"Socialism means the government owns everything!"

1101113151622

Comments

  • Doc Tor wrote: »
    I see Russ has been up early, gathering in a fresh harvest of straw.

    It never seems to run out.
  • Straw, like outrage, is a renewable resource.
  • They go hand in hand, it would seem.
  • KwesiKwesi Shipmate
    Doc Tor: I see Russ has been up early, gathering in a fresh harvest of straw.

    Maybe so, but his critics seemingly have little difficulty in making sold bricks out of them.
  • No? It takes very little to blow them down. Not even a huff and a puff.
  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    edited February 27
    Kwesi wrote: »
    Doc Tor: I see Russ has been up early, gathering in a fresh harvest of straw.
    Maybe so, but his critics seemingly have little difficulty in making sold bricks out of them.
    I think your grasp of the metaphor has slipped somewhere.
    Russ can make interesting points and he once used to engage with arguments until he couldn't answer them. But it is harder and harder to bother to argue against him when he shows fewer and fewer signs of engaging in good faith.

    Also, as said, his expressed political principles logically have the consequence that anyone advocating a higher tax rate than he does can be imprisoned. That is, he thinks socialist opinions ought to be a criminal offence. He has not denied or refuted this. One doesn't really want to debate politics with an authoritarian who'd see you locked up.
  • orfeoorfeo Shipmate
    edited February 27
    Russ wrote: »
    It's not about what you'd give for a good cause. It's about what you'd use the power of the state to compel your neighbour to give for the same cause.

    Only because you see government as something entirely external to yourself and nothing to do with you.

    I don't. That probably partly has to do with the fact that I work for the state, but also because I'm politically engaged generally. It's not as if I go around lobbying and so forth, but I understand enough that "the state" is something that I shape and that responds to me. It responds to my vote, it responds when I react to proposals (which I do intermittently when something seems outside the reasonable range of action).

    The state is not an abstract external thing. The state is fundamentally part of how we come together as a society and determine the way we want our part of the world to be.

    I'm perfectly fine with the state, thanks. I understand that I'm not going to get things to go the way that I want them to go all the time. Heck, I can recall one particular election (quite some time ago) where I cried a little after the result because there were certain prominent policies that I thought were really wrong (and these weren't actually policies that were going to affect me personally). But that's the way things go.

    I simply don't have a personal conception of the world where being compelled to do things is some kind of horrible boogeyman. Not within the range of things that a Western democracy typically compels people to do. It's part and parcel of living in a pretty safe, organised place.

    I completely understand that the state requires me to hand over money, in the form of taxation, and that I don't get a great deal of say in how that money is given out. The main thing I care about is that the process is transparent (ie not keen on questionable deals where a grant is given to some company without an assessment process). I'm well aware that lots of the ways that money is spent won't benefit me personally in the slightest, but enough of them will benefit me, and if it's done reasonably well then I will benefit anyway from other people around me benefiting.

    You're trying to present me with a scary notion, and basically it's not at all scary to me, Russ. Sorry, but that's just the way it is. If you want the power of the state to be a scary thing, maybe you shouldn't be talking to a man whose job is to help the state wield power. And indeed, the core of my job is to help the state wield power as thoughtfully and coherently as possible.
  • Kwesi wrote: »
    Doc Tor: I see Russ has been up early, gathering in a fresh harvest of straw.

    Maybe so, but his critics seemingly have little difficulty in making sold bricks out of them.

    It's not my job to fix the holes in his logic. That's his job.
  • orfeo wrote: »
    I simply don't have a personal conception of the world where being compelled to do things is some kind of horrible boogeyman. Not within the range of things that a Western democracy typically compels people to do. It's part and parcel of living in a pretty safe, organised place.

    Like you, I'm happy to pay taxes to support things that are generally useful - I usually end up agreeing that the things provided are of widespread use, and if I don't think a particular thing is a good use of taxes - well, you can't win them all.

    I won't go so far as you along the road of being automatically comfortable with anything that a western democracy compels people to do - there are several western democracies in which I would be compelled to educate my children in a state-approved school, and would not be permitted to educate them myself. That's not something that bothers the vast majority of people - either because they agree with their local governments that being compelled to educate your children in a state-approved school is a good thing, or because they want to use state-approved schools for their children's education, so the law doesn't really affect them.

