Jump to content

Awol

Established Members
  • Content Count

    5,258
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

Awol last won the day on March 16 2018

Awol had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

2,711 Excellent

About Awol

  • Rank
    International

Profile Information

  • Location
    Scotchland

Recent Profile Visitors

1,622 profile views
  1. If monopoly is the problem then break up the monopoly, don't replace it with another one run by the state. Adult content first. Then website that express "problematic views" (the most chilling phrase of recent times), or perhaps paint the incumbent government in a bad light.. We spend a lot of time talking about how corrupt, self-interested and frankly dangerous many politicians are. It seems counter-intuitive to then cheer-lead (not you, particularly) to extend the control of such people over our everyday lives.
  2. Did I say that? Humans are inherently imperfect, so if a system is so perfect it can never be successfully implemented then it's not much use outside a seminar room. In fact it's positively dangerous, as scores of millions of dead Russians, Chinese and other nationalities would testify - if they could.
  3. A common conclusion reached by the far-right and far-left. It never ends well.
  4. Setting aside the boring blah-blah issues about whether the government should nick other people's stuff, I reckon we're both old enough to remember BT pre-nationalisation? No internet back then but a waiting list of about 6 weeks to get a phone-line installed, no competition on prices and dire service. Post-privatisation (i.e. now) you can chop and change as you please (contract allowing) chasing the best deal. If nationalisation doesn't deliver better service or pricing (this would end up being paid for through general taxation, not some fantasy about the giants of Silicon Valley ponying up) then what's the point? Also I'm not thrilled by the prospect of ANY government now or in the future effectively controlling the internet and access to it. There's a strong functional argument for nationalising some critical infrastructure, that is a separate discussion from that of government pursuing massive nationalisation as an end in itself.
  5. True, but when you find a crack in the wall do you fix the wall or knock down the house? Okay, but there isn't a single example, anywhere in recorded human history, of it going another way. As indicators go I'd call that 'statistically significant.'
  6. No, nothing like the Tories in power now. That's my point, this idea that they are 'hard' right, far-right etc. is nonsense. Neither far-right or far-left are compatible with a democratic system because it restrains them, instead they function as dictatorships. Attacking property rights/rule of law is a signature move of extremists precisely because it's necessary to implement their grand social experiment. There is no historical evidence of either - remarkably similar - system a) existing within a democratic framework, or b) benefiting the wider population. The Conservative Party today is a corrupt, venal, self-licking lollipop, interested only in preserving and extending the wealth of a tiny minority while preventing popular revolution against such injustice. Hence Cameron, Osborne, Hammond and Johnson's willingness to sell anything/everything to the CCP, while laundering Putin's money through the City for crumbs from his table. This is a major problem and needs to be resolved, but it's not an existential threat for the vast majority of the country (yes, tell that to the disabled, homeless, etc. I get it). Labour under Corbyn IS an existential threat. Not because he'd destroy the western alliance system that is the only hope of balancing China and Russia (though he would), not because McDonnell in No.10 would be like a remake of Brewster's Millions, but without the prize (though he would), but because when you trash property rights and rule of law you destroy the environment for wealth to be safely and productively invested. You destroy the entire system upon which society, social peace and prosperity rests. The end result of that process is either anarchy or dictatorship - and they're not anarchists.
  7. Fair enough. When it leads to economic disaster (as it always, always does) we’ll likely end up with sort of right wing regime that would make Cromwell blush. Not sure how worried they’ll be about CO2 & workers rights.
  8. I don’t disagree, but as Snowy (a bit sniffily) said, the issue is methods. Ripping up the economy by the roots sounds exciting to some, but utterly terrifying to more. Transforming it is necessary & needs serious, measured and thoughtful debate. Labour in their current form are proposing a spot of DIY using tactical nuclear weapons.
  9. Green? Lol. No. The way I see it it’s a choice between a party paid by Russia (blues) or a party that wants to be Russia (reds). It’s a straight fight between SNP & Lib Dems where I’m registered to vote. As a leave supporting Unionist my vote is irrelevant. On the economy I definitely agree the global model of growth based on consumption/resource exploitation is unsustainable. Plunging ourselves into penury by wrecking the economy and destroying pensions doesn’t strike me as a sensible solution.
  10. It’s a starter for 10. Folks genuinely seem to have no idea just how radical these guys are, which is ironic given their previous.
  11. Equating 5G (which Huawei should be nowhere near) with ending property rights & destroying the economy in short order aren’t really on the same scale of effwittery. When McDonnell preached that he wanted to overthrow capitalism it appears he wasn’t kidding.
  12. If Labour win then you won’t have to worry, it’ll just be a different flavour of authoritarian socialists controlling the Internet. No property rights = no rule of law = rule by the party.
  13. Historically, the problem with socialism (not social democracy) is always ‘the methods used to carry it out.’
×
×
  • Create New...
Â