The Falklands

Anything worth sharing with us but not gaming related goes in here.

Moderators: The Heralds, The Loremasters

Message
Author
Keith
Posts: 1343
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2007 3:08 pm

Re: The Falklands

#121 Post by Keith »

The Silly Dragon wrote:@Keith, The people you claim the UK put there was 150 years ago. No person is alive from then so all there have been born there (well maybe some migrants etc but you get what i mean). So the people put there are no longer around rest their souls. This arguement is flat because it has no relevence with the people there today. Today their are people who live there all their lives and i should think that they do think of themselves as being British but the UK didn't put these people there so they could easily make up their own mind. They aren't British citizens who moved there they are people who have lived there all their lives. Some most likely have never even set foot on UK soil. But they choose to remain British. Why when they are not from England? Because its how they have been brought up? Yes thats correct but at any point they could have turned round and said "you know what? I don't want to be British if i don't live in Britain!". But they haven't.

How is majority rule not fair? Everyone has a chance to vote and so you go vote for what you want. If you were in the minority then your desired effect (be it government etc) did not win. But if you were to win with only say 20% of the votes then would you say that is fair? I don't understand your comments about fairness. Perhaps you prefer a dictatorship then?

Yeah England has friends in the UN so we are more popular? I agree here that its unfair that we have more friends then Argentina. But when it comes to human lives and quality of life i hope that countries don't be biased. But to be honest here if Argentina brought forward a compelling enough arguement then all those friends will count for nothing as it would be a disgrace to dimiss them then (or the populations of the countries would think so and kick out their government).

As said by others Argentina could appeal to the General Assembly but they haven't so far. So yes there is a 'super UN' they can report to.

England kicked out all non-british? Probably, yeah, but what other action would you expect from a country who have just come out of a really bloody war? Do you expect the citizens of the Falklands to get along with each other peacefully after such a bloody war? No tensions would be high so England did what they thought was right. Or at least this is how i personally see it.
If you think pure majority rule is fair or even desirable then I am not sure what is left to discuss.
Defender of Ulthuan
Voodoomaster
High Cartographer
Posts: 793
Joined: Thu Oct 28, 2004 12:51 pm
Location: At the Cutting Edge of Cocking About
Contact:

Re: The Falklands

#122 Post by Voodoomaster »

Keith wrote:
If you think pure majority rule is fair or even desirable then I am not sure what is left to discuss.
For Aristotle the underlying principle of democracy is freedom, since only in a democracy the citizens can have a share in freedom. In essence, he argues that this is what every democracy should make its aim. There are two main aspects of freedom: being ruled and ruling in turn, since everyone is equal according to number, not merit, and to be able to live as one pleases.

On the Internet most websites are Tyranny's or Oligarchy's

Indeed the founding fathers of the USA feared democracy, hence why the Senate can be argued as the most powerful of the two US chambers even the President is not elected by Democracy.

The citizens of the Falklands have made it clear time and time again they value their democracy, before Argentina became a republic they were invaded and valued their restoration to Democracy/Representative Democracy. If the invasion had never taken place they may had been more amenable to sovereignty talks, the Falklands War has put an end to that for a very very long time. We Brit's still talk about the two World War's nearly after 100 & 70 years after the events.
[img]http://www.ulthuan.net/archive/images/Lore4.jpg[/img]
[size=117][color=blue]"There are many wonders to the world, one being the world itself" Loremaster Hlaeitryn, High Cartographer to the Phoenix King.[/color]

[color=red]"The Slaaneshi have their Anointed, Khaine has me" Khael Vraneth, Lord-General of Khaine [/color][/size]
Keith
Posts: 1343
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2007 3:08 pm

Re: The Falklands

#123 Post by Keith »

Voodoomaster wrote:
Keith wrote:
If you think pure majority rule is fair or even desirable then I am not sure what is left to discuss.
For Aristotle the underlying principle of democracy is freedom, since only in a democracy the citizens can have a share in freedom. In essence, he argues that this is what every democracy should make its aim. There are two main aspects of freedom: being ruled and ruling in turn, since everyone is equal according to number, not merit, and to be able to live as one pleases.

On the Internet most websites are Tyranny's or Oligarchy's

Indeed the founding fathers of the USA feared democracy, hence why the Senate can be argued as the most powerful of the two US chambers even the President is not elected by Democracy.
But in any society you must give up certain freedoms in order to protect others. Pure "majority rule" has no allowance for this.

Why exactly do you think the Senate is more powerful?
Defender of Ulthuan
Elf_And_Safety
Posts: 72
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2011 7:39 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: The Falklands

#124 Post by Elf_And_Safety »

even the President is not elected by Democracy.
But the American senate uses parliamentary democracy, not democracy democracy.

Also, although Aristotle is in essence correct in his thinking about democracy, just because he said it, doesn't necessarily mean that it is the best system. If a country such as England ran on true totalitarian democracy, then many laws that we have might not be in place. (Imigration laws, rights of minorities in our communities etc.)
"I used to post original comments, but then I took an arrow to the knee." - LSV
User avatar
Prince of Spires
Auctor Aeternitatum
Posts: 8249
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 1:07 pm
Location: The city of Spires

Re: The Falklands

#125 Post by Prince of Spires »

No system of government is perfect. Democracy is simply the best system we have at the moment.

Personally I think that an enlightened dictator is a much more efficient form of government. The problem is just that there are few to no elightened dictators around and that power tends to corrupt. The chance of being voted out of office keeps people honest and in line...

As for Aristotle. While they got some ideas of democracy right, they only allowed adult males who had completed military training and were of athenian decent to vote. Which amounted to something like 20% of the population, give or take. So much for "majority" rule.