  • KwesiKwesi Shipmate
    Orfeo: I'm perfectly fine with the state, thanks.

    As George Orwell observed of Winston Smith: "He loved Big Brother."
  • None of us live in a nation where "Big Brother" comes even close to describing the state.
  • KwesiKwesi Shipmate
    You realise, of course, Alan, that Orwell's novel was set in Britain, 1948.
  • KwesiKwesi Shipmate
    Orfeo: I simply don't have a personal conception of the world where being compelled to do things is some kind of horrible boogeyman. Not within the range of things that a Western democracy typically compels people to do. It's part and parcel of living in a pretty safe, organised place.

    This pretty much sums up the position of most people living in welfare states. It is, however, important to recognise that life in such states is highly regulated from the cradle to the grave. As Hobbes recognised, to live in safety it's worth surrendering a substantial degree of freedom. Where Orwell got it wrong in 1984 was to assume such states would be materially unsuccessful and that loving Big Brother was to be enamoured with a bogeyman. So, let's look forward to our covid-vaccination passes and ID cards. The Scots might even be blessed with state-snooping 'named persons' to second-guess parents and laws to promote virtue by limiting the expression of evil thoughts in private. Already Big Sister, Nicola Sturgeon, is using the pandemic to reassure them on an almost daily basis in television press conferences. So comforting.

  • Kwesi wrote: »
    Orfeo: I simply don't have a personal conception of the world where being compelled to do things is some kind of horrible boogeyman. Not within the range of things that a Western democracy typically compels people to do. It's part and parcel of living in a pretty safe, organised place.

    This pretty much sums up the position of most people living in welfare states. It is, however, important to recognise that life in such states is highly regulated from the cradle to the grave. As Hobbes recognised, to live in safety it's worth surrendering a substantial degree of freedom. Where Orwell got it wrong in 1984 was to assume such states would be materially unsuccessful and that loving Big Brother was to be enamoured with a bogeyman. So, let's look forward to our covid-vaccination passes and ID cards. The Scots might even be blessed with state-snooping 'named persons' to second-guess parents and laws to promote virtue by limiting the expression of evil thoughts in private. Already Big Sister, Nicola Sturgeon, is using the pandemic to reassure them on an almost daily basis in television press conferences. So comforting.

    This is just not true. Nothing curtails personal freedom like illness. Illness is when your own body takes away your freedom. Thus in a country without universal healthcare, there will be less freedom.

    Let's take two theoretical examples. One is a nation state with universal healthcare, free at the point of use, like say the UK. The other, despite recent efforts, still has a large proportion of its population not covered and the leading cause of personal bankruptcy is healthcare costs, like - I don't know - the USA.

    Oops, it's not so theoretical is it? BTW, so long as healthcare is tied to employment, then you are less free to seek alternative employment or resign. You are less free to resist employer bullying on threat of being fired.

    Anyway, back to healthcare itself. People without illness may not notice until illness strikes. However, if you have no healthcare coverage or inadequate coverage then when illness strikes, your freedom to get treated depends entirely on whether you happen to have enough money available. It might not be illness, it might be an accident that's not even your fault.

    Untreated or inadequately treated illness will always reduce freedom.

    Sure, in order to have the NHS, we have to pay a little more tax* but the trade off is hugely in favour of healthcare.

    Two examples from last weekend; I operated on a 3 year old with bowel necrosis and a newborn with jejunal atresia. Both require prolonged hospital stays and will likely need medical treatment for years (to varying degrees). Both would die untreated. It is simply nonsense to suggest that the existence of a healthcare system that simply treats them in anyway reduces the freedom of them or their families. It is the exact opposite. Because they received treatment, all other things being equal, they will grow up to become independent adults. At no point did either set of parents have to even think about cost.

    The same follows for other areas of the welfare state. Unemployment benefits is a good example. In the absence of sufficient to live on when unemployed, people lose their homes, have to use foodbanks and suffer worsening physical and mental health. That is not freedom.

