Globalisation & Neoliberalism

[vikingTON]

3 hours ago, ayrmad said:

I blame search engines, anyone can read up on absolutely anything and pass themselves off as some sort of know-all on it, nothing to do with being brighter,everything to do with people not really being that interested in the subject at hand.

What's your excuse for still being a braying fuckwit then? 

[Ad Lib]

1 hour ago, WaffenThinMint said:

Nor does it justify excluding them.

No real surprise that Ad Lib's gone this way after his comprehensive drubbing at the ballot box last year. Oswald Mosley went into much the same hated of the swinish multitudes after his New Party was roundly told GTFO ("that is the crowd which has prevented anyone doing anything since the war"). I expect him to go much the same way Martin Wingfield did under similar circumstances.

Behind every holier-than-thou self-styled "liberal" there is a closeted dictatorial demogogue who knows what's best for those bloody stupid peasants.

On the contrary it absolutely does justify excluding them. Those with the capacity to consent (the intellectual elite) did not and would not consent to self-immolation, and the willingness of others to consent to it is evidence of their lack of capacity. It is profoundly immoral to subject, gratuitously and non-consensually, any individual to governance that is not imperialistically liberal.

[jmothecat]

Ah so neoliberalism was to blame...

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/09/rise-of-the-davos-class-sealed-americas-fate

[ayrmad]

45 minutes ago, vikingTON said:

What's your excuse for still being a braying fuckwit then? 

I think it's those on the side of those losers roiting,committing acts of violence and issuing death threats that are the fuckwits at the moment, at least May & Co now have a pretty good idea what they're letting themselves in for if they go against the democratic will of the people.

[WaffenThinMint]

7 minutes ago, Ad Lib said:

On the contrary it absolutely does justify excluding them. Those with the capacity to consent (the intellectual elite) did not and would not consent to self-immolation, and the willingness of others to consent to it is evidence of their lack of capacity. It is profoundly immoral to subject, gratuitously and non-consensually, any individual to governance that is not imperialistically liberal.

"On the contrary it absolutely does justify excluding them."

Cheeses wept!

"the willingness of others to consent to it is evidence of their lack of capacity"

But their willingness to consent to self-immolation was not the issue you raised, it was "The absence of better solutions doesn't justify asking amateur fuckwits to have a go."

A "better solution" is an abstract concept anyway. Better for whom? Whatever solution is applied, there will always be some arguing they're now worse off for it). Similarly what defines "self-immolation". One person's self-immolation is another's altruism.

"profoundly immoral" - again, an abstract concept. It appears "morality" to you is whatever happens to suit your own pet pecadillos at any one given time - "don't allow them to vote in people that don't like what I like, but let it be legal for them to f**k their cousins."

 

[ayrmad]

2 minutes ago, WaffenThinMint said:

"On the contrary it absolutely does justify excluding them."

Cheeses wept!

"the willingness of others to consent to it is evidence of their lack of capacity"

But their willingness to consent to self-immolation was not the issue you raised, it was "The absence of better solutions doesn't justify asking amateur fuckwits to have a go."

A "better solution" is an abstract concept anyway. Better for whom? Whatever solution is applied, there will always be some arguing they're now worse off for it). Similarly what defines "self-immolation". One person's self-immolation is another's altruism.

"profoundly immoral" - again, an abstract concept. It appears "morality" to you is whatever happens to suit your own pet pecadillos at any one given time - "don't allow them to vote in people that don't like what I like, but let it be legal for them to f**k their siblings."

 

FTFY.

[Ad Lib]

7 minutes ago, WaffenThinMint said:

"On the contrary it absolutely does justify excluding them."

Cheeses wept!

"the willingness of others to consent to it is evidence of their lack of capacity"

But their willingness to consent to self-immolation was not the issue you raised, it was "The absence of better solutions doesn't justify asking amateur fuckwits to have a go."

A "better solution" is an abstract concept anyway. Better for whom? Whatever solution is applied, there will always be some arguing they're now worse off for it). Similarly what defines "self-immolation". One person's self-immolation is another's altruism.

"profoundly immoral" - again, an abstract concept. It appears "morality" to you is whatever happens to suit your own pet pecadillos at any one given time - "don't allow them to vote in people that don't like what I like, but let it be legal for them to f**k their cousins."

 

The alternatives, peddled by amateur fuckwits, constitute self-immolation.