As for direct democracy, a few countries use it. Switserland is the most prominent country I can think of and I must say that I'm not a fan of the system. Sometimes you need legislation because something is fair or nescesary. Sometimes legislation is so complex that the general populace will have no clue what it is about. And sometimes you need speed when creating legislation. All situations where direct democracy doesn't work.

A good example I can think of for Switserland is that in Switserland you still have military service. However, this military service only applies to males, since that was the norm when it was first thought up. It is now impossible to change the system to include women in the compulsory military service. The reason is simply that half the population is female, none of them want to take part in the compulsory military service. Therefore you will never get a majority vote to change it. But that doesn't make it fair by any modern standard.

Rod
For Nagarythe: Come to the dark side.
PS: Bring cookies!

Check out my plog
Painting progress, done/in progress/in box: 167/33/91

Check my writing blog for stories on the Prince of Spires and other pieces of fiction.
Voodoomaster
High Cartographer
Posts: 793
Joined: Thu Oct 28, 2004 12:51 pm
Location: At the Cutting Edge of Cocking About
Contact:

Re: The Falklands

#126 Post by Voodoomaster »

Elf_And_Safety wrote: But the American senate uses parliamentary democracy, not democracy democracy.
Not according to the constitution as it was written the two senators were appointed by a state's legislature, the 17th amendment did not come into force until 1913.

As for why the senate is more powerful it is the equal chamber and is as a result much easier to dominate than the many member house of representatives, it also has much greater power than the House. Its committees have the power to approve and reject nominations to the judiciary and the armed services.

Also the power to reject treaties which is a very powerful one.
[img]http://www.ulthuan.net/archive/images/Lore4.jpg[/img]
[size=117][color=blue]"There are many wonders to the world, one being the world itself" Loremaster Hlaeitryn, High Cartographer to the Phoenix King.[/color]

[color=red]"The Slaaneshi have their Anointed, Khaine has me" Khael Vraneth, Lord-General of Khaine [/color][/size]
Keith
Posts: 1343
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2007 3:08 pm

Re: The Falklands

#127 Post by Keith »

While that is all true, Monetary concerns have to start in the House.

I will certainly concede that A senator is more powerful than A representative.
Defender of Ulthuan
User avatar
Musashi
Posts: 2024
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2008 12:56 pm

Re: The Falklands

#128 Post by Musashi »

In a true democracy, you assume that meritocracy has the possibility to be recognized and the freedom to rise to the top.
[img]http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1317/1015107388_6c67a9c5d3_o.jpg[/img]
[color=red]Surprise is an event that takes place in the mind of the enemy commander[/color]
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdU1F54FEOU]Crowbot_Jenny[/url]
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_1AfDgZttw]Sunrise[/url]
[url=http://30.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lhrhr5JLBY1qc2rnro1_500.jpg]avatar[/url]
[url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01jrt6b/The_Castle_Series_4_Episode_5/]The_Castle_Series_4_Episode_5[/url]

[i]But this did not surprise them, for as it is written in the Great Elven Book of Knowing:[/i] Isn't life just one bloody thing after another.
Keith
Posts: 1343
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2007 3:08 pm

Re: The Falklands

#129 Post by Keith »

Musashi wrote:In a true democracy, you assume that meritocracy has the possibility to be recognized and the freedom to rise to the top.
sure... but that is by no means likely. In true democracy, which ever party can better convince the populace of their "facts" wins.

It is the appeal of the message, and how far you can spread it, rather than its accuracy that is important.
Defender of Ulthuan
The Silly Dragon
Posts: 1553
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2012 1:40 pm
Location: South East England

Re: The Falklands

#130 Post by The Silly Dragon »

Wow you really are more pessimistic then me! :shock: :lol:

In all serious though isn't that the job of Governments? To try and get the votes needed to stay in power or be elected? If a small party like the Green Party here in England put forward a better argument then the current one then i would go and vote for them wouldn't i? Also seeing as the current government will be doing the same how is this not fair?
[b]War. War never changes [/b]
[i]dum spiro, spero...[/i]
[b]"Humans are strange creatures, in a world of such fascination and wonder they have managed to invent boredom"[/b]
User avatar
Paraicj
Posts: 298
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 10:27 am
Location: Ireland

Re: The Falklands

#131 Post by Paraicj »

The job of Governments, in all seriousness, is to run the country under the mandate of the populace. Not to gain votes to stay in power.
[img]http://www.abload.de/img/bg11hc95.gif[/img][img]http://www.abload.de/img/lw6ecde.gif[/img][img]http://www.abload.de/img/mora3q5k.gif[/img]
[i]Dread Lord Zakhital Goremane the Incompetent, 181 kills 5/22/11
[color=red][b]Vaul's Vengeful Villain[/b][/color]
[url=http://img3.abload.de/img/paraicamonueiq.jpg]Paraicamon, I choose you![/url][/i]
The Silly Dragon
Posts: 1553
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2012 1:40 pm
Location: South East England

Re: The Falklands

#132 Post by The Silly Dragon »

Paraicj wrote:The job of Governments, in all seriousness, is to run the country under the mandate of the populace. Not to gain votes to stay in power.
Yeah it just feels like they just do it for the votes though...which is a kinda good way to do it as if they don't appease the populace they get voted out. Also how do the people put the mandate to the government? By voting the one that seems to have the most in common with their own mandate.
[b]War. War never changes [/b]
[i]dum spiro, spero...[/i]
[b]"Humans are strange creatures, in a world of such fascination and wonder they have managed to invent boredom"[/b]
Keith
Posts: 1343
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2007 3:08 pm

Re: The Falklands

#133 Post by Keith »

The description of the "industry" as it were is "Civil Service" (at least here in the states) Yet it seems that most long term congressman/women become much richer by being in government and do very little to actually earn it. (again, at least in the states).