    "Welfare-dependency" is primarily a right wing myth and/or a creation of policy decisions that patronise and undermine welfare recipients.

    AFZ

    *The big irony here us that the US healthcare 'system' is so messed up that Medicaid and Medicare cost the US taxpayer more than the NHS costs UK taxpayers...
  • orfeoorfeo Shipmate
    edited February 28
    Kwesi wrote: »
    Orfeo: I simply don't have a personal conception of the world where being compelled to do things is some kind of horrible boogeyman. Not within the range of things that a Western democracy typically compels people to do. It's part and parcel of living in a pretty safe, organised place.

    This pretty much sums up the position of most people living in welfare states. It is, however, important to recognise that life in such states is highly regulated from the cradle to the grave. As Hobbes recognised, to live in safety it's worth surrendering a substantial degree of freedom. Where Orwell got it wrong in 1984 was to assume such states would be materially unsuccessful and that loving Big Brother was to be enamoured with a bogeyman. So, let's look forward to our covid-vaccination passes and ID cards. The Scots might even be blessed with state-snooping 'named persons' to second-guess parents and laws to promote virtue by limiting the expression of evil thoughts in private. Already Big Sister, Nicola Sturgeon, is using the pandemic to reassure them on an almost daily basis in television press conferences. So comforting.

    Again, I know better than most people how life is regulated. I literally write some of the regulations.

    And it's very rare indeed for me to see a regulation on the books that strikes me as problematic. It does happen, but not often. Plus, when drafting regulatory proposals, it's part of my job to raise questions as to whether there's a problem with the proposal, meaning that from time to time I've curtailed a bad regulation, and part of the reason I don't see many really problematic regulations on the books is because my colleagues have been doing the same job.

    I've no idea what might be happening in Scotland, but I would note (as indeed has already been noted on another relevant thread) that a large number of countries already require proof of vaccination for yellow fever. You've probably just never noticed. I spend a considerable part of my professional life watching people react to laws that have been place for years that they've never noticed. It's one of the most annoying parts of my job.
  • Kwesi wrote:
    . The Scots might even be blessed with state-snooping 'named persons' to second-guess parents and laws to promote virtue by limiting the expression of evil thoughts in private. Already Big Sister, Nicola Sturgeon, is using the pandemic to reassure them on an almost daily basis in television press conferences. So comforting.

    Anyone spreading paranoia about named person has not understood it or is being deliberately obtuse.
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host
    Kwesi wrote: »
    You realise, of course, Alan, that Orwell's novel was set in Britain, 1948.
    Actually it was a projection of some 1948 tendencies into an imagined future. The authoritarian government was modelled on Stalinism. Orwell himself was a democratic socialist.
  • Kwesi wrote:
    . The Scots might even be blessed with state-snooping 'named persons' to second-guess parents and laws to promote virtue by limiting the expression of evil thoughts in private. Already Big Sister, Nicola Sturgeon, is using the pandemic to reassure them on an almost daily basis in television press conferences. So comforting.

    Anyone spreading paranoia about named person has not understood it or is being deliberately obtuse.
    Plus, of course, it was a proposal to help parents access important information and help when needed that as a result of deliberate misinformation from the Tories (who, presumably think it's a bad idea to allow parents to know if there are things available, welfare assistance etc, to help their children ... which would be consistent with wrapping benefits with so much red tape that many people who would benefit from help available can't access it leaving many millions of pounds of money that could be helping people going unclaimed) got hounded out, and so therefore there is no longer a "named person" who every parent can turn to when they need help leaving them trying to navigate labyrinthine regulations and bureaucracy without someone who knows what would likely work (or, turn to already over pressed voluntary organisations, Citizens Advice and similar).

    And, I know listening to Boris bumble along, or his ministers lie through their teeth, isn't really good. But, we're in the middle of a national emergency, a global pandemic, and it's entirely appropriate that our political leaders make sure that we're all kept informed about what the government is doing and how the emergency is developing, and to be accountable to at least a small portion of the media and public (logistically there are only a few questions that can be answered in a short briefing) as well as accountable to MPs/MSPs in our Parliaments. Our political leaders should be on our TVs every day, briefing us about what is happening, being honest and telling us what we need to keep ourselves as safe as possible.
  • Kwesi wrote:
    . The Scots might even be blessed with state-snooping 'named persons' to second-guess parents and laws to promote virtue by limiting the expression of evil thoughts in private. Already Big Sister, Nicola Sturgeon, is using the pandemic to reassure them on an almost daily basis in television press conferences. So comforting.

