Re: Snap General Election called
Posted: Fri Nov 10, 2017 1:18 pm
And if you're looking for proponents of something approximating anarcho-capitalism in the USA, look no further than the Ludwig von Mises Institute...
His view of anarchy sees an organised society formed on the back of a direct participation of the masses, anarchy to him in this sense is simply a freedom from the current controls of capitalism, government and so on. I think that's nonsensical as the masses are going to be even less informed on any given subject than elected representatives, for instance how many voters in the EU referendum had actually read the various EU treaties and understood them?, and whilst he has an allowable usage of anarchy it's not one which most will infer as being the case as they'd be assuming some greater amount of disorder. Basically in saying anarchy I think he's communicating badly and being a smart alec in the process.Zhivago wrote:
I find it a bit odd that you say he's not really an anarchist... That's how he identified his own political belief... Perhaps you know better than he does? Hahaha
Never heard of them, not tempted to look them upZhivago wrote:And if you're looking for proponents of something approximating anarcho-capitalism in the USA, look no further than the Ludwig von Mises Institute...
Experience tells me that when it comes to politics and probity, nurture is more applicable than nature.Sandydragon wrote:If we judge politicians on what their families get up to there would be no fecker left. Judge them on their own actions.kk67 wrote:How would you feel if Amber was Mohamed Al Fahd's Daughter....?.Stones of granite wrote: Surely, that's an advantage....
You cannot run governance on the basis of profit. A teenager doing politics would tell you that method was for morons.
No. I understood you were being ironic. The Rudd's just piss me off mightily.Stones of granite wrote:Did you hear a whooshing sound?kk67 wrote:How would you feel if Amber was Mohamed Al Fahd's Daughter....?.Stones of granite wrote: Surely, that's an advantage....
You cannot run governance on the basis of profit. A teenager doing politics would tell you that method was for morons.
Don't know about the Rees-Mogg generational battle, though I'm far less alarmed by Hillary than Tonykk67 wrote: But,.....I do see that both JRM and Hilary Benn are far more pernicious than their Fathers.
Hilary is a stooge. His Father was a conviction politician.Digby wrote:Don't know about the Rees-Mogg generational battle, though I'm far less alarmed by Hillary than Tonykk67 wrote: But,.....I do see that both JRM and Hilary Benn are far more pernicious than their Fathers.
His conviction being that no trendy bandwagon should be left un-jumped on.kk67 wrote:Hilary is a stooge. His Father was a conviction politician.Digby wrote:Don't know about the Rees-Mogg generational battle, though I'm far less alarmed by Hillary than Tonykk67 wrote: But,.....I do see that both JRM and Hilary Benn are far more pernicious than their Fathers.
At this moment in history, when we are overrun with the former, I'd rather have the latter.
I find it closer to the Arthur Scargill/Ken Livingstone/Bernie Grant history.Stones of granite wrote: His conviction being that no trendy bandwagon should be left un-jumped on.
I don't doubt Tony had conviction, sadly he was just very wrong far too often, and he failed over and over to join up his thinking. Also for all Tony was a man of conviction so is Hilary, again I'll say a more extreme position doesn't mean one has more conviction it only means one is more extremeStones of granite wrote:His conviction being that no trendy bandwagon should be left un-jumped on.kk67 wrote:Hilary is a stooge. His Father was a conviction politician.Digby wrote:
Don't know about the Rees-Mogg generational battle, though I'm far less alarmed by Hillary than Tony
At this moment in history, when we are overrun with the former, I'd rather have the latter.
You see, I'm definitely pro-ID cards. And I'm completely pro freedom of movement. But that's where the problem of ID cards becomes one of how they are seen. I see it as a little piece of card that can fit in my wallet that allows me to travel to other EU countries (sigh) without carrying a big passport that needs to be kept separate, therefore increasing the chances of me losing it.Stones of granite wrote:I tend to agree, but I think your straying into generalisations again. For example, which Government passed the Identity Cards Act (hint: 2006) and which Government repealed it?Stom wrote:Gotcha.Stones of granite wrote: Well, for a start, none of them represent true dipoles. Take Authoritarian and Libertarian as examples. Simplified, there is a sliding scale between an extreme Authoritarian and an extreme Libertarian. In truth, I don't even believe it's that simple - most people will hold views which tend towards authoritarian in some aspects of life and those which tend towards libertarian in others.