That they are willing to self-harm is evidence they should be sectioned, not that they should be allowed to vote. We wouldn't let those without capacity do a vast array of other things: this is one of the reasons we don't let children vote: why should we allow the stupid to suffer from their own inability to recognise that self-harm is bad for them?

What the criminal law should be based on is the harm principle. If you cannot prove that all cases of an act are by necessity harmful, then it is only morally permissible for the state to criminalise or disincentivise the instances that are.

[Ad Lib]

12 minutes ago, jmothecat said:

Ah so neoliberalism was to blame...

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/09/rise-of-the-davos-class-sealed-americas-fate

Genuinely one of the most idiotic articles I've ever read.

[vikingTON]

3 minutes ago, ayrmad said:

I think it's those on the side of those losers roiting,committing acts of violence and issuing death threats that are the fuckwits at the moment, at least May & Co now have a pretty good idea what they're letting themselves in for if they go against the democratic will of the people.

Nope, it's definitely still you. As confirmed by your hilarious strop against people who have the temerity to "read up" on subjects using "search engines" - the Internet being the most revolutionary form of knowledge sharing in the history of human civilisation - presumably because that leaves ignorant chumps like you furiously mashing your fists against your desktop keyboard, hoping that your brand of homespun 'common sense' will still count for something in the 2010s.   

It doesn't though: get back in your box then. 

[ayrmad]

1 minute ago, vikingTON said:

Nope, it's definitely still you. As confirmed by your hilarious strop against people who have the temerity to "read up" on subjects using "search engines" - the Internet being the most revolutionary form of knowledge sharing in the history of human civilisation - presumably because that leaves ignorant chumps like you furiously mashing your fists against your desktop keyboard, hoping that your brand of homespun 'common sense' will still count for something in the 2010s.   

It doesn't though: get back in your box then. 

It's not reading up on subjects that's the problem( I do it for plenty of subjects that I'm into) it's bawbags having the cheek to decry everyone that doesn't agree with them while passing off what they've read as their own, anyone can do it, I'd rather read the phd papers and spend 100's of hours improving on them.

[Jambomo]

I was reading an essay from the Economist on democracy and one of the interesting quotes I found from it was this

Quote

One reason why so many democratic experiments have failed recently is that they put too much emphasis on elections and too little on the other essential features of democracy. The power of the state needs to be checked, for instance, and individual rights such as freedom of speech and freedom to organise must be guaranteed. The most successful new democracies have all worked in large part because they avoided the temptation of majoritarianism—the notion that winning an election entitles the majority to do whatever it pleases.

I find that interesting as I do think we have focused almost entirely on the idea that Democracy = the right to vote. Could and should it be otherwise?

http://www.economist.com/news/essays/21596796-democracy-was-most-successful-political-idea-20th-century-why-has-it-run-trouble-and-what-can-be-do

[WaffenThinMint]

3 minutes ago, Ad Lib said:

The alternatives, peddled by amateur fuckwits, constitute self-immolation.

That they are willing to self-harm is evidence they should be sectioned, not that they should be allowed to vote. We wouldn't let those without capacity do a vast array of other things: this is one of the reasons we don't let children vote: why should we allow the stupid to suffer from their own inability to recognise that self-harm is bad for them?

What the criminal law should be based on is the harm principle. If you cannot prove that all cases of an act are by necessity harmful, then it is only morally permissible for the state to criminalise or disincentivise the instances that are.

 

"The alternatives, peddled by amateur fuckwits, constitute self-immolation."

Without the "amateur fuckwits" there would have been no French Revolution, no American revolution, no Jeremy Bentham, no Henry Hunt, no Keir Hardie, etc, etc.

"why should we allow the stupid to suffer from their own inability to recognise that self-harm is bad for them?"

Um, because liberalism is meant to be about allowing, champ. Pushing back the nanny state, plurality, etc., all those liberal platitudes that you only appear to "believe" if it suits your own prejudices.

Anyway, here's a nice book for you to enjoy over the weekend - sounds right up your street:

[Ad Lib]

1 minute ago, WaffenThinMint said:

 

"The alternatives, peddled by amateur fuckwits, constitute self-immolation."

Without the "amateur fuckwits" there would have been no French Revolution, no American revolution, no Jeremy Bentham, no Henry Hunt, no Keir Hardie, etc, etc.

We'd probably be better on balance if there wasn't either the French Revolution or American Revolution. Bentham literally founded Universities; he was the polar opposite of an amateur. Being as I am a liberal, I clearly regard the emergence of socialism as a retrograde step. I have no great enthusiasm for its advocates and their, yes, amateurish, solutions to complex problems.