    Anyone spreading paranoia about named person has not understood it or is being deliberately obtuse.
    Plus, of course, it was a proposal to help parents access important information and help when needed that as a result of deliberate misinformation from the Tories (who, presumably think it's a bad idea to allow parents to know if there are things available, welfare assistance etc, to help their children ... which would be consistent with wrapping benefits with so much red tape that many people who would benefit from help available can't access it leaving many millions of pounds of money that could be helping people going unclaimed) got hounded out, and so therefore there is no longer a "named person" who every parent can turn to when they need help leaving them trying to navigate labyrinthine regulations and bureaucracy without someone who knows what would likely work (or, turn to already over pressed voluntary organisations, Citizens Advice and similar).

    The irony of it all is that named person does actually exist in much of Scotland, just without the specific statutory underpinning. All it really amounts to is having a buck stop with someone when it comes to safeguarding, to make sure we don't get situations where everyone thinks it's someone else managing a case.
  • I think I remember correctly that @Jack the Lass had argued quite strongly in favour of the proposed national scheme on the basis that it gave much more support to those already filling that role - midwives and health visitors, for example, who already have regular contact with parents and are the natural people for parents to turn to for help. Though that was back on the old boards, because this formalised named person proposal has been defunct for 4-5 years. And, of course, had no relation to "Big Brother" (or, "Big Sister") in the first place.
  • Doc TorDoc Tor Admin
    edited February 28
    Honestly, I swear to God, if this was a zombie outbreak, we'd all be chowing down on brains by now. What part of 'pandemic' do people fail understand?
  • KwesiKwesi Shipmate
    Orpheo, I'm largely in sympathy with your remarks, and would not wish to see the diminishing of the welfare state- indeed, I would like to see the improvement of public services, especially in the fields of health and education, for a variety of reasons, including the promotion of a less unequal society. All I was trying to point out is that the development of such societies involves a level of regulation that restricts the freedom of individuals and increases the level of surveillance. Also welfare states create large bureaucracies which rapidly develop powerful interests of their own.

    I do, however, have a concern about the need to maintain a boundary between the public and private because it is essential for the maintenance of liberty both for individuals and sub-societal groups. It is one thing for the state to offer assistance to families when they ask for it, for example, but quite another for the state to enjoy top-down rights of routine intervention. To stick the label 'progressive' on such initiatives and condemn criticism as 'paranoia' is to disrespect the integrity of those raising serious issues. If conservatives raise the standard of freedom when radicals turn to no-platforming and insistence on right-thinking, good luck to them. If it's left to the nutty notions of Russ to flag these problems it's less a reflection on him than the insouciance of his critics to his left. One notes that one commentary on George Orwell is entitled Fugitive from the Camp of Victory.
  • Ethne AlbaEthne Alba Shipmate
    edited February 28
    @Kwesi , as an aside here I wonder are you considering starting a new thread about the SNP?
    Or just taking a sideways swipe in passing?

    Only 🤷‍♀️
  • Kwesi wrote: »
    <snip>If conservatives raise the standard of freedom when radicals turn to no-platforming and insistence on right-thinking, good luck to them. <snip>
    There was this Guardian article yesterday titled Gavin Williamson using misleading research to justify campus free speech law which discussed the no-platforming issue. The incident of Germaine Greer being prevented to speak at Cardiff is quoted in both the research used and various commentaries. The chancellor of Cardiff University comments:
    Riordan says: “The research this is all based upon is completely misleading. There was a campaign against Germaine Greer speaking, and we had to consider whether to cancel the event – and we didn’t. It is exactly the opposite of what has been suggested: the event went ahead.”
    and
    research by the government’s Office for Students found that of more than 62,000 requests by students for external speaker events in English universities in 2017-18, only 53 were rejected by the student union or university.

