The Wish They Were All Dead Tory Cunt Thread

[Letters]

And I explained what freedom truly is, but you do not comprehend. As I pointed out. Correctly.

You seem to genuinely believe that you saying stuff makes it true.

You state there can be no freedom because your choice demands my choice be denied, based solely on your claim your society demands the invalidation of my choice in order for it to be viable.

Correct. And I have explained why I'm asserting that. If you want to respond then go nuts.