and leave justice to God and the perp's conscience.
.
The area of law and order and crime and punishment may be grey, but it always has been and seems set to continue so for the foreseeable future.

[Hawkmumbler]

Ah Sharky, if only real scuffles where ever as simple as your Persons A, B, and C scenarios. But they aren't.

[Professor Bear]

How abut this weather, huh?
And hey, you guys heard about Pluto?  That's messed up.

[The Legendary Shark]

Ah Sharky, if only real scuffles where ever as simple as your Persons A, B, and C scenarios. But they aren't.

.
That's why we have courts and juries.
.

[Modern Panther]

It's far from innate and child friendly, Sharky.  In fact, your system appears bizarre and based largely on hoping that people just don't commit crimes.

If someone steals something from you, you have the right to recompense in the return of the stolen property or its equivalent and the costs incurred in sorting everything out.

The only punishment for theft is to have the thing you stole taken away from you, with a small admin fee?

The basis of this philosophy appears to be that society cannot enforce rules upon the individual, since society's authority is no greater than an individual person's authority...except sometimes, when someone (but who knows who), decides otherwise. 

There's no need for this to be defined further, since everyone just knows and will agree.  It'll be funded by donations and we can all take turns being judges.  I don't know why we're not doing it already. 

I appreciate that your hopefully outlook is based largely on believing the very best of mankind, but since you can't get a bunch of blokes on the internet, (who gain nothing from disagreeing with you,) to agree, is it likely that an entirely united world (where people actually have something to win or lose), might be beyond our reach. 

Consider also that the only other people who believe in removal of government, abandoning taxation and relying on an unregulated capitalism are billionaire businessmen who made their money through sweatshops and pollution, or gun-nuts convinced that Obama is a terrorist.
Maybe you've been convinced that these things are a good idea because you've fallen for their lies.

[The Legendary Shark]

The system is partially based on the hope that people will not commit crime. Of course it is. That's no different from today in any way - hope for the best but plan for the worst. Do we not all hope that the people around us will not commit crimes? So yes, guilty as charged - hope is a component. Why should it not be?
.
Yes, society cannot enforce rules on an individual in the free society. This is not as bad as it sounds. The kinds of rules we're talking about are legislation-type rules, such as the earlier Red Car Bill example. The more important rules, actual laws, forbidding murder, rape, theft and so on are pretty much "enforced" by social convention and education.
.
But if I want to drive around in a blue car, stark-bollock naked, who's to stop me so long as I'm not doing any harm?
.
Okay, then you spiral off a bit into nonsense - disregarding the existence of police, courts and juries in an attempt to inject vagueness where non exists. Then you take a couple of previous ideas and present them in the most dismissive and simple manner possible then we're into sarcasm.
.
I do have faith in mankind but I don't think everyone's a saint. The faith I have in mankind is that they will act like humans, for good or ill.
.
Whether the people here agree with me or not is neither here nor there. There will never be a united world, a single Global Utopia (Glutopia?) - how can there be?
.
Utopia, like most things in life, is subjective. If a Utopia is forced on people, it's not a Utopia. Yet I believe that each of us has the right to strive for our own Utopia. Isn't that what we try and do now, making our homes and lives as good as we can make them?
.
The ideas I put forward are not about imposing a single subjective Utopia on everyone but creating and fostering conditions more conducive to the task of chasing personal Utopian ideals. I believe our colonial cousins called it "the pursuit of happiness."
.
Most billionaire businessmen rely on "government" for helpful legislation and monopolies, for plum contracts, for grants, bail-outs and subsidies through taxes, through bribes and deals to run sweat-shops and pollute the environment. There may be a few billionaires who want what you claim but most are firmly on the side of "government."
.
Then you compare me to a hypothetical gun-toting Obama-hater with mental health issues. Thanks.
.
And conclude with the suggestion that I am gullible enough to be taken in by lies spun by imaginary stereotypes. Thanks again.

[Modern Panther]

You often claim that those who disagree are gullible enough to rely on "government" or "authority".  I think that you've fallen for the lie perpetrated by rightwing politicians and billionaires, who under the pretence of support for small business and individual rights, lobby for the removal of laws, the removal of taxes and the privatisation of services.

As soon as government start making laws as ridiculous as the examples you're keen to give, such as insisting cars should be red, then I and many others would be happy to remove them.

  Vote for someone else.  Join a party and influence policy.  Hell, start your own party and run for office.  If you don't like the world, then find a bunch of people who agree and work to change it.  But in the world you envisage, although you hope that it would be all about cooperation, the truth is that the only way you could change things is by having enough money to control a company.

[The Legendary Shark]

Your personal fantasies concerning the foundation of my perceptions aside, I can't see any clear counter-argument to the assertion that elected people, by some unexplained process involving votes and the abstract concept of "government," assume super-human rights and powers.
.
It's not the ridiculousness of legislation that matters, nor even the apparent good sense of it, it's the fact that it can be enforced on the unwilling. As soon as you accept the word of politicians as The Word of Law you open the door to the gas chambers. All those millions murdered by Robespierre, Hitler, Stalin, Mao and so many others were all committed with the permission of legislation. How many genocides have been legitimised through legislation? How many native peoples subjugated, displaced or eradicated? All perfectly legally. This is why legal must never mean the same as lawful and why legislation must never be confused with law.
.
Form my own party? Seriously? That would imply that I know what's best for you, that I should seek permission to run your life in the way I see fit. I have no idea what the best way is for you to run your own life, how could I? The only opinion I have concerning your life is that it's yours and you can do what you want with it. Beyond that, and on the understanding that you're not setting out to hurt anyone, it's none of my business. The only thing I want to change about your life are the restrictions holding you back from fulfilling it. These restrictions are largely in our own heads, matters of faith - a prime example being the faith placed in a member of parliament's super-powers.
.
I do think we have become too dependent on the "government" when, if we really must have one (which it seems we must, at least for now), it should be dependent on us.
.
I'm not trying to change the world. That simply can't be done. Well, it can but the results are never what's expected. Properly clever people have written books describing ideal societies, books so good that people have tried to enforce their ideas and systems on other people. Then the quibbling over wording, context and meaning starts and before you know it, again, there's another 100,000 human beings dumped in mass graves. Change the world? Me? Not bloody likely, mate.
.
The only world I have any power, desire or right to change is my own. That's all I want, to be King of Me. If you want to be King of You then that's great. If you want to be ruled by others then that's okay, it's your choice. Just don't think that because you are content to live that way I should be forced to live that way too.

[Hawkmumbler]

by some unexplained process involving votes and the abstract concept of "government," assume super-human rights and powers.

Peter Saint John confirmed for only legit prime minister.

[The Legendary Shark]

Peter Saint John confirmed for only legit prime minister.

.
Heh. Excellent example.
.
Maybe I should shut up for a while now - I know how this stuff irritates people even though I enjoy the topic quite a bit.
.
Sorry to the irritated.
.
Normal programming* will now resume.
.
.
*see what I did, there? Oh, suit yourselves...

[Professor Bear]

In other news, Labour are torn on whether or not to support the deliberate and pointless killing of thousands of people.
That this is an actual discussion they are having is mind-blowing enough all on its own, but then you factor in that they did this before in Iraq and we are still seeing the fallout.

[TordelBack]

"We aren't sure that simply bombing people is the best solution to this problem".  Plainly evil, probably insane.