 

1 minute ago, WaffenThinMint said:

"why should we allow the stupid to suffer from their own inability to recognise that self-harm is bad for them?"

Um, because liberalism is meant to be about allowing, champ. Pushing back the nanny state, plurality, etc., all those liberal platitudes that you only appear to "believe" if it suits your own prejudices.

No, liberalism is about the emancipation of the individual from the obstacles to their autonomy, champ. And if an individual physically cannot be emancipated, they must be protected from the coercion of others. Like authoritarian amateurs who don't know what they're doing. Like Donald Drumph.

[Ross.]

5 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

Aw do those masty people keep having different opinions to you?

Jail them!

Alternatively find a way of getting young people off facebook and into polling booths.

To an extent I actually agree with him. There should be a maximum voting age. If you are not expected to outlive the next government for example, you shouldn't be allowed to vote them in. You won't have to deal with them so you shouldn't be allowed to put them on others.

The only problem is that it would be very difficult to decide a cut off age. Unless we go for mandatory euthanasia at a certain age. In which case we'd solve the overpopulation and pension issues at a stroke....

[Granny Danger]

Just now, Ross. said:

To an extent I actually agree with him. There should be a maximum voting age. If you are not expected to outlive the next government for example, you shouldn't be allowed to vote them in. You won't have to deal with them so you shouldn't be allowed to put them on others.

The only problem is that it would be very difficult to decide a cut off age. Unless we go for mandatory euthanasia at a certain age. In which case we'd solve the overpopulation and pension issues at a stroke....

I'd restrict mandatory euthanasia to the religious, if they genuinely believe in the afterlife then I can't see there being any great resistance.

[NotThePars]

4 hours ago, Ad Lib said:

Like I said earlier, the only case against higher education qualifications as a necessary but insufficient limit on the franchise is the risk of riots.

 

The polls suggest white people of all educations voted for Trump. Maybe we should ban white people from voting?

[Ross.]

4 minutes ago, Granny Danger said:

I'd restrict mandatory euthanasia to the religious, if they genuinely believe in the afterlife then I can't see there being any great resistance.

I'd suggest extending it a little. The religious can take the chance if they want, but they should also offer a "Take a lump sum pension and rattle it in a year before we finish you" option when you reach pensionable age.

[NotThePars]

1 hour ago, ayrmad said:

It's not reading up on subjects that's the problem( I do it for plenty of subjects that I'm into) it's bawbags having the cheek to decry everyone that doesn't agree with them while passing off what they've read as their own, anyone can do it, I'd rather read the phd papers and spend 100's of hours improving on them.

 

It's an internet forum, not an essay. You are allowed to post other people's musings without citation, buddy.

13 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

Life is irreparably shit is it?

You seriously need to get a girlfriend or a wife or a boyfriend or a husband or something which gives your life meaning.

Perhaps you could stop posting so much arrogant nonsense all over the internet and attempt to achieve something in your life which has value to you.

Life is awesome. Try living it,

Relying on someone else to give your life meaning is it? Ooft. I wouldn't rely on any advice you're dishing out.

10 minutes ago, Granny Danger said:

I'd restrict mandatory euthanasia to the religious, if they genuinely believe in the afterlife then I can't see there being any great resistance.

 

[honestly united]

4 hours ago, jmothecat said:

 

I was thinking the Scottish referendum was an interesting exception to the slightly mad things going on. It was the only one where the side with the economic argument won and the only one where people voted for the status quo rather than for unknown change.

 

I was more thinking all 3 are examples of people voting for what is perceived to be the bad option, or where the "good" guys lost.

[pandarilla]

But they yield the same result.

Almost no one doesn't believe capitalism has to be controlled. Where neoliberals disagree with the left is whether and how it can be controlled without massive, dreadful, politically perverse consequences.

Major change is functionally impossible. The best that is physically achievable is incremental change. And the very act of arguing for something more radical makes racists more likely to win and undo the delicate managing of the least shit.

These people only exist on Twitter.

Almost no one wants public money to be spent just so corporations can profit from it. Like, not even most Republicans or Tories believe that, let alone progressives.

You are attacking a man of straw.

Public money has been spent and then stolen though. I'm not saying people are standing up arguing for it - I'm saying it's happening under our noses. Public money to private with no great outrage or coordinated opposition.

Neoliberalism is happening without being openly debated. It's gradually just happened, with centrist and right wing politicians happily distracting the public (and offering selfish choice based policies) and no-one really offering attractive alternatives.