@The silly dragon. I am not being pessimistic. I am being realistic. We have one party in the US that runs on a platform that the current president is a Secret Kenyan muslim socialist. That heathcare for everyone = socalism (when you can buy it from private companies) And that the best way to reduce the debt is to DECREASE the amount of money the Federal government gets.... while cutting ?????

Oh and climate change isn't real, neither is evolution, being gay is a sin and a choice.


EDIT: Oh I forgot, they also control more than 50% of a house of congress and will very likely control the entire legislature after november.
Defender of Ulthuan
User avatar
Prince of Spires
Auctor Aeternitatum
Posts: 8249
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 1:07 pm
Location: The city of Spires

Re: The Falklands

#134 Post by Prince of Spires »

I thought that in the US the person who usually wins the presidential elections is the guy with the biggest campaign budget.

The problem with a democracy is simply that a government is voted by the big masses. And those are generally speaking dumb. Most people don't have the knowledge about political issues to actually make a well informed desicion about any issues. I remember one example in a dutch election where someone was asked who he voted for and why. The response was that he'd voted for an extreme right politician because he "knew the name and had seen him on tv a lot". Didn't have a clue what he was voting for...

The other problem is of course that what is good for a country can be very bad for an individual, even big groups of individuals. You see this any time reforms are needed. And it is one of the problems with greece at the moment. Big reforms and spending cuts were needed in the past. But because the people didn't want these they got postponed. This means that now they have huge issues. And of course, still people are demonstrating against measures that should get the economy as a whole going again, at the cost of individuals.

The only saving grace of a democracy is that all other forms of government are worse (as proven time and again by history).

Rod
For Nagarythe: Come to the dark side.
PS: Bring cookies!

Check out my plog
Painting progress, done/in progress/in box: 167/33/91

Check my writing blog for stories on the Prince of Spires and other pieces of fiction.
Allerion
Librarian
Posts: 544
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 7:14 pm

Re: The Falklands

#135 Post by Allerion »

[quote='Kieth"]
But in any society you must give up certain freedoms in order to protect others. Pure "majority rule" has no allowance for this.[/quote]

“Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.” -Benjamin Franklin
rod wrote:No system of government is perfect. Democracy is simply the best system we have at the moment.
That is extremely debatable, especially considering zero first-world countries are democracies.
rod wrote: Personally I think that an enlightened dictator is a much more efficient form of government. The problem is just that there are few to no elightened dictators around and that power tends to corrupt. The chance of being voted out of office keeps people honest and in line...
So if people didnt act like people, that would work well.
rod wrote:As for Aristotle. While they got some ideas of democracy right, they only allowed adult males who had completed military training and were of athenian decent to vote. Which amounted to something like 20% of the population, give or take. So much for "majority" rule.
You cant really try to measure an ancient society against modern norms. Frankly, in the US, women have only had the right to vote for about 100 years. That doesn't de-legitimize previous presidents because there werent a majority of people voting for them, though.
kieth wrote: sure... but that is by no means likely. In true democracy, which ever party can better convince the populace of their "facts" wins.
In a utopian Democracy, there would be no political parties. Frankly, theyre a very Republic-esque idea. And a very shitty idea, in my opinion.
keith wrote:The description of the "industry" as it were is "Civil Service" (at least here in the states) Yet it seems that most long term congressman/women become much richer by being in government and do very little to actually earn it. (again, at least in the states).
Read "Charlie Wilsons War" and notice how he makes much more than his stated salary after you figure in "government sponsored trips." Really its quite fascinating how one individual can easily have the government pay them 2-3 times what their salary is.

Longterm politicians are something that needs to change. Thomas Jefferson's ideas of publicly serving for a short time then returning to your previous employment are very good ideas, in terms of being most beneficial to the country. Frankly, I dont think anyone should label themselves foremost as a "Politician."
keith wrote:@The silly dragon. I am not being pessimistic. I am being realistic. We have one party in the US that runs on a platform that the current president is a Secret Kenyan muslim socialist. That heathcare for everyone = socalism (when you can buy it from private companies) And that the best way to reduce the debt is to DECREASE the amount of money the Federal government gets.... while cutting ?????

Oh and climate change isn't real, neither is evolution, being gay is a sin and a choice.


EDIT: Oh I forgot, they also control more than 50% of a house of congress and will very likely control the entire legislature after november.
And the other party is composed of people completely unfit to lead, accuses the other party of only following the parts of the constitution that they want, while doing exactly the same thing, has let unions become something very very different, and much more powerful,than what they were and what they should be, and frankly, is doing its best to alienate any support it might have had from someone who does not consider themselves to be a member of either party. They used to have a majority in the house, but the managed to do absolutely nothing. Not one fucking thing for two years, then they pushed through a healthcare bill virtually the night most of them were voted out. There is absolutely no populace on earth that will sit back and watch their government do nothing but bicker like school children while the populace becomes poorer and poorer very quickly. In 2008, the party had complete control over multiple branches of the US government, and managed to get themselves voted out within two years. Great fucking job.

