The Political Thread

[Steven Denton]

Although I partially agree with you, in so much as Regulations (as for brevity I shall now refer to the entire list) are open to abuse but I think the need for regulation prompted the creation of the system and if you look at practices before and outside of robust regulation you tend to find a lot more abuse then from inside regulated products and industry's.

We already have the power to punish companies through individual purchasing power and although it helps, Businesses do not, as a rule, fail because they are cruel, dishonest, or environmentally catastrophic. Public opinion affects regulations and regulation holds more weight then un-focused purchaser power but I wouldn't give either up. collective bargaining always holds more weight than individual but is also less nuanced.

I understand your position (as I have read many of your previous posts) But I disagree with the foundations your argument is built on. Which led to the brevity of my original post.

[The Legendary Shark]

Fair enough. Every system is open to abuse.

There are other options aside from top-down authoritarian imposition. The same regulations can be imposed voluntarily through membership of trade associations, for example as with the Federation of Master builders.

I like to view government as a scaffolding which helped us build society to its current point - but scaffolding is not permanent and, at some point, must be taken down because its job is done.

[Steven Denton]

Fair enough. Every system is open to abuse.

There are other options aside from top-down authoritarian imposition. The same regulations can be imposed voluntarily through membership of trade associations, for example as with the Federation of Master builders.

I like to view government as a scaffolding which helped us build society to its current point - but scaffolding is not permanent and, at some point, must be taken down because its job is done.

I don't necessarily disagree as change is constant but I think the job of government's as we know them is far from done and I think that our ideas for how the world would look after our current system has evolved are radically different.

[The Legendary Shark]

Too true. One thing I have learned, though, is that the future never unfolds entirely as expected. I'd be happy to see any progress in the directions I prefer but that will never stop me wanting more.

I love humanity, despite our flaws, and firmly believe we are capable of doing, and being, so much better.

[Steven Denton]

Too true. One thing I have learned, though, is that the future never unfolds entirely as expected. I'd be happy to see any progress in the directions I prefer but that will never stop me wanting more.

I love humanity, despite our flaws, and firmly believe we are capable of doing, and being, so much better.

On the most basic level I would like to see a future where we are a planet not a series of states. I would like to see humans solve the problems of the planet and the species, not jostle for regional power. basically I would welcome an earth that looked a bit like the Original Star Trek Federation. For me the EU was a step in the right direction, admittedly a first fumbling step, but a step non the less.

[The Legendary Shark]

Totally with you on the Star Trek vision. As to the EU, or any government body, if we leave those things in the hands of the worst among us, who usurp everything good they could achieve for personal gain and see their positions in terms of unaccountable power over others, these institutions become toxic and dangerous and anathema to human freedom and development.

If I could have one thing out of all those I propose, it would be the ability to say "no" to these people without being crushed into the dirt. So long as I cause loss, harm or damage to nobody, honour my lawful contracts, pay my lawful bills and am honest in my dealings, what right has anybody to force me to act in ways they decide?

"No," that would be enough. Just "no."

[Steven Denton]

Very few actions exist in isolation, it would always depend on what you are saying no to, why, and how you are saying it as to weather saying no should be enough.

Crushing people into the dirt however, by escalation minor transgressions (like the naked rambler) leaves a bad taste in my mouth, as well it should.

[sheridan]

"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, 2015

[sheridan]

"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, 2015

p.s. I bet that quote has appeared somewhere in the preceding 741 pages of this thread :-)

[Modern Panther]

[Zarjazzer]

"Lefties"

Why don't we go around saying "Righties"?

Because it would be bloody childish and sound incredibly silly.

We only do it to annoy you. And I do say Righties-it is a perfectly acceptable term lumping right wingers/liberals (the economic kind) and other anti- trade unionists together.

[Professor Bear]

I always assumed "righties" wasn't a thing because "lefties" was meant to be derogatory, not descriptive.  There's loads of insulting terms for right wingers, though: Tories, Nazis, LibDems, Blairites - Bennites will probably be one when the Labour party splits at the end of the month, too.

[The Legendary Shark]

They're all just labels which split and dehumanize, making it easier for us to categorise, mistrust and even hate one another. The only label which means anything is "human." That's what I am and that's what you are.

[Hawkmumbler]

They're all just labels which split and dehumanize, making it easier for us to categorise, mistrust and even hate one another. The only label which means anything is "human." That's what I am and that's what you are.

Oh Sharky, if only it where that simple.

[Professor Bear]

Shut it, nerds.