Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Fascism... and the sensible alternatives.
3 views
Skip to first unread message
Andy Wainwright
Apr 10, 2013, 12:53:18 AM4/10/13
to
Has been tried. Has failed disastrously. Some still follow it 'cos
they're thick.
Unfortunately both sides of the political spectrum have a ridiculously
authoritarian streak. Surely the idea of being in politics is to set
people free, not lock them up.
Does it matter if you're robbed, beaten, harassed or imprisoned by a
criminal or a criminal state? No.
As far as I can see, we can have
a) tax cuts, public service improvements, less prejudice
b) prejudice, tax rise, public service cuts
Let's say I'm, concerned when voting about a) my own welfare and of
friends, relatives and business associates and b) that other people or
wildlife is not suffering.
Let's say on the other hand I'm not concerned about any other aspect of
other people's affairs. I'm not worried that someone has a bigger house,
better car than me etc, I'm not concerned what consenting people do in
private, I'm not concerned with their cultural heritage as long as they
have the manners to respect mine.
Unfortunately we're often lead a misleading picture of selfishness. It's
not selfish to want for oneself. It is selfish to wish to deny something
to others.
Here's a great little example. People will oft complain about an
immigrant doing a job that they might wish to do. OK, we kick out said
immigrant. The job goes abroad.
Now, that's a worse situation for the native labour. At least when the
job was local, they had a chance of competing with said migrant for that
vacancy. It goes abroad, that chance is lost.
Another one is why worry about someone not doing a paid job like so many
politicans do, when there's a lot of people who *do* want to work who
don't get the help they need because policy makers are concerned about
those who chose not to.
If someone wants to watch TV all day, why hastle them? Its pretty boring
and there's not much money to do anything else- let them get bored of it
and do something better- and give them full support when they decide to
do that.
With lifestyle choices in general, again, why hassle people? Take away
people's decisions on the matter by force, you take away the ability to
make decisions.
It's for the churches, mosques, sinogogues and the like to talk about
morality. It's the job of the state to maximise freedom, and prevent it
being stolen by criminals and power hungry officials.
So there is a real direction forward for politics. So why do we here so
much from the authoritarian, distrustul of the citizen model, when it
doesn't actually offer anything?
I'd call this tabloid tyranny- the jealousy card. Make people feel good
by seeing others put down. It's not just a right wing thing either- the
left does the same with the rich. Unfortunately, putting others down
doesn't make anyone any better off in real terms. It's pretty much the
same as a person in pain hitting some other guy with a hammer, thus
making the pain shared equally.
This set up can mean a lot of wealth and power for very few, which is
why it's promoted. The "dog whistle" appeals to the animal mentality-
thus dehumanising the people and so enslaving them. Even though
politicians have consistantly failed their people, we're routinely
encouraged to grant them more power and trust.
And the saddest thing is, that plenty of supposedly intelligent people
lap up this snake oil.
they're thick.
Unfortunately both sides of the political spectrum have a ridiculously
authoritarian streak. Surely the idea of being in politics is to set
people free, not lock them up.
Does it matter if you're robbed, beaten, harassed or imprisoned by a
criminal or a criminal state? No.
As far as I can see, we can have
a) tax cuts, public service improvements, less prejudice
b) prejudice, tax rise, public service cuts
Let's say I'm, concerned when voting about a) my own welfare and of
friends, relatives and business associates and b) that other people or
wildlife is not suffering.
Let's say on the other hand I'm not concerned about any other aspect of
other people's affairs. I'm not worried that someone has a bigger house,
better car than me etc, I'm not concerned what consenting people do in
private, I'm not concerned with their cultural heritage as long as they
have the manners to respect mine.
Unfortunately we're often lead a misleading picture of selfishness. It's
not selfish to want for oneself. It is selfish to wish to deny something
to others.
Here's a great little example. People will oft complain about an
immigrant doing a job that they might wish to do. OK, we kick out said
immigrant. The job goes abroad.
Now, that's a worse situation for the native labour. At least when the
job was local, they had a chance of competing with said migrant for that
vacancy. It goes abroad, that chance is lost.