Frankly, the political ideology differences between the two parties are so miniscule that it amazes me people can prefer one to the other.
rod wrote: I thought that in the US the person who usually wins the presidential elections is the guy with the biggest campaign budget.
Because of a recent US supreme court ruling, whoever sucks the most corporate dick will become president, because apparently, some supreme court justices think that a corporation is a person. But who am I to imply that multiple justices interpreted the constitution incorrectly.
The problem with a democracy is simply that a government is voted by the big masses. And those are generally speaking dumb. Most people don't have the knowledge about political issues to actually make a well informed desicion about any issues. I remember one example in a dutch election where someone was asked who he voted for and why. The response was that he'd voted for an extreme right politician because he "knew the name and had seen him on tv a lot". Didn't have a clue what he was voting for...
Maybe thats a sign we need to improve public schooling, as opposed to taking away the voting rights of the ignorant.
The other problem is of course that what is good for a country can be very bad for an individual, even big groups of individuals. You see this any time reforms are needed. And it is one of the problems with greece at the moment. Big reforms and spending cuts were needed in the past. But because the people didn't want these they got postponed. This means that now they have huge issues. And of course, still people are demonstrating against measures that should get the economy as a whole going again, at the cost of individuals.
A government represents its populace. When you get to the point of separating the two entities, there are major problems. Big reforms and spending cuts were needed... but why? Because the government overspent the people's money in the past? If this is the case, you can hardly blame the people for being upset that they need to foot the bill of their governments irresponsibility.
The only saving grace of a democracy is that all other forms of government are worse (as proven time and again by history).
Oh? Considering very few nations are a true democracy, and instead favor a republic, that is somewhat hard to imagine. The modern republic has been around less than 300 years, and has drastically changed in that time. But lets look at this from a historical standpoint. When in human history has humanity made the greatest leaps? Certainly recent times cannot overshadow the Renaissance(to reference european history)? To say that a form of government is simply "worse" is very undescriptive. Who is it worse for? The Monarchies of the 1500's did little to advance life for the average person, yet they funded innovation that makes where we are today possible. Governments today are not funding the future, how can these republics be considered superior to the Monarchies of the 1500s?
Excited for TOW
The Silly Dragon
Posts: 1553
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2012 1:40 pm
Location: South East England

Re: The Falklands

#136 Post by The Silly Dragon »

Keith wrote:Oh and climate change isn't real, neither is evolution, being gay is a sin and a choice.

I do hope this is a joke...if it isn't we have nothing else to say to each other if not then it is very poor taste.
[b]War. War never changes [/b]
[i]dum spiro, spero...[/i]
[b]"Humans are strange creatures, in a world of such fascination and wonder they have managed to invent boredom"[/b]
User avatar
Loflar
Posts: 45
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 6:22 pm
Location: Howling Demon Inn, Tor Yvresse

Re: The Falklands

#137 Post by Loflar »

Originally I was trying to stay aside until this thread gets back on topic, but it has diverted so far, that it probably does not matter...
Allerion wrote:
Kieth wrote: But in any society you must give up certain freedoms in order to protect others. Pure "majority rule" has no allowance for this.
“Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.” -Benjamin Franklin
Nice quotation, but not relevant to Kieths point. For example, in a society, which recognizes private property, personal freedom does not include freedom of taking things of other people without permission. In a society, which does not recognize it, personal freedom does not include freedom of keeping things for yourself.
Allerion wrote:
kieth wrote: sure... but that is by no means likely. In true democracy, which ever party can better convince the populace of their "facts" wins.
In a utopian Democracy, there would be no political parties. Frankly, theyre a very Republic-esque idea. And a very shitty idea, in my opinion.
In my country, it is now also popular to denounce parties. It is IMHO typical misguided attempt to find a scapegoat.
1. People are herd animals. They will always seek company and unite with other people of common interests.
2. True, democracy can work without parties. But parties allow people with similar opinion on development of society to meet to refine their ideas,
so they can later submit them for public scrutiny in usable form.
Allerion wrote: Frankly, the political ideology differences between the two parties are so miniscule that it amazes me people can prefer one to the other.
You might like this article: http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dtxqwqr_20dc52sm

Excerpt:
Dmitry Orlov wrote: The Soviet Union had a single, entrenched, systemically corrupt political party, which held a monopoly on power. The U.S. has two entrenched, systemically corrupt political parties, whose positions are often indistinguishable, and which together hold a monopoly on power. In either case, there is, or was, a single governing elite, but in the United States it organized itself into opposing teams to make its stranglehold on power seem more sportsmanlike.
Allerion wrote:
The other problem is of course that what is good for a country can be very bad for an individual, even big groups of individuals. You see this any time reforms are needed. And it is one of the problems with greece at the moment. Big reforms and spending cuts were needed in the past. But because the people didn't want these they got postponed. This means that now they have huge issues. And of course, still people are demonstrating against measures that should get the economy as a whole going again, at the cost of individuals.
A government represents its populace. When you get to the point of separating the two entities, there are major problems. Big reforms and spending cuts were needed... but why? Because the government overspent the people's money in the past? If this is the case, you can hardly blame the people for being upset that they need to foot the bill of their governments irresponsibility.
Actually, what Greece needed in a past was not reforms and cuts, but honest accounting on government level. And probably safe distance from advisors of Goldman Sachs. And those so called "austerity measures" (devastation would be more appropriate word - I have read that damage done to a Greek economy by those reforms is comparable to damage done by a war) were imposed mainly to make Greece to pay its debts (including inflated interests) to German and French (mainly) banks. It took two years for EU to start thinking about some more reasonable approach. Now, part of the debt was written off, but the damage is already done.
[img]http://www.abload.de/img/lw6ecde.gif[/img][img]http://www.abload.de/img/bg9ismp.gif[/img][img]http://www.abload.de/img/p4ipaw.gif[/img]
Gaurbund Angecthelion, retired Quartermaster of Corsairs of Obsidian Citadel
Keith
Posts: 1343
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2007 3:08 pm

Re: The Falklands

#138 Post by Keith »

The Silly Dragon wrote:
Keith wrote:Oh and climate change isn't real, neither is evolution, being gay is a sin and a choice.

