The Political Thread

[The Legendary Shark]

Theblaze, I think that legality and authority are basically the same thing. It is authority that decides what is legal whether we like it or not. What is legal is put into legislation by authority, which is utterly foolish when one thinks about it. Take the example of Prohibition in the United States. One day, drinking is moral and legal, the next day drinking becomes immoral and illegal and eventually returns to being moral and legal again. This exposes both legality and authority as a nonsense, a myth.

To explain, imagine a mathematician who announces that, from today, 2+2 will equal 5. He can say it all he wants, even force changes in textbooks and classrooms to teach that 2+2=5, but no matter how much he insists upon it, 2+2 will always in reality equal 4.

But what about crimes like murder? Virtually everybody knows that murder is wrong so even if authority passes legislation outlawing murder it wouldn't make any difference at all to the crime itself. Just because some legislation happens to forbid murder, rape or theft doesn't make those crimes unlawful any more than absence of such legislation makes them lawful. The overwhelming majority of legislation has one of only two purposes: to raise revenue for the state (by imposing fines, license fees and charges etc.) and to keep those in authority in authority.

Authority therefore has no authority to change any real law whatsoever - it's simply a myth writing its own mythology in order to finance and justify its own existence.

[Jim_Campbell]

The most worrying fact about all the austerity measures that UK Gov have recently taken is that they have not reduced the actual debt at all, rather they have reduced the rate at which it increases.

That's because, as the Prof alludes to above, the Tories' agenda has nothing to do with the necessity for austerity (clue: as a percentage of GDP, the UK's debt problems are relatively slight) other than as the smokescreen to allow them to dismantle the NHS, welfare state and state education systems and replace them with structures designed to shovel public money into the pockets of the same private companies they'll be directors of when they stand down from Parliament.

Cheers

Jim

[The Legendary Shark]

There is no debt. It's an illusion based on a lie spread by a myth.

[Jim_Campbell]

There is no debt. It's an illusion based on a lie spread by a myth.

For fuck's sake. You can choose to reject the consensual building blocks that enable society to function. Honestly, you can. It's fine. I choose not to, for the reasons I've already outlined at some length. I acknowledge the fact that the consensus is based on a fiction so there is little value in merely pointing out something on which we agree in principle but fundamentally disagree in practise.

Cheers

Jim

[The Legendary Shark]

What's a "consensual building block" and how do they work?

[Jim_Campbell]

What's a "consensual building block" and how do they work?

I've explained until I'm tired of explaining. Your schtick, no matter how sincere, is tiresome in the extreme. I'm tired of asking you how these fantasies of yours function in the actual real world. You can reject the entire basis on which society functions, but I keep trying to get you to explain how we get from here to there. I'm trying to deal with here, and you seem to want to talk about nothing but there, but until you can tell me how we get from one to the other, yours is the crackpot fantasy, not mine.

Jim

[Old Tankie]

Whilst it's true that UK debt has continued to rise if there hadn't been austerity surely it would have risen even more?

The situation with the so-called student debt only goes to prove what the Tories always said, "it's not a student debt, it's a graduate debt."  If you don't earn a certain amount, you don't pay the bill.

[The Legendary Shark]

We get from here to there by first understanding the problems. In order to understand the problems I need to ask questions about the here, which you seem to understand better than me, and you need to ask me about the there, which I seem to understand better than you. Then, when we both have an understanding of the here and there we can both try and figure out ways to get from the one to the other. At present, my only suggestions for moving forward are for each of us to start taking personal responsibility for our own lives, our own families, our own communities and our own country and, in my annoying opinion, to create a networked holographic system of government with which to replace the current hierarchical model to achieve this.

I honestly don't understand your position, which is most likely my fault and I apologise for that. My lack of understanding has not, does not and will never drive me to call you a crackpot fantasist, though.

[Recrewt]

Theblaze, I think that legality and authority are basically the same thing. It is authority that decides what is legal whether we like it or not. What is legal is put into legislation by authority, which is utterly foolish when one thinks about it. Take the example of Prohibition in the United States. One day, drinking is moral and legal, the next day drinking becomes immoral and illegal and eventually returns to being moral and legal again. This exposes both legality and authority as a nonsense, a myth.