Another one is why worry about someone not doing a paid job like so many
politicans do, when there's a lot of people who *do* want to work who
don't get the help they need because policy makers are concerned about
those who chose not to.
If someone wants to watch TV all day, why hastle them? Its pretty boring
and there's not much money to do anything else- let them get bored of it
and do something better- and give them full support when they decide to
do that.
With lifestyle choices in general, again, why hassle people? Take away
people's decisions on the matter by force, you take away the ability to
make decisions.
It's for the churches, mosques, sinogogues and the like to talk about
morality. It's the job of the state to maximise freedom, and prevent it
being stolen by criminals and power hungry officials.
So there is a real direction forward for politics. So why do we here so
much from the authoritarian, distrustul of the citizen model, when it
doesn't actually offer anything?
I'd call this tabloid tyranny- the jealousy card. Make people feel good
by seeing others put down. It's not just a right wing thing either- the
left does the same with the rich. Unfortunately, putting others down
doesn't make anyone any better off in real terms. It's pretty much the
same as a person in pain hitting some other guy with a hammer, thus
making the pain shared equally.
This set up can mean a lot of wealth and power for very few, which is
why it's promoted. The "dog whistle" appeals to the animal mentality-
thus dehumanising the people and so enslaving them. Even though
politicians have consistantly failed their people, we're routinely
encouraged to grant them more power and trust.
And the saddest thing is, that plenty of supposedly intelligent people
lap up this snake oil.
Mel Rowing
Apr 10, 2013, 5:08:14 AM4/10/13
to
On 10 Apr, 05:53, Andy Wainwright
but unless they are old, these are the very people who, in the main,
find something more exciting to do. The big advantage of wealth is the
extra independence it gives you.
Our TV addicted dolie still requires maintenance. There is no money
tree. His maintenance comes at the expense of someone who can't afford
to watch TV all day even if he waned to. Further to that he can take
on the odd casual job, put the wage and his benefit straight into his
pocket and still hold out his palm for more.
If his attitudes were unversal he couldn't even exist. He is an
exploiter of his fellow beings.
[...]
> So there is a real direction forward for politics. So why do we here so
> much from the authoritarian, distrustul of the citizen model, when it
> doesn't actually offer anything?
It offers very much indeed which is why societies evolved. If they did
not offer anything then they would whither. Without the support and
tolerance of society there could be no dolies. They are more dependent
on society than anyone.
Society offers social insurance. Because I'm a member of society, if I
am knocked over, someone will help me up and tend me until I'm back on
my feet. If I fall on hard times I will be supported until once more I
can re-take my place. If I am placed in danger someone will step in to
protect me from that danger and so on. It's animals who generally step
over the fallen (with certain exceptions)
There's nothing new in this except that over the generations, society
has moved from a model where most of these services are provided
through and centered on the family and kinship , to one where the
notion of family has been extended to embrace all of us.
The weakness of such a model AISI is that it has become for too
tolerant of those who accept all the benefits and rights under this
social contract but none of the obligations and cost. It follows by
straight logic that rights perhaps established by edict, are
nonetheless dependent upon obligations if they are to endure. Failure
to get this balance right will lead to cynicsm and it's this that
develops into selfishness and what you call jealousies.
There are people in this world who have every reason to be jealous.
<andrewrichardwainwri...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> If someone wants to watch TV all day, why hastle them? Its pretty boring
> and there's not much money to do anything else- let them get bored of it
> and do something better- and give them full support when they decide to
> do that.
>
> With lifestyle choices in general, again, why hassle people? Take away
> people's decisions on the matter by force, you take away the ability to
> make decisions.
I have no problem with people of independent means watching TV all day
> If someone wants to watch TV all day, why hastle them? Its pretty boring
> and there's not much money to do anything else- let them get bored of it
> and do something better- and give them full support when they decide to
> do that.
>
> With lifestyle choices in general, again, why hassle people? Take away
> people's decisions on the matter by force, you take away the ability to
> make decisions.
but unless they are old, these are the very people who, in the main,
find something more exciting to do. The big advantage of wealth is the
extra independence it gives you.