I do hope this is a joke...if it isn't we have nothing else to say to each other if not then it is very poor taste.
I wish it were a joke, and also, that you took that statement in the context of what a major political party in the US believes (or claims to believe in order to get votes), and not my personal opinion. I probably could have been clearer, but I was describing why I am so down on American politics.


@ Loflar, The Falkland topic seems over. Why not discuss politics in general. Also, thank you for getting my point!

@ Allerion, What Loflar already said regarding freedoms. I never said "give up freedoms for security". Every society requires you to give up rights to be part of it. I give up my right to kill whomever I want, to gain the protection of my right to live. Pure majority rule will allows only for the minority to have whatever rights the majority decides they should have. Hardly desirable.
Defender of Ulthuan
The Silly Dragon
Posts: 1553
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2012 1:40 pm
Location: South East England

Re: The Falklands

#139 Post by The Silly Dragon »

So you believe that Homosexuals are sinful and Evolution is untrue? Or are you stating what the political parties of America say? If so i am well aware of the stupidity of some Americans about Religion and the Theory of Evolution etc. If its a personal believe of yours then like i said we have nothing to say to each other as i can't bring myself to speak to people who still think the world is only 1000 years old when carbon dating easily disproves that to be in the Billions, Trillions or whatever it is. And saying Homosexuals 'choose' to be gay is wrong and so is that being Gay is wrong, its fine as we are of freedom to live our lives the way we want.

As to the recent comments people:
Nice quotation, but not relevant to Kieths point. For example, in a society, which recognizes private property, personal freedom does not include freedom of taking things of other people without permission. In a society, which does not recognize it, personal freedom does not include freedom of keeping things for yourself.
So in an ideal society you would have it so we can all just take what we want when we want it? Sounds like anarchy to me or worse uncivilised animals not humanity. Of course we have Freedom, the freedom to have ones safety and the freedom to protect it from those who want it. What you say is that true freedom should be that other people have the freedom to take your stuff. But its also your freedom to have those stuff. So if there was true freedom then the world would just be one big f***ing war! Human nature wont allow true freedom so we make do with the next best thing (or in my opinion THE best thing), restricted freedom. You are free to do what you will in accordance with the law and the law is put together with the interests of all. Even a criminal has rights. The basic human rights to shelter, food etc. But do wrong by the law and invade the freedoms of others will get you in trouble. I ask you what is better? Communism? Yeah that works...not (oh and i'm English so i know little about the American Government, only that they all seem very much the missing link in human evolution...the very very far away missing link).

I agree that all Government parties are more or less the same. take this example:
The Soviet Union had a single, entrenched, systemically corrupt political party, which held a monopoly on power. The U.S. has two entrenched, systemically corrupt political parties, whose positions are often indistinguishable, and which together hold a monopoly on power. In either case, there is, or was, a single governing elite, but in the United States it organized itself into opposing teams to make its stranglehold on power seem more sportsmanlike.
I am sure that there is more then just two boxes to put your X into. There is choice here but the majority seems to be ok with the mainstream Governement. If not then the votes would go towards the smaller parties. Like in England we have the main ones: Conservative, Labour, Liberal Democrats but theres also, The Green Party, The Looney Party (or something like that seriously!) others that i know exist but can't remember the names (i don't much care for governments as they are all liars). But even though i believe them to be all liars the choice is there to vote for someone different then the mainstream ones. If the above quote is how you see the world then i truly fill sorry for you, as having such a negative view of the world can be very sad (and i know this from experience).
[b]War. War never changes [/b]
[i]dum spiro, spero...[/i]
[b]"Humans are strange creatures, in a world of such fascination and wonder they have managed to invent boredom"[/b]
Keith
Posts: 1343
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2007 3:08 pm

Re: The Falklands

#140 Post by Keith »

The Silly Dragon wrote:So you believe that Homosexuals are sinful and Evolution is untrue? Or are you stating what the political parties of America say? If so i am well aware of the stupidity of some Americans about Religion and the Theory of Evolution etc. If its a personal believe of yours then like i said we have nothing to say to each other as i can't bring myself to speak to people who still think the world is only 1000 years old when carbon dating easily disproves that to be in the Billions, Trillions or whatever it is. And saying Homosexuals 'choose' to be gay is wrong and so is that being Gay is wrong, its fine as we are of freedom to live our lives the way we want.

As to the recent comments people:
Nice quotation, but not relevant to Kieths point. For example, in a society, which recognizes private property, personal freedom does not include freedom of taking things of other people without permission. In a society, which does not recognize it, personal freedom does not include freedom of keeping things for yourself.
So in an ideal society you would have it so we can all just take what we want when we want it? Sounds like anarchy to me or worse uncivilised animals not humanity. Of course we have Freedom, the freedom to have ones safety and the freedom to protect it from those who want it. What you say is that true freedom should be that other people have the freedom to take your stuff. But its also your freedom to have those stuff. So if there was true freedom then the world would just be one big f***ing war! Human nature wont allow true freedom so we make do with the next best thing (or in my opinion THE best thing), restricted freedom. You are free to do what you will in accordance with the law and the law is put together with the interests of all. Even a criminal has rights. The basic human rights to shelter, food etc. But do wrong by the law and invade the freedoms of others will get you in trouble. I ask you what is better? Communism? Yeah that works...not (oh and i'm English so i know little about the American Government, only that they all seem very much the missing link in human evolution...the very very far away missing link).