    The biggest fuss I saw about no-platforming was Suzanne Moore after she felt she could no longer write for the Guardian, as she was given space to write in the Mail and Telegraph and all over Twitter. As she's exchanged her weekly slot on the Guardian to a weekly slot at the Telegraph, colour me unconvinced that she's been no-platformed.
  • Doc TorDoc Tor Admin
    edited February 28
    Kwesi wrote: »
    Orpheo, I'm largely in sympathy with your remarks, and would not wish to see the diminishing of the welfare state- indeed, I would like to see the improvement of public services, especially in the fields of health and education, for a variety of reasons, including the promotion of a less unequal society. All I was trying to point out is that the development of such societies involves a level of regulation that restricts the freedom of individuals and increases the level of surveillance. Also welfare states create large bureaucracies which rapidly develop powerful interests of their own.

    A lot of the freedoms that come from deregulation are the freedoms to choose which ditch to die in. The freedom to have an unsafe work place. The freedom to discriminate against organised labour. The freedom to provide substandard services. The freedom to overcharge for monopoly utilities. And so on. Which aren't actually freedoms at all. Whereas, for example, a UBI is bureaucratic, but provides significant freedoms to everyone, but especially the poorest and most marginalised.
    I do, however, have a concern about the need to maintain a boundary between the public and private because it is essential for the maintenance of liberty both for individuals and sub-societal groups. It is one thing for the state to offer assistance to families when they ask for it, for example, but quite another for the state to enjoy top-down rights of routine intervention. To stick the label 'progressive' on such initiatives and condemn criticism as 'paranoia' is to disrespect the integrity of those raising serious issues. If conservatives raise the standard of freedom when radicals turn to no-platforming and insistence on right-thinking, good luck to them. If it's left to the nutty notions of Russ to flag these problems it's less a reflection on him than the insouciance of his critics to his left. One notes that one commentary on George Orwell is entitled Fugitive from the Camp of Victory.

    Well, on one hand we have the universities' minister championing free speech and decrying no-platforming, and on the other hand we have the universities' minister demanding on penalty of fines the imposition of a gagging clause that makes it impossible to criticise the State of Israel.

    Your 'disrespect the integrity' is my 'ask better questions'. Blaming socialists for level of debate on this thread is like blaming immunologists for not respecting the views of 5G conspiracy theorists. More often than not, there's nothing by straw to argue against. So if you think we're not up to it, then actually challenge us with something substantial.
  • The biggest fuss I saw about no-platforming was Suzanne Moore after she felt she could no longer write for the Guardian, as she was given space to write in the Mail and Telegraph and all over Twitter. As she's exchanged her weekly slot on the Guardian to a weekly slot at the Telegraph, colour me unconvinced that she's been no-platformed.

    Yep. No-platforming is not just an horrendous injustice to the English Language, it's also like Political Correctness: 99% myth.

    The idea that someone who moves from one newspaper to another with a higher circulation has been 'no platformed' is just beyond ridiculous.

    Then again, this thread is about the power of the political myth. If you can't win the argument, selling a Strawman with total conviction is very much a winning strategy when you have powerful interests to back you up.

    Remember people, Corbyn's bumbling leadership and outsider approach to politics in a much bigger threat to the country than a narcissistic dilettante who has built his whole career on lies, tried to silence Parliament (and rewrite the constitution in the process) and who when faced with the nation's biggest crisis since WW2 has managed to get virtually every decision wrong and funnelled literally billions of pounds to his mates.

    But that's a different thread. The parallel though is 100% bang on. The Boris myth is a winning formula, just like misrepresentation of socialism. If the Johnson was actually judged on his merits, I'm not sure if he'd even get on Handforth Parish Council.

    AFZ
  • the Johnson

    Typing error left in for it's accurate reflection of reality.

    AFZ
  • orfeoorfeo Shipmate
    edited February 28
    Kwesi wrote: »
    I do, however, have a concern about the need to maintain a boundary between the public and private because it is essential for the maintenance of liberty both for individuals and sub-societal groups.