So, these labels are no more useful then left, right, centre etc.
Which is where labeling "Politics" as one thing or another doesn't work. So perhaps we should judge based upon policy...
The Conservatives are authoritarian on personal freedom, but libertarian on corporate freedom. They're Protectionist on military and police, but free on corporate freedom...
If you want to label according to policy, then do it by policy.
Nope.Digby wrote:I don't doubt Tony had conviction, sadly he was just very wrong far too often, and he failed over and over to join up his thinking. Also for all Tony was a man of conviction so is Hilary, again I'll say a more extreme position doesn't mean one has more conviction it only means one is more extremeStones of granite wrote:His conviction being that no trendy bandwagon should be left un-jumped on.kk67 wrote: Hilary is a stooge. His Father was a conviction politician.
At this moment in history, when we are overrun with the former, I'd rather have the latter.
Very weird.kk67 wrote:Nope.Digby wrote:I don't doubt Tony had conviction, sadly he was just very wrong far too often, and he failed over and over to join up his thinking. Also for all Tony was a man of conviction so is Hilary, again I'll say a more extreme position doesn't mean one has more conviction it only means one is more extremeStones of granite wrote: His conviction being that no trendy bandwagon should be left un-jumped on.
Politics had space for decency in them days. Now you have to be a stooge to even be elected.
And the consequence is that now 'conviction politician' is seen as a derogatory classification.
It seems you know very little of both Chomsky and anarchism. You are such a pretentious ultracrepidarian, it's pointless to discuss this with you.Digby wrote:His view of anarchy sees an organised society formed on the back of a direct participation of the masses, anarchy to him in this sense is simply a freedom from the current controls of capitalism, government and so on. I think that's nonsensical as the masses are going to be even less informed on any given subject than elected representatives, for instance how many voters in the EU referendum had actually read the various EU treaties and understood them?, and whilst he has an allowable usage of anarchy it's not one which most will infer as being the case as they'd be assuming some greater amount of disorder. Basically in saying anarchy I think he's communicating badly and being a smart alec in the process.Zhivago wrote:
I find it a bit odd that you say he's not really an anarchist... That's how he identified his own political belief... Perhaps you know better than he does? Hahaha
You're not tempted to look anything up... Which explains your vacuity.Digby wrote:Never heard of them, not tempted to look them upZhivago wrote:And if you're looking for proponents of something approximating anarcho-capitalism in the USA, look no further than the Ludwig von Mises Institute...
You think anarchy wouldn't normally be taken to mean disorder? I don't know if I have ignored your point, though I can't say I know what it was so maybe.Zhivago wrote:It seems you know very little of both Chomsky and anarchism. You are such a pretentious ultracrepidarian, it's pointless to discuss this with you.Digby wrote:His view of anarchy sees an organised society formed on the back of a direct participation of the masses, anarchy to him in this sense is simply a freedom from the current controls of capitalism, government and so on. I think that's nonsensical as the masses are going to be even less informed on any given subject than elected representatives, for instance how many voters in the EU referendum had actually read the various EU treaties and understood them?, and whilst he has an allowable usage of anarchy it's not one which most will infer as being the case as they'd be assuming some greater amount of disorder. Basically in saying anarchy I think he's communicating badly and being a smart alec in the process.Zhivago wrote:
I find it a bit odd that you say he's not really an anarchist... That's how he identified his own political belief... Perhaps you know better than he does? Hahaha
You also completely avoided my point in order to focus obliquely on anarchism for some reason.
I'm happy to look many things up, anarcho-capitalism doesn't warrant my attention I feel though. If I'm wrong on that I'll just lave to live with a lesser life. And a great many things help explain my vacuity, this could well be anotherZhivago wrote:You're not tempted to look anything up... Which explains your vacuity.Digby wrote:Never heard of them, not tempted to look them upZhivago wrote:And if you're looking for proponents of something approximating anarcho-capitalism in the USA, look no further than the Ludwig von Mises Institute...