I agree that all Government parties are more or less the same. take this example:
The Soviet Union had a single, entrenched, systemically corrupt political party, which held a monopoly on power. The U.S. has two entrenched, systemically corrupt political parties, whose positions are often indistinguishable, and which together hold a monopoly on power. In either case, there is, or was, a single governing elite, but in the United States it organized itself into opposing teams to make its stranglehold on power seem more sportsmanlike.
I am sure that there is more then just two boxes to put your X into. There is choice here but the majority seems to be ok with the mainstream Governement. If not then the votes would go towards the smaller parties. Like in England we have the main ones: Conservative, Labour, Liberal Democrats but theres also, The Green Party, The Looney Party (or something like that seriously!) others that i know exist but can't remember the names (i don't much care for governments as they are all liars). But even though i believe them to be all liars the choice is there to vote for someone different then the mainstream ones. If the above quote is how you see the world then i truly fill sorry for you, as having such a negative view of the world can be very sad (and i know this from experience).

Ok, let me be clearer again. What I state WAS NOT my personal belief. The fact that a major political party uses those beliefs as some of their MAIN PLATFORMS is something incredibly DEPRESSING to me.
Defender of Ulthuan
The Silly Dragon
Posts: 1553
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2012 1:40 pm
Location: South East England

Re: The Falklands

#141 Post by The Silly Dragon »

Thats what i thought good to be cool bro and glad to hear it.



Drunk at the moment... :mrgreen:
[b]War. War never changes [/b]
[i]dum spiro, spero...[/i]
[b]"Humans are strange creatures, in a world of such fascination and wonder they have managed to invent boredom"[/b]
User avatar
Loflar
Posts: 45
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 6:22 pm
Location: Howling Demon Inn, Tor Yvresse

Re: The Falklands

#142 Post by Loflar »

The Silly Dragon wrote:
Nice quotation, but not relevant to Kieths point. For example, in a society, which recognizes private property, personal freedom does not include freedom of taking things of other people without permission. In a society, which does not recognize it, personal freedom does not include freedom of keeping things for yourself.
So in an ideal society you would have it so we can all just take what we want when we want it? Sounds like anarchy to me or worse uncivilised animals not humanity.
That is not what I have written. But yes, society can work like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bubuti_system . We should not fall into error of assuming that dominant ways of western civilization are the only ones.
The Silly Dragon wrote:
The Soviet Union had a single, entrenched, systemically corrupt political party, which held a monopoly on power. The U.S. has two entrenched, systemically corrupt political parties, whose positions are often indistinguishable, and which together hold a monopoly on power. In either case, there is, or was, a single governing elite, but in the United States it organized itself into opposing teams to make its stranglehold on power seem more sportsmanlike.
I am sure that there is more then just two boxes to put your X into. There is choice here but the majority seems to be ok with the mainstream Governement. If not then the votes would go towards the smaller parties. Like in England we have the main ones: Conservative, Labour, Liberal Democrats but theres also, The Green Party, The Looney Party (or something like that seriously!) others that i know exist but can't remember the names (i don't much care for governments as they are all liars). But even though i believe them to be all liars the choice is there to vote for someone different then the mainstream ones. If the above quote is how you see the world then i truly fill sorry for you, as having such a negative view of the world can be very sad (and i know this from experience).
As you might have noticed, this was a quotation of an article written by a man who has grown in USSR and now lives in USA. His observation is founded by experience. But US politics aside, concluding that success of mainstream parties is representative of people's opinion is misleading. There is a lot of factors. For example:
1. A pressure to vote for big parties. "If you vote for small parties, they do not make it over quota and your vote is lost." This makes many people vote not for their chosen party, but for lesser evil. This problem is accentuated in countries with majority voting system (like USA), where it leads to dominance of two parties.
2. Unless heavily regulated, election campaign works for bigger parties, which have more money.
3. Significant part of people is so disgusted with politics, that they do not vote. Thus, their opinion is not taken into account. I can give you typical example of Czech elections 2010: 63% of people participated. The victorious party (22% of votes) was unable to form a coalition, so it was formed by three other parties (11%, 17% and 20%), holding 118 of 200 seats of our parliament. Since that 11% party proved to be a business project with total disregard for its program, we now have government leading us in a direction which, in elections, got support of (0.17 + 0.20)*0.63 = 23% of people. Guess what would happen, if those 37% not voting people went to elections and voted for one of five parties which got more than 1%, but less then required 5%? The parliament would look completely different. Even if they each voted for one of those 22 parties which did not make it, we would still probably have two more parties in parliament (and completely different government).
4. If you "don't much care for governments as they are all liars", I guess that you also do not vote. You should know that by not voting, you support exactly the mainstream parties you distrust.
[img]http://www.abload.de/img/lw6ecde.gif[/img][img]http://www.abload.de/img/bg9ismp.gif[/img][img]http://www.abload.de/img/p4ipaw.gif[/img]
Gaurbund Angecthelion, retired Quartermaster of Corsairs of Obsidian Citadel
The Silly Dragon
Posts: 1553
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2012 1:40 pm
Location: South East England

Re: The Falklands

#143 Post by The Silly Dragon »

@Loflar. I fail to see how society would work under the Bubuti system. I can just go right up to a bank and say i Bubuti all your money, but then have someone do it right after me and again to them. How would anything get done with all things being passed around and human nature does not allow this simply because after a while of having everything you own (say your PC with all your saved data for work/games etc) taken from you you would be angry that all that hard work has gone. All would be equal? I fail to see legalising stealing to be equal. It just wouldn't work with modern day technology as many have their own data on PC etc but i can just walk up to you and say i Bubuti your PC, now all your personal details are mine. I am sure Kiribati doesn't have things like Iphones and PCs as wide spread as any first world country. Yes you could say 'what if' but the fact is modern day lifestyle and human nature will not allow this to happen. Have you visited Kiribati and lived there for a time? If not then how do you know it works and there isn't people who travel there to take all their stuff? They must defend themselves or does it only work for the locals? That sounds equal.