    The 'boundary' between public and private is, among other things, used to hide domestic violence and child abuse. Forgive me if I'm not especially keen on treating the private space as somehow sacrosanct. Treating a man's home as his castle is basically often a code for a patriarchy where women and children are property.
    It is one thing for the state to offer assistance to families when they ask for it, for example, but quite another for the state to enjoy top-down rights of routine intervention. To stick the label 'progressive' on such initiatives and condemn criticism as 'paranoia' is to disrespect the integrity of those raising serious issues.

    The small crash course I gave myself on the Scottish proposals suggest it was precisely about offering assistance, not routine intervention.

  • KwesiKwesi Shipmate
    Orfeo: The 'boundary' between public and private is, among other things, used to hide domestic violence and child abuse.

    I am perfectly content for you to disagree with me regarding a particular, but are you disagreeing with my general proposition on the necessity and/ or the desirability of a boundary between the public and private sphere as a pre-requisite for a democratic society?

    On the particular of Scotland's Name-Person Scheme, it fell because parts of it were ruled by the Supreme Court to be in breach of Human Rights legislation.


  • orfeoorfeo Shipmate
    edited March 1
    Kwesi wrote: »
    Orfeo: The 'boundary' between public and private is, among other things, used to hide domestic violence and child abuse.
    I am perfectly content for you to disagree with me regarding a particular, but are you disagreeing with my general proposition on the necessity and/ or the desirability of a boundary between the public and private sphere as a pre-requisite for a democratic society?

    I am saying it is far more complicated than marking a hard non-permeable boundary, yes.

    On average, 1 woman a week is murdered in this country by her current or former partner. Is that in the private sphere?

  • KwesiKwesi Shipmate
    Orfeo I am saying it is far more complicated than marking a hard non-permeable boundary, yes.
    On average, 1 woman a week is murdered in this country by her current or former partner. Is that in the private sphere?
    I've no difficulty in accepting your point. My main concern was to establish the principle.
  • That same argument about the principle of private versus public has been part of the objections to movements to ensure that children are given a voice, that children and wives are not beaten to a pulp in domestic violence cases, that immigrant communities cannot continue with rituals such as FGM, that children are vaccinated to protect the community and those who cannot be ... the list goes on. When public good and the rights of the vulnerable are concerned, then public needs do trump private needs.

    Now, Facebook*, along with their and other social media's facilitation of revenge porn and other ways of bullying, have a new wheeze of face recognition glasses (link to Guardian story) which critics are describing as a stalkers' charter - creep in bar using these glasses can find out the woman he is hitting on's private details, rather than the fake address or number she's using to fob him off. And there I do think the private overrides the public interest, but it's a successful multinational capitalist company increasing its reach, so good luck with state or country interest stopping this.

    I would say our privacy is far more eroded by the prurient press and social media.

    * naming Facebook as they also own Instagram and particularly WhatsApp which have been used to spread revenge porn photos far and wide, well encrypted
  • RussRuss Shipmate
    But, we're in the middle of a national emergency, a global pandemic, and it's entirely appropriate that our political leaders make sure that we're all kept informed about what the government is doing...

    Part of the problem with the current "emergency" is that there is no endpoint. No clear condition that has to be met for it to be cease to be an emergency and just be an ordinary disease that lots of people get and occasionally someone dies from.

    The notion that extraordinary circumstances require a level of totalitarianism that most of us would normally consider a Bad Thing is perfectly reasonable.

    Defence from external threats is part of the legitimate role of government.
  • RussRuss Shipmate
    Dafyd wrote: »
    Also, as said, his expressed political principles logically have the consequence that anyone advocating a higher tax rate than he does can be imprisoned. That is, he thinks socialist opinions ought to be a criminal offence. He has not denied or refuted this.

    Where do you think I said that socialist opinions should be a criminal offence ?

    I was under the impression that I'd allow socialists rather more freedom to dissent than they'd allow me...

  • KwesiKwesi Shipmate
    Russ: The notion that extraordinary circumstances require a level of totalitarianism that most of us would normally consider a Bad Thing is perfectly reasonable.

    Defence from external threats is part of the legitimate role of government.