But what about crimes like murder? Virtually everybody knows that murder is wrong so even if authority passes legislation outlawing murder it wouldn't make any difference at all to the crime itself. Just because some legislation happens to forbid murder, rape or theft doesn't make those crimes unlawful any more than absence of such legislation makes them lawful. The overwhelming majority of legislation has one of only two purposes: to raise revenue for the state (by imposing fines, license fees and charges etc.) and to keep those in authority in authority.

Authority therefore has no authority to change any real law whatsoever - it's simply a myth writing its own mythology in order to finance and justify its own existence.

You raise some interesting questions Sharky but as usual, I cannot agree with your conclusions.

The government runs the country and drafts new laws.  The government is formed from the political party that wins the most seats in a general election ( yeah, I know we have a coalition currently).  So their authority is given to them by us.

In terms of law and order - murder is unlawful because it is against the law to commit murder.  Laws are created to define a set of rules that everyone needs to follow.  Does a law saying murder is illegal prevent some murders? Yes, I suppose it could.  But even if it doesn't, when someone does commit murder then the legal system can punish them on the basis of that law.

[Jim_Campbell]

Whilst it's true that UK debt has continued to rise if there hadn't been austerity surely it would have risen even more?

Well, no -- that's the crux of the debate. The deficit arises because of the shortfall between Govt income and expenditure. The counter argument against austerity is that it causes the economy to contract by making hundreds of thousands of public sector employees unemployed. These people stop putting money into their local economies causing the private sector to contract as well. Additionally, these people then increase the strain on the state coffers because they're taking more out in unemployment benefits than they're putting in in taxes.

The British economy is in no way as fucked as it was at the end of WWII, and yet we somehow managed to find the money to establish the NHS and the welfare state in that economic climate.

Cheers

Jim

[The Legendary Shark]

Recrewt, the current coalition (and all governments) only get their assumed authority from some of us - usually only a small portion of us who vote. That old chestnut of assuming those who don't vote must acquiesce anyway never sat easily with me. "If you don't vote, you have no right to complain" is, to me at least, utter tosh. It's like being asked to vote for your favourite disease and if you don't vote being infected with the disease the majority of voters opted for instead of the most logical conclusion, which is that those who don't vote don't want a disease.

When it comes to law, Common Law is all we really need. Legislation might have a small role to play in an 'advisory capacity' to help the courts arrive at an appropriate sentence but otherwise it's just fluff. Doing away with or drastically reducing legislative law would have little effect on criminal trials and would free up a lot of court time currently wasted  enforcing illusory statutes on otherwise innocent people.

[Frank]

The British economy is in no way as fucked as it was at the end of WWII, and yet we somehow managed to find the money to establish the NHS and the welfare state in that economic climate.

Aye, but the way the UK managed to expand the economy and pay off our debts in the wake of the second world war wouldn't win you many votes today.

[The Legendary Shark]

The economy is not fucked but it's certainly not well. It's the monetary system that's fucked and needs reclaiming before it screws everything up like it did in 1930's Germany, late 90s Argentina and contemporary Greece, Ireland, Iceland, Portugal et al.

[The Enigmatic Dr X]

When it comes to law, Common Law is all we really need. Legislation might have a small role to play in an 'advisory capacity' to help the courts arrive at an appropriate sentence but otherwise it's just fluff. Doing away with or drastically reducing legislative law would have little effect on criminal trials and would free up a lot of court time currently wasted  enforcing illusory statutes on otherwise innocent people.

I've shied away from this thread for its entire existence, but while procrastinating have dipped into its delights tonight.

It's like being in a student union.

I had a long post on the operation of law, the difference between law and legistation and the critical distinction between "illegal" and "unlawful", but - frankly - I sounded a bit pompous.

What I would say is that it is inherently easier to criticise the system than to fix it. Arguably, our very ability to complain about what we don't like demonstrates it works as well as can be expected.

[Recrewt]

Recrewt, the current coalition (and all governments) only get their assumed authority from some of us - usually only a small portion of us who vote. That old chestnut of assuming those who don't vote must acquiesce anyway never sat easily with me. "If you don't vote, you have no right to complain" is, to me at least, utter tosh. It's like being asked to vote for your favourite disease and if you don't vote being infected with the disease the majority of voters opted for instead of the most logical conclusion, which is that those who don't vote don't want a disease.

Are you proposing that only people who vote should be under government authority? And what of those who voted for a particular party that did not win?