Our TV addicted dolie still requires maintenance. There is no money
tree. His maintenance comes at the expense of someone who can't afford
to watch TV all day even if he waned to. Further to that he can take
on the odd casual job, put the wage and his benefit straight into his
pocket and still hold out his palm for more.
If his attitudes were unversal he couldn't even exist. He is an
exploiter of his fellow beings.
[...]
> So there is a real direction forward for politics. So why do we here so
> much from the authoritarian, distrustul of the citizen model, when it
> doesn't actually offer anything?
not offer anything then they would whither. Without the support and
tolerance of society there could be no dolies. They are more dependent
on society than anyone.
Society offers social insurance. Because I'm a member of society, if I
am knocked over, someone will help me up and tend me until I'm back on
my feet. If I fall on hard times I will be supported until once more I
can re-take my place. If I am placed in danger someone will step in to
protect me from that danger and so on. It's animals who generally step
over the fallen (with certain exceptions)
There's nothing new in this except that over the generations, society
has moved from a model where most of these services are provided
through and centered on the family and kinship , to one where the
notion of family has been extended to embrace all of us.
The weakness of such a model AISI is that it has become for too
tolerant of those who accept all the benefits and rights under this
social contract but none of the obligations and cost. It follows by
straight logic that rights perhaps established by edict, are
nonetheless dependent upon obligations if they are to endure. Failure
to get this balance right will lead to cynicsm and it's this that
develops into selfishness and what you call jealousies.
There are people in this world who have every reason to be jealous.
Handsome Jack
Apr 10, 2013, 5:05:25 AM4/10/13
to
Andy Wainwright <andrewricha...@hotmail.co.uk> posted
"fascism". It is one of those words that different groups assign
different meanings to, so you are wasting your time unless you establish
a common definition.
--
Jack
>Has been tried. Has failed disastrously. Some still follow it 'cos
>they're thick.
Before you can discuss this you have to set out exactly what you mean by
>they're thick.
"fascism". It is one of those words that different groups assign
different meanings to, so you are wasting your time unless you establish
a common definition.
--
Jack
Mentalguy2k8
Apr 10, 2013, 6:31:25 AM4/10/13
to
"Andy Wainwright" <andrewricha...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:kk2r3h$5u8$1...@dont-email.me...
> Here's a great little example. People will oft complain about an immigrant
> doing a job that they might wish to do. OK, we kick out said immigrant.
> The job goes abroad.
>
> Now, that's a worse situation for the native labour. At least when the job
> was local, they had a chance of competing with said migrant for that
> vacancy. It goes abroad, that chance is lost.
So every time someone dies, retires or moves abroad, their job dies with
them?
The worst situation for "native labour" is having *more* competition for
existing jobs, not less, and especially competition from foreign labour who
will work for less than minimum wage and less rights.
If your country has 2.5m unemployed, it simply doesn't make sense to import
labour, regardless of the type of work. If you ran a taxi firm and put all
your drivers on a guaranteed salary, what would you do if business went
slack and half of them were sitting around doing nothing all day? Would you
start laying them off or would you recruit more, put the newcomers on a
salary *and* keep paying the idle drivers? Surely you wouldn't hire more
drivers and increase your wage bill at the same time as income drops, while
you're already paying your existing drivers to do nothing?
Bill
Apr 10, 2013, 6:56:19 AM4/10/13
to
On Wed, 10 Apr 2013 11:31:25 +0100, "Mentalguy2k8"
<Mental...@gmail.com> wrote:
>The worst situation for "native labour" is having *more* competition for
>existing jobs, not less, and especially competition from foreign labour who
>will work for less than minimum wage and less rights.
Why would a foreigner work for less than the legal minimum and not
<Mental...@gmail.com> wrote:
>The worst situation for "native labour" is having *more* competition for
>existing jobs, not less, and especially competition from foreign labour who
>will work for less than minimum wage and less rights.
have the same rights as a British worker?