I fail to see how being able to just take what you want when you want to be equal. Say i am a farmer and spent months growing my own crops (just a small time farmer). Then someone walks up to me as i finish harvesting and says "i Bubuti your food". So now i can't eat for a day? All my hard work has been taken by someone who just sat around and waited for me to finish? Why did i work so hard? You know what i might as well do the same as him. Now you have no farmers...yeah perfect society...Bubuti system sounds like the most stupid idea i have ever heard (in theory great but human nature wont allow it to work, we are greedy by nature).

I di notice is was a quote from a russian guy.
1) I don't get a pressure to vote, no ones holding a gun to my head when i go to vote. If its your choice to vote for the bigger ones then its your choice. In England there has been alot of 'troubling news' that the lesser parties like our British National Party and UKIP (United Kingdom Independant Party) have recently won alot of seats in parlimant when they previously had none as more and more people vote for these instead as they get fed up with the mainstream ones. So it will happen and if not then the mainstream ones must do something different to win back these votes and stay in power which is doing exactly what the voters want, if they don't do what they want they vote for others who say they will. Simple.
2) Really? The more money approah may work for America seeing as some americans basically ARE sheep! But it doesn't work here in the UK. Let me explain, Countries like France think its ok that Bankers give themselves huge bonuses as they work hard and have an important job, while here in England many are angry that they get paid so much more. This is because we English naturally support the underdog (thats the best way i can think of to say it). Now when I at least see political paries put up a massive show and spend loads of money i immediatly start thinking about the 'lesser' parties and how they can't do this. Also as a last note people are NOT stupid (some are but the majority are not) and these people if informed enough can make a decision on who to vote for based on the parties promises and not 'who has a flashier show'. Before you say that the parties wont inform you enough, Internet! They can't control what people see on here so if you search the facts will be there.
3) This i agree is a problem but its a problem of distrust and i see it as a form of protest. 'I shall not vote until you sort out this mess of the Banks/Economy etc'. I don't vote you are correct here but i don't vote simply because no political party is worthy of my X. None promise what i want to happen and to vote for a 'lesser evil' is wrong. Parties should see that there is a 37% margin of people not voting in your country and ask themselves "what are all the other parties NOT promising that could win these over?" and then make those promises.
4) As i said i don't vote at the moment but thats because none promise what i want. Why should i vote for the Green Party for instance when i disagree with half their policys? If a new party started and put forward policys that i would want then they would get my vote, until that happens i reserve the right to NOT vote. If i support this mainstream parties then thats fine as nothing will change overnight anyways.

This is the world we live in to moan and complain is to waste time. It may not be perfect but i can think of 'situations' which would be worse.
[b]War. War never changes [/b]
[i]dum spiro, spero...[/i]
[b]"Humans are strange creatures, in a world of such fascination and wonder they have managed to invent boredom"[/b]
User avatar
Paraicj
Posts: 298
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 10:27 am
Location: Ireland

Re: The Falklands

#144 Post by Paraicj »

Really? The more money approah may work for America seeing as some americans basically ARE sheep! But it doesn't work here in the UK. Let me explain, Countries like France think its ok that Bankers give themselves huge bonuses as they work hard and have an important job, while here in England many are angry that they get paid so much more. This is because we English naturally support the underdog (thats the best way i can think of to say it).
You seem to have immense emotional attachment to your country (Which is nice) but you are way off the mark here. The French are ahead of the UK at being angry about the rich. There have been more than one half-assed protest/riot in France. They voted in a socialist president, partly in protest! The British voted in...oh...the same people who always get voted in. Fight the power...or whatever. Lets not pretend there aren't as many British (Or Irish, we're not special either) people who are just sheep and vote for the local Conservative or Labour MP by their party. The UK is so far from being a bastion of common sense that your point reads almost as a sarcastic commentary.

Why pick in France, of all places? It just shows a lack of understanding of political situations outside your own sphere.
[img]http://www.abload.de/img/bg11hc95.gif[/img][img]http://www.abload.de/img/lw6ecde.gif[/img][img]http://www.abload.de/img/mora3q5k.gif[/img]
[i]Dread Lord Zakhital Goremane the Incompetent, 181 kills 5/22/11
[color=red][b]Vaul's Vengeful Villain[/b][/color]
[url=http://img3.abload.de/img/paraicamonueiq.jpg]Paraicamon, I choose you![/url][/i]
User avatar
Loflar
Posts: 45
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 6:22 pm
Location: Howling Demon Inn, Tor Yvresse

Re: The Falklands

#145 Post by Loflar »

