|
ronya posted:I mean, look at this: More 
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 16:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 06:08 |
|
|
WhiskeyWhiskers posted:What's the rate of governments that win an absolute majority of the popular vote in the UK? Most of the time don't most people vote against the government? Nobody outside of the regional parties has ever won a plurality of votes IIRC but we all understand that's the way it is and vote accordingly. I still think it's a better system than having every government constrained by people who didn't win the election. There is space for climbdowns, and there is space for abstentions, but ultimately people get more of what they voted for compared to say the last eight years in the US, which I think most democrats would say has been a disappointment in terms of social and economic justice.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 16:08
|
|
|
Jose posted:there is not going to be an orgreave investigation
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 16:10
|
|
|
Reason why ancaps get so much mileage out of anarchist terms: Anarchist language largely describes the dismantling of large, monolithic power structures. Where ancaps diverge is that they only recognize and seek the dismantling of only one kind of power structure: a regulatory state. Also who said that left wing politics and thought does not recognize and accept the use of force? Is there some kind of prerequisite for ideology to be pacifistic or passive to be considered left wing? Its like "trap sprung leftists, you accept the need to defend oneself, you cant do that, thats only in the right wing tech tree" Rigged Death Trap fucked around with this message at 16:15 on Oct 31, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 16:12
|
|
|
jBrereton posted:Other than I think one edge case in the 1950s, I don't think any party that has won on seats lost on votes. No, I meant those with an absolute majority. 50%+1. There's been barely any has there? e:woops just realised you mentioned that. But that speaks to my point, it's odd that the party that the majority don't like, get to have a largely unimpeded say in legislation. The US is a different kettle of fish again, because it's still FPTP and there are no minor parties in the house or senate. WhiskeyWhiskers fucked around with this message at 16:19 on Oct 31, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 16:15
|
|
|
WhiskeyWhiskers posted:I just don't get the UK apparently. You don't have a (functioning) bicameral system, why would you want governments that can pass anything they want without negotiation? the Commonwealth of Australia predicates its bicameralism on its federalism - the only goal sought by its enforced negotiation is to enforce bargaining over inter-state interests, which are assumed to have an element of conflict. Otherwise, a majority of a majority of the states can pretty much do whatever they like. the fire of politics is in where at least one of those two conditions does not hold that's a continuous process of loud negotiation, certainly, but don't mistake that for spanning the whole space of Western politics. there's a reason the UK, despite everything, managed to sustain a system of immigration far less callously brutal than Australia's for so much longer in the UK the devolutionary tradition is much weaker and is rather Sinn-Fein-flavoured in any case (ie, devolved mandates are to foreshadow secession and mutually ceasing to stick noses into each other's affairs, so abstention is the only honourable way out - only this year the SNP been cautiously testing the waters of bringing state preferences to a central table). The tension of strong central govt is instead eased by much weaker party discipline - MPs in Westminster defy the whip a lot more than they do in Canberra, without crossing the floor or being expelled. Just because you're the party in government doesn't mean you get to pass whatever you like. ronya fucked around with this message at 16:21 on Oct 31, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 16:18
|
|
|
Our senate largely has nothing to do with state interests anymore.* That's long been eroded. It's dominated by party lines, and is seen now more just as a check on the lower house. The power of the senate now comes from the different voting method used to select it. Australia's immigration policy was always going to be harsher than Britain's. Our location, low population and scared colonial whiteys and a historically stronger labour movement were/are a tinderbox for it. e:*though this past election might suggest it will change again with Nick Xenophon and Jacqui Lambie (and to a lesser extent Pauline Hanson) being minority party candidates who get votes through being seen as defenders of their states. WhiskeyWhiskers fucked around with this message at 16:35 on Oct 31, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 16:30
|
|
|
Jedit posted:Honestly, I can pick a Polish person out of a line by sight most of the time. That's mostly because I socialise often with Polish people, though - an actual racist probably couldn't do it. I've noticed a racist tried to call my friend of mine out for being polish because he looks it. Naturally he wasn't and I assume the only reason why he thought he was is because he had clothes that looked like something you see out of a eastern european rap video. Rigged Death Trap posted:Also who said that left wing politics and thought does not recognize and accept the use of force? Is there some kind of prerequisite for ideology to be pacifistic or passive to be considered left wing? 