    Of course, this is the mantra of all authoritarian regimes, where there are permanent states of emergency to resist internal and external threats to the security of the state. In the UK anti-terrorist legislation has been used against climate-change protestors, and it may not have past notice that the pandemic has been used as a cover to issue doubtfully awarded contracts. Watch out for the pressure to introduce covid-passports for internal use.
  • Russ wrote: »
    I was under the impression that I'd allow socialists rather more freedom to dissent than they'd allow me...

    I was under the impression your 'dissent' involved discriminating against blacks and gay folk both in who got served at a shop and who got to do the serving. Your freedom is literally oppression.
  • KwesiKwesi Shipmate
    ........perhaps socialists are neither gay nor black.
  • Kwesi wrote: »
    Russ: The notion that extraordinary circumstances require a level of totalitarianism that most of us would normally consider a Bad Thing is perfectly reasonable.

    Defence from external threats is part of the legitimate role of government.

    Of course, this is the mantra of all authoritarian regimes, where there are permanent states of emergency to resist internal and external threats to the security of the state. In the UK anti-terrorist legislation has been used against climate-change protestors, and it may not have past notice that the pandemic has been used as a cover to issue doubtfully awarded contracts. Watch out for the pressure to introduce covid-passports for internal use.

    This is a very genuine concern. And pretty much the only people who have stood up consistently against this kind of parliamentary over-reach has been the left of the Labour party. We narrowly avoided arbitrary detention without trial a few years ago, and I'm pretty certain that secret courts, where the accused isn't allowed to know what the evidence against them is, is either already here or in planning. Using anti-terror legislation against pro-refugee activists was recently struck down by the High Court.

    And somehow, it's the authoritarian socialists who aren't in power who are copping the flak. If people were genuinely concerned about freedom, they'd be pushing their sights to the right. No, a bit more right. Righter than that. There you go.
  • chrisstileschrisstiles Shipmate
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    We narrowly avoided arbitrary detention without trial a few years ago, and I'm pretty certain that secret courts, where the accused isn't allowed to know what the evidence against them is

    Secret courts are here already (one example being the appeals process for citizenship revocation).
  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    edited March 1
    Russ wrote: »
    Where do you think I said that socialist opinions should be a criminal offence ?
    You think socialist policies are violations of people's rights, and you think all violations of rights should be criminal offenses. So you think advocating for socialism is criminal conspiracy. And you've said that a dictatorship with economic policies you approve us is to be preferred to a socialist democracy. And you've said it's permissible to do morally wrong things, including but not limited to raising taxes, if it's "necessary" to protect property rights from e.g. raising taxes for other purposes.
  • RussRuss Shipmate
    Dafyd wrote: »
    You think socialist policies are violations of people's rights
    Yes I think taking property away from someone just because you don't think it's fair that they should have it is a violation of the right to property.

    But I'm not sure whether Doc Tor would accept that as an example of socialist policy...
    , and you think all violations of rights should be criminal offenses.
    No. I think there's a role for private life, for relationships which are not policed in every detail by the state.
    So you think advocating for socialism is criminal conspiracy.
    You don't think plotting to take things away from their rightful owner is within the meaning of the charge of "conspiracy" ?

    But expressing your opinions of the merits or otherwise of different ways of doing things is part of free speech.
    And you've said that a dictatorship with economic policies you approve us is to be preferred to a socialist democracy.
    I've said that I want to live in a liberal democracy instead of in a police state. But that "liberal democracy" describes a system in which the voting is a relatively unimportant part and the government constrained by the legal and customary rights of the people is the important bit. So a liberal dictatorship is preferable to an elected tyranny.

    Within that framework of rights, my approval or disapproval of economic policy is unimportant.
    And you've said it's permissible to do morally wrong things, including but not limited to raising taxes, if it's "necessary" to protect property rights from e.g. raising taxes for other purposes.

    Being morally permissible to do morally wrong things sounds like a contradiction. But choosing the lesser of two evils seems morally permissible.

  • \
    Now, Facebook*, along with their and other social media's facilitation of revenge porn and other ways of bullying, have a new wheeze of face recognition glasses (link to Guardian story) which critics are describing as a stalkers' charter - creep in bar using these glasses can find out the woman he is hitting on's private details, rather than the fake address or number she's using to fob him off.