Mentalguy2k8
Apr 10, 2013, 7:11:27 AM4/10/13
to
"Bill" <black...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:o8ham8lqes97v56ti...@4ax.com...
kebab shop, cafe, Chinese/Indian takeaway etc!
A lot of them pay cash-in-hand (but less than minimum wage) and there is no
notice period, no holiday pay, no nothing.
Mel Rowing
Apr 10, 2013, 7:22:45 AM4/10/13
to
On 10 Apr, 12:11, "Mentalguy2k8" <Mentalguy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Bill" <blackuse...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > Why would a foreigner work for less than the legal minimum and not
> > have the same rights as a British worker?
>
> Good luck to anyone who can find a contract of employment anywhere in a
> kebab shop, cafe, Chinese/Indian takeaway etc!
>
> A lot of them pay cash-in-hand (but less than minimum wage) and there is no
> notice period, no holiday pay, no nothing.
And that's because many of them are family businesses. Their families
extend to cousins, nephews and nieces and all spouses of same together
with in laws. Such jobs would never be open to indigenous British.
I think the PP was alluding to normal jobs that are open to all
comers.
> "Bill" <blackuse...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > Why would a foreigner work for less than the legal minimum and not
> > have the same rights as a British worker?
>
> Good luck to anyone who can find a contract of employment anywhere in a
> kebab shop, cafe, Chinese/Indian takeaway etc!
>
> A lot of them pay cash-in-hand (but less than minimum wage) and there is no
> notice period, no holiday pay, no nothing.
extend to cousins, nephews and nieces and all spouses of same together
with in laws. Such jobs would never be open to indigenous British.
I think the PP was alluding to normal jobs that are open to all
comers.
Bill
Apr 10, 2013, 8:24:15 AM4/10/13
to
On Wed, 10 Apr 2013 12:11:27 +0100, "Mentalguy2k8"
<Mental...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>"Bill" <black...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:o8ham8lqes97v56ti...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 10 Apr 2013 11:31:25 +0100, "Mentalguy2k8"
>> <Mental...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>The worst situation for "native labour" is having *more* competition for
>>>existing jobs, not less, and especially competition from foreign labour
>>>who
>>>will work for less than minimum wage and less rights.
>>
>> Why would a foreigner work for less than the legal minimum and not
>> have the same rights as a British worker?
>
>Good luck to anyone who can find a contract of employment anywhere in a
>kebab shop, cafe, Chinese/Indian takeaway etc!
Such establishments, round here anyway, get their doors kicked in by
<Mental...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>"Bill" <black...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:o8ham8lqes97v56ti...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 10 Apr 2013 11:31:25 +0100, "Mentalguy2k8"
>> <Mental...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>The worst situation for "native labour" is having *more* competition for
>>>existing jobs, not less, and especially competition from foreign labour
>>>who
>>>will work for less than minimum wage and less rights.
>>
>> Why would a foreigner work for less than the legal minimum and not
>> have the same rights as a British worker?
>
>Good luck to anyone who can find a contract of employment anywhere in a
>kebab shop, cafe, Chinese/Indian takeaway etc!
the thugs of the Borders Agency (or whatever they're called this week)
on a reasonably regular basis and everyone gets their papers checked
on the spot with anyone not being able to give a good account of
themselves being hauled off until they can, even if he's stood there
with someone's vindaloo in his hands....
In recent months this has led to one gentleman born in the UK spending
the night in the cells and a spectacular chase through Bradford in the
early hours a few months ago when the staff of an Indian restaurant
though they were being turned over by the local Nazis and ran for the
hills, only for apologies all around when it turned out that it was
the immigration inspectors and everyone's papers were in good
order...
>A lot of them pay cash-in-hand (but less than minimum wage) and there is no
>notice period, no holiday pay, no nothing.
should report them to the appropriate authorities...
Bill
Apr 10, 2013, 8:44:00 AM4/10/13
to
Uncle Mohamed's kitchen for tupence a week until he got 'residency'
after five years, followed by another cousin and then another, are now
long gone.
The jobs may be easier to get if you speak certain languages but
they're now just about all open to everyone.