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 16:53
|
|
|
WhiskeyWhiskers posted:I just don't get the UK apparently. You don't have a (functioning) bicameral system, why would you want governments that can pass anything they want without negotiation? Because, to be completely honest, most of us have given up on democracy and want a half competent dictatorship. Preferable one with socialist leanings but no gulag.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 16:56
|
|
|
Regarde Aduck posted:Because, to be completely honest, most of us have given up on democracy and want a half competent dictatorship. Preferable one with socialist leanings but no gulag. Why no gulags? (paging HorseLord to the thread)
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 17:06
|
|
|
It strikes me that anarchy and feudalism are almost two ways of describing the same thing. Feudal society, if you put the church to one side, was based on voluntary and mutually beneficial agreements between individuals. The little guy pledged to provide service to the big guy in exchange for the big guy pledging to secure the little guy's right to his property. And it was armed service, and it was the force of those arms that held the whole system up. There wasn't a social contract like we have, there were just regular quid pro quo contracts between vassals and their lords, all the way down. The local strong man agrees with the regional strong man to defend his rule, if the regional strong man will agree to do the same for the local guy's fief. Regional guy gets all his vassals to support him if he's attacked or the peasants rise up, and each vassal hopes to get the full force of the whole to help if the same happens to him. And isn't that how any anarchy shakes out? It did already, feudal society was what replaced Roman government when it went away. Absent some government leviathan, the only of thing protecting you from being dominated or enslaved by other people is your ability to beat them in a fight. If they're stronger, better organized, or there are more of them, then that's it, game over. You live in a hut and toil all day in the fields, they live in a big house and practice sword fighting and riding horses so they can massacre you if you try anything. It's not hypothetical, its history. People sometimes make puerile stupid objections like "I don't want to dominate and enslave anyone, do you? That makes you bad, shame on you, people are good like me!" But there is no tabula rasa, we know very well how people will be because we know how people have always been.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 17:09
|
|
|
WhiskeyWhiskers posted:I thought your house of lords was pretty toothless and couldn't block legislation, just debate it? Bills also can't originate there? It can tell the Commons to go back and have another think about legislation (and does so, fairly often). The government can just ram it through anyway, but it takes more time than it otherwise would, and usually the government takes it as a hint to at least modify the legislation a bit.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 17:13
|
|
|
WhiskeyWhiskers posted:I just don't get the UK apparently. You don't have a (functioning) bicameral system, why would you want governments that can pass anything they want without negotiation? Because that's literally how the government has always been run, since there was a unified England and then UK.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 17:20
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Because that's literally how the government has always been run, since there was a unified England and then UK. Are you looking forward to voting for your local ealdorman at the elections for the next witanengemot? 
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 17:33
|
|
|
WhiskeyWhiskers posted:I just don't get the UK apparently. You don't have a (functioning) bicameral system, why would you want governments that can pass anything they want without negotiation? Because the UK parliamentary system is at least 300 years old (1689 Bill of Rights) and in some aspects older, and hasn't been reformed since.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 17:35
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:It strikes me that anarchy and feudalism are almost two ways of describing the same thing. That's an interesting thesis OP. Explains why so many members of the Russian nobility were attracted to it. It's cool that you demolished 200 years of thought in one bad rear end internet forum post, while clearly having never read any of that thought.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 17:36
|
|
|
The best way to look at the British Government from the position of someone more used to republics, is that the clue is in the name. HM Government. The government wields the divine right of the monarch, collectively. The only thing we changed recently is that the monarch no longer has an active role in decision making, and their parliament does it instead, however they see fit. But we didn't, like write it down anywhere, we just do it that way now. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 17:39 on Oct 31, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 17:37
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:The best way to look at the British Government from the position of someone more used to republics, is that the clue is in the name. Yet who gets to be the monarch which the divine right flows is chosen by the people, something the recent lot of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha understand. For someone who never interferes with politics old Liz is a canny operator who knows more that is going on than the PM does.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 18:04
|
|
|
jBrereton posted:South Yorkshire police has had 30 years to think up a good organisational narrative, what would be the point spending millions to hear "They probably beat up the protesters too much. However everyone involved is old and the times were fractious. Lessons have been learned from this." like with all the pointless NI/football stuff. It's not pointless, particularly in the case of NI peace and reconciliation is massively important to keeping peace in the future.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 18:06
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:But there is no tabula rasa, we know very well how people will be because we know how people have always been. Yay teleological views of history woo great. But yeah even with a wonderful expert analysis of what precisely feudalism (such a stable and uncontroversial term!) entails, you still wouldn't really have a leg to stand on. History just plain doesn't tell you what the future holds in store for you. Especially not that of a society as removed from ours as medieval Europe. And really I would say the reciprocal personal relations you talk about really only extend to the military elite or at the very most describes small parts of France for small pockets of time. Feudalism might probably not be a particularly useful lens to see medieval Europe through anyway. See this for an example
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 18:06
|
|
|
This isn't anything like what any anarchist thinkers have laid out as what they imagine society should be like, you stupid, racist motherfucker.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 18:16
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:It strikes me that anarchy and feudalism are almost two ways of describing the same thing. https://twitter.com/dril/status/473265809079693312