    I don't particularly have a problem with face-recognition built in to glasses (I thought google glass already had that, but perhaps I'm wrong, or perhaps it's just that nobody actually wears google glass). I have a problem with things like publicly available facial recognition information.

    If facial recognition through public data is a thing, not putting it in a pair of glasses accomplishes little - stalkers and similar creeps can acquire someone's image, and run the facial recognition at home after the fact. The problem isn't the tool - it's the privacy laws.

  • You don't think plotting to take things away from their rightful owner is within the meaning of the charge of "conspiracy" ?

    Referring to a "rightful owner" is an exercise in question begging. The Duke of Argyll owns 98% of the island I live on. He does not work the land, does not live on it, rarely even visits it. In what sense is his ownership "rightful" other than being legal under the current system?
  • Well, Russ has already asserted on other threads that if I steal his property, then you buy it or receive it as a gift in good faith, then you don't need to hand it back to him.

    So that the Duke of Argyll's ancestors stole the land is immaterial. It's his now, to do with whatever he likes.

    These are the people whose rights Russ thinks should be protected against the common folk.
  • RussRuss Shipmate
    In what sense is his ownership "rightful" other than being legal under the current system?

    It's rightful in the sense that he did not wrong the previous owner in the process of acquiring it.

    But note that once again you're referencing the uber-wealthy as a way of excusing your desire to take from those in the middle 90% who own more material wealth than you do.

    It's not about the uber-wealthy; it's about a notion of democracy as legitimising the majority robbing the minority.

  • Russ wrote: »
    In what sense is his ownership "rightful" other than being legal under the current system?

    It's rightful in the sense that he did not wrong the previous owner in the process of acquiring it.

    And how do you determine that? Is economic exploitation exempted from your list of wrongs? Rent seeking?

    Of course I focus on the most egregious examples in the hope that they might jolt you into realising the injustice of your position, allowing a reasonable discussion about the role of the state in perpetuating or changing the distribution of wealth. If you insist on a principle you must be prepared to defend it even in the most egregious cases.

    The reality is that property rights don't exist in isolation from the economic, social and political systems that they are associated with. They're not an absolute like the freedom from inhuman or degrading treatment, they're more like the right of way on a public road, existing only because of structures of law and custom that have built up over time. I think we could profitably borrow a phrase from the 2010 Equality Act (there it permits discrimination on the basis of protected characteristics in certain circumstances) to describe taxation and land reform: "a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate end".
  • chrisstileschrisstiles Shipmate
    Russ wrote: »
    It's not about the uber-wealthy; it's about a notion of democracy as legitimising the majority robbing the minority.

    In practice, you seem to be able to find endless excuses for the reverse.
  • Russ wrote: »
    In what sense is his ownership "rightful" other than being legal under the current system?

    It's rightful in the sense that he did not wrong the previous owner in the process of acquiring it.

    So, you concede the point that the only sense of rightful you acknowledge here is that it was legal by the laws he helped write. Given that many of our great estates were accumulated by seizing the Commons, by wealth obtained through slavery and looting, by wealth obtained in compensation when the law eventually changed to stop them slaving, then there's a very good case to be made to look again at how so few people ended up owning so much of the country, and seeing how that could be redistributed back to the communities that once enjoyed their utility.
    But note that once again you're referencing the uber-wealthy as a way of excusing your desire to take from those in the middle 90% who own more material wealth than you do.
    We've dealt with that. You're simply repeating a bare-faced lie in the face of all evidence to the contrary.
    It's not about the uber-wealthy; it's about a notion of democracy as legitimising the majority robbing the minority.

    What we currently have is the minority robbing the majority. That is the system. You seem to be happy with that.
  • Marvin the MartianMarvin the Martian Admin Emeritus
    The reality is that property rights don't exist in isolation from the economic, social and political systems that they are associated with. They're not an absolute like the freedom from inhuman or degrading treatment, they're more like the right of way on a public road, existing only because of structures of law and custom that have built up over time.

    I laugh :lol: . ALL rights exist only because of the structures of law and custom that have built up over time. Every single right you or I have, whether it’s one you like or one you don’t like, is a right only because it is defined as such in law.
Sign In or Register to comment.