The Silly Dragon wrote:@Loflar. I fail to see how society would work under the Bubuti system. I can just go right up to a bank and say i Bubuti all your money, but then have someone do it right after me and again to them. How would anything get done with all things being passed around and human nature does not allow this simply because after a while of having everything you own (say your PC with all your saved data for work/games etc) taken from you you would be angry that all that hard work has gone. All would be equal? I fail to see legalising stealing to be equal. It just wouldn't work with modern day technology as many have their own data on PC etc but i can just walk up to you and say i Bubuti your PC, now all your personal details are mine. I am sure Kiribati doesn't have things like Iphones and PCs as wide spread as any first world country. Yes you could say 'what if' but the fact is modern day lifestyle and human nature will not allow this to happen. Have you visited Kiribati and lived there for a time?
I partially agree. Yes, Bubuti system would not work in our society. Probably because it has developed in different society. And yes, I would be angry if someone took my property. After all, I have grown in our society and was tought its values. But if you imagine a band of nomads with one good axe, who cares whose axe is it? Everyone needs to use it anyway. Some archaeologist would probably put it better, but I think that idea of property is an idea of rich agricultural societies. Poor societies survive by sharing (or by not needing a concept of sharing because they don't have concept of property).
The Silly Dragon wrote: 1) I don't get a pressure to vote, no ones holding a gun to my head when i go to vote. If its your choice to vote for the bigger ones then its your choice.
I did not mention guns. The pressure is in newspapers, TV etc.
So it will happen and if not then the mainstream ones must do something different to win back these votes and stay in power which is doing exactly what the voters want, if they don't do what they want they vote for others who say they will. Simple.
The other strategy is to disgust people so they don't come to election, which effectively boosts parties with the most stable voter base - usually the big ones. Even simpler - doesn't include need to revise program, let alone follow it ;-)
2) Really? The more money approah may work for America seeing as some americans basically ARE sheep! But it doesn't work here in the UK. Let me explain, Countries like France think its ok that Bankers give themselves huge bonuses as they work hard and have an important job, while here in England many are angry that they get paid so much more. This is because we English naturally support the underdog (thats the best way i can think of to say it). Now when I at least see political paries put up a massive show and spend loads of money i immediatly start thinking about the 'lesser' parties and how they can't do this. Also as a last note people are NOT stupid (some are but the majority are not) and these people if informed enough can make a decision on who to vote for based on the parties promises and not 'who has a flashier show'. Before you say that the parties wont inform you enough, Internet! They can't control what people see on here so if you search the facts will be there.
I don't know situation in UK, but I have seen the more money approach work in Czech Republic. After all, advertisement companies are paid so much because advertisements work. I agree, that people, if informed enough, can make a decision. After all, good information service is a prerequisite for democracy. The point is that people are not informed enough. Again, I am not familiar with British situation, but our news are biased, and prefer easy celebrity scandals to real investigative work. And Internet is not a solution. Most people go to websites of mainstream news. Yes, English speaking informed people can seek primary sources, but they are a negligible minority.
3) This i agree is a problem but its a problem of distrust and i see it as a form of protest. 'I shall not vote until you sort out this mess of the Banks/Economy etc'. I don't vote you are correct here but i don't vote simply because no political party is worthy of my X. None promise what i want to happen and to vote for a 'lesser evil' is wrong. Parties should see that there is a 37% margin of people not voting in your country and ask themselves "what are all the other parties NOT promising that could win these over?" and then make those promises.
Your approach is showing one of reasons why our democracies do not work as they should - clientelist approach. "I shall not vote until you sort out this mess" is essentially approach of client who expects them (government, etc.) to do the job. But democracy can only work if we realize, that those "them" are "us". And if no party offers what you consider important, why not to contact some people of similar opinion and start a new party as pirates did recently? Only then will established parties react. Non-voters are unfocused mob, but if it shows interest in some problem, established parties will start to take opinions on it.
4) As i said i don't vote at the moment but thats because none promise what i want. Why should i vote for the Green Party for instance when i disagree with half their policys? If a new party started and put forward policys that i would want then they would get my vote, until that happens i reserve the right to NOT vote. If i support this mainstream parties then thats fine as nothing will change overnight anyways.
Sure you have right not to vote. But you have also right to enter a party and try to move its policy to your priorities. By not voting, you achieve nothing. By participating, you get a chance.
[img]http://www.abload.de/img/lw6ecde.gif[/img][img]http://www.abload.de/img/bg9ismp.gif[/img][img]http://www.abload.de/img/p4ipaw.gif[/img]
Gaurbund Angecthelion, retired Quartermaster of Corsairs of Obsidian Citadel
The Silly Dragon
Posts: 1553
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2012 1:40 pm
Location: South East England

Re: The Falklands

#146 Post by The Silly Dragon »

Paraicj wrote:Why pick in France, of all places? It just shows a lack of understanding of political situations outside your own sphere.
Yeah i don't have alot of knowledge but i do seem to recall when the first bankers failings were pointed out France did not backlash as much as England did. But heck i am only going by what i watched on TV on programs such as 'Question Time' and others like it. But in all honesty i don't take too much attention to ANY political events (i got better things to spend my time on like watching paint dry).

I am not patriotic at all. Don't take my comments here as defending England as i f****ing hate our governments and the whole situation balls up. Immigration etc you know the story all BS and if i was asked to join the army to defend England i would decline (its not England anymore) but thats a totally different story. If its emotional attachment its more anger then love.
[b]War. War never changes [/b]
[i]dum spiro, spero...[/i]
[b]"Humans are strange creatures, in a world of such fascination and wonder they have managed to invent boredom"[/b]
dangit
Posts: 85
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 3:15 am

Re: The Falklands

#147 Post by dangit »

I was gonna' post something smart about patriotism and the Falklands but to be honest, this thread has gotten so off-topic I can't be bothered.
Member of the [url=http://www.ulthuan.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=32214]Mage Knight Guild[/url]
User avatar
Elithmar
Young Eataini Prince
Posts: 3669
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2011 7:41 pm

Re: The Falklands

#148 Post by Elithmar »

The Silly Dragon wrote:i f****ing hate our governments and the whole situation balls up.
This is why I think I wouldn't make a bad politician. After all, I can't be worse than most of them. :P
"I say the Eatainii were cheating - again." -Aicanor
"Eatainian jerks…" -Headshot
"It was a little ungentlemanly." -Aicanor (on the Eatainii)
"What is it with Eataini being blamed for everything?" -Aicanor
Post Reply