My local Chinese restaurant, an establishment that had employed only
Chinese staff for 25 years, now has a Polish wine waiter...
I understand that they couldn't get a local to do the work at minimum
wage...
abelard
Apr 10, 2013, 9:00:27 AM4/10/13
to
On Wed, 10 Apr 2013 10:05:25 +0100, Handsome Jack <Ja...@nowhere.com>
wrote:
fascism has one meaning...it is another word for socialism....
among socialists it has gained a secondary purpose...to slag
off *any* rivals...including other socialists....
wrote:
among socialists it has gained a secondary purpose...to slag
off *any* rivals...including other socialists....
Vidcapper
Apr 10, 2013, 12:11:29 PM4/10/13
to
On 10/04/2013 14:00, abelard wrote:
>
> fascism has one meaning...it is another word for socialism....
>
> among socialists it has gained a secondary purpose...to slag
> off *any* rivals...including other socialists....
You call *any* political ideology you disagree with 'socialism',
>
> fascism has one meaning...it is another word for socialism....
>
> among socialists it has gained a secondary purpose...to slag
> off *any* rivals...including other socialists....
regardless of their differences... :)
--
Regards,
Paul Hyett
abelard
Apr 10, 2013, 2:10:26 PM4/10/13
to
On Wed, 10 Apr 2013 17:11:29 +0100, Vidcapper <vidca...@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:
a childish claim, but i can see why you try it on
anything to divert attention from the realities
wrote:
anything to divert attention from the realities
Andy Wainwright
Apr 10, 2013, 2:57:22 PM4/10/13
to
there's not the suitable vacancy, or alternatively, the tax and welfare
system would leave them no better or worse off.
Why bother about those spending all day watching telly, when you could
be trying to help those who want to do something with their lives?
Cheaper than seeing them turn to crime and having to put them in
institutions.
As I said, morality isn't the concern of the state- that's for the
church. Freedom is the concern of the state.
Bullying people gets no long term results. You can't change attitudes
with force. You can offer help to those who want to change, which is
lacking in today's Britain.
I could offer lower tax without cuts in services, as well as getting
more people into employment- again by helping those who want to work
instead of bullying those who don't.
Lose the busybody tendency, it's possible. When the government gets on a
moral high horse, hypocrasy enters the system, hypocrasy that amongst
other things leads to less incentive to better oneself, and a better
deal for the genuinely antisocial as real criminals get away when the
state prosecutes those infringing controversial petty social mores.
Vidcapper
Apr 11, 2013, 5:10:22 AM4/11/13
to
I was merely drawing attention to the fact that you lose all objectivity
when talking about socialism.
--
Regards,
Paul Hyett
Mel Rowing
Apr 11, 2013, 5:27:07 AM4/11/13
to
the beginning of the turn round perhaps.
abelard
Apr 11, 2013, 5:49:21 AM4/11/13
to
On Thu, 11 Apr 2013 10:10:22 +0100, Vidcapper <vidca...@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:
>On 10/04/2013 19:10, abelard wrote:
>> On Wed, 10 Apr 2013 17:11:29 +0100, Vidcapper<vidca...@yahoo.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> You call *any* political ideology you disagree with 'socialism',
>>> regardless of their differences... :)
>>
>> a childish claim, but i can see why you try it on
>>
>> anything to divert attention from the realities
>
>Did you not see my smiley?
as if
>I was merely drawing attention to the fact that you lose all objectivity
>when talking about socialism.
you may wish
wrote:
>On 10/04/2013 19:10, abelard wrote:
>> On Wed, 10 Apr 2013 17:11:29 +0100, Vidcapper<vidca...@yahoo.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> You call *any* political ideology you disagree with 'socialism',
>>> regardless of their differences... :)
>>
>> a childish claim, but i can see why you try it on
>>
>> anything to divert attention from the realities
>
>Did you not see my smiley?
>I was merely drawing attention to the fact that you lose all objectivity
>when talking about socialism.
Bill
Apr 11, 2013, 6:40:28 AM4/11/13
to
wage job.
0 new messages