You're a stooge for the corporate politics that benefits your social situation. Any conviction politician is anathema to you because it doesn't profit your pension or your house price..Digby wrote:Very weird.kk67 wrote:Nope.Digby wrote:
I don't doubt Tony had conviction, sadly he was just very wrong far too often, and he failed over and over to join up his thinking. Also for all Tony was a man of conviction so is Hilary, again I'll say a more extreme position doesn't mean one has more conviction it only means one is more extreme
Politics had space for decency in them days. Now you have to be a stooge to even be elected.
And the consequence is that now 'conviction politician' is seen as a derogatory classification.
Benn sought to bring control of the Labor party under an undemocratic banner of local and national party institutions, very similar to what we're seeing now actually. He coddled the left, wouldn't speak out on the Soviet Union or Ireland other than in support of supposed left leaning parties, actively supported Castro ignoring it was hardly all good.
So you mistook anarchism for anarchy and spouted a bunch of nonsense and criticised a well known prominent intellectual giant saying he doesn't know what he's on about... And you wonder why I described you as an ultracrepidarian?Digby wrote:You think anarchy wouldn't normally be taken to mean disorder? I don't know if I have ignored your point, though I can't say I know what it was so maybe.Zhivago wrote:It seems you know very little of both Chomsky and anarchism. You are such a pretentious ultracrepidarian, it's pointless to discuss this with you.Digby wrote:
His view of anarchy sees an organised society formed on the back of a direct participation of the masses, anarchy to him in this sense is simply a freedom from the current controls of capitalism, government and so on. I think that's nonsensical as the masses are going to be even less informed on any given subject than elected representatives, for instance how many voters in the EU referendum had actually read the various EU treaties and understood them?, and whilst he has an allowable usage of anarchy it's not one which most will infer as being the case as they'd be assuming some greater amount of disorder. Basically in saying anarchy I think he's communicating badly and being a smart alec in the process.
You also completely avoided my point in order to focus obliquely on anarchism for some reason.
And can I assume calling someone a 'pretentious ultracrepidarian' is an attempt at humour?
I'm more than happy to vote for higher taxes and policies that would drive down house prices in the name of he greater good, though both don't exactly come without cost to me. Though again I resent the notion that only those on the extreme, any extreme not just those you'd care to support, are those with conviction. I suppose though typically where you cite conviction I'd cite simplistic bollocks, and you might resent that suggestion. Such is life.kk67 wrote:You're a stooge for the corporate politics that benefits your social situation. Any conviction politician is anathema to you because it doesn't profit your pension or your house price..Digby wrote:Very weird.kk67 wrote:
Nope.
Politics had space for decency in them days. Now you have to be a stooge to even be elected.
And the consequence is that now 'conviction politician' is seen as a derogatory classification.
Benn sought to bring control of the Labor party under an undemocratic banner of local and national party institutions, very similar to what we're seeing now actually. He coddled the left, wouldn't speak out on the Soviet Union or Ireland other than in support of supposed left leaning parties, actively supported Castro ignoring it was hardly all good.
in fairness that made me laughZhivago wrote:
So you mistook anarchism for anarchy and spouted a bunch of nonsense and criticised a well known prominent intellectual giant saying he doesn't know what he's on about... And you wonder why I described you as an ultracrepidarian?
My best guess is that your narcissism is correlated with cognitive bias that gives you an illusory sense of superiority... aka Dunning-Kruger effect.
Yeah. Conviction is subjective.Digby wrote:[
I'm more than happy to vote for higher taxes and policies that would drive down house prices in the name of he greater good, though both don't exactly come without cost to me. Though again I resent the notion that only those on the extreme, any extreme not just those you'd care to support, are those with conviction. I suppose though typically where you cite conviction I'd cite simplistic bollocks, and you might resent that suggestion. Such is life.