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 18:17
|
|
|
If Hakimashou was just referring to Ancaps when they were talking about anarchists then he'd be pretty much right, since the inevitable end state of an Ancap society is a series of property owners who are lords of their fiefs, graciously allow the poors to work their land and hire
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 18:26
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:It strikes me that anarchy and feudalism are almost two ways of describing the same thing. A shame we can't found the post-brexit economy on exporting takes, ones this hot could solve the global energy demand.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 18:27
|
|
|
MikeCrotch posted:If Hakimashou was just referring to Ancaps when they were talking about anarchists then he'd be pretty much right, since the inevitable end state of an Ancap society is a series of property owners who are lords of their fiefs, graciously allow the poors to work their land and hire
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 18:34
|
|
|
go gently caress urself (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 18:42
|
|
|
Nice to see that within hours of the damaging story about NHS funding coming out it's already been knocked out of the news entirely by the Orgreave stuff, which considerably less people will care about. Dead cat still going strong etc.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 19:18
|
|
|
Guys, guys, we've all been barking up the wrong tree with these emancipatory ideas. You see, as it turns out, after 200 years of thought by learned scholars in the social sciences ruminating over them, that alternative methods of organising society are unnecessary anyway because serfdom is mutually beneficial. You see anarchism, the abolition of hierarchy and the arbitrary and exploitative power structures of the state, church and capital, is entirely like feudalism, a system where the state is comprised of a rigid landlord hierarchy that together with the church controls all the capital. How could we have been so stupid.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 19:18
|
|
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-suffolk-37683334 It's been ten years since Steve Wright murdered five prostitutes. Bizarrely, Look East just now worded this news as if it was a good thing it happened - it very specifically pointed out that the women were all prostitutes and drug abusers, and that prostitution has all but disappeared in the affected areas in the decade since.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 19:38
|
|
I can't get enough of are Dan
|
Mark Carney is stepping down in 2019. This is probably a good thing in the long term - he had a nasty habit of getting a little too political sometimes. It's not great for the Governor to stick his oar in on things which are politically contentious. Also it makes Kamal Ahmed, the BBC economics editor look like a right wally for posting this morning saying Carney wouldn't step down early.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 19:42
|
|
|
HJB posted:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-suffolk-37683334 Yeah the tone in that article is pretty  all round. Like the dude was doing some valuable public service cleaning the streets of these ~corrupted~ women.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 19:49
|
|
|
It was the evil drugs what did it. Not the man that decided to murder five women. Better find some additional things to ban to prevent this happening again. Maybe ban procuring services from a sex worker, making all their clients criminals will definitely decrease crime against sex workers.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 20:08
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:It strikes me that anarchy and feudalism are almost two ways of describing the same thing. People sometimes make puerile stupid objections like "It strikes me that anarchy and feudalism are almost two ways of describing the same thing. Feudal society, if you put the church to one side, was based on voluntary and mutually beneficial agreements between individuals. The little guy pledged to provide service to the big guy in exchange for the big guy pledging to secure the little guy's right to his property. And it was armed service, and it was the force of those arms that held the whole system up. There wasn't a social contract like we have, there were just regular quid pro quo contracts between vassals and their lords, all the way down. The local strong man agrees with the regional strong man to defend his rule, if the regional strong man will agree to do the same for the local guy's fief. Regional guy gets all his vassals to support him if he's attacked or the peasants rise up, and each vassal hopes to get the full force of the whole to help if the same happens to him. And isn't that how any anarchy shakes out? It did already, feudal society was what replaced Roman government when it went away. Absent some government leviathan, the only of thing protecting you from being dominated or enslaved by other people is your ability to beat them in a fight. If they're stronger, better organized, or there are more of them, then that's it, game over. You live in a hut and toil all day in the fields, they live in a big house and practice sword fighting and riding horses so they can massacre you if you try anything. It's not hypothetical, its history. People sometimes make puerile stupid objections like "I don't want to dominate and enslave anyone, do you? That makes you bad, shame on you, people are good like me!" But there is no tabula rasa, we know very well how people will be because we know how people have always been." But those people are loving dogshit and need to be murdered.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 20:26
|
|
|
Regarde Aduck posted:People sometimes make puerile stupid objections like "It strikes me that anarchy and feudalism are almost two ways of describing the same thing. Man I'd hate to be one of those guys for sure
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 20:40
|
|
|
HJB posted:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-suffolk-37683334 It hasn't- it's just moved from Portman Road to a different part of town.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 20:51
|
|
|
Regarde Aduck posted:People sometimes make puerile stupid objections like "It strikes me that anarchy and feudalism are almost two ways of describing the same thing. This is a good post that I really enjoyed reading.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 21:11
|
|
|
Feudalism and Anarchism are similar in that they're both studied by students yet neither have any application to people's every day lives now or at any point in the future. Where they differ is that you don't get gap year squatters insisting they're feudal Lords.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 21:38
|
|
|
I see you haven't read anything from the Alt-Right.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 21:41
|
|
|
Isn't everything studied by students? Oh, wait, we're using the word "student" to imply something apart from scholarship aren't we? 
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 21:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 06:08 |
|
|
ivory tower intellectuals with their book learning and passing interest in the world around them
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 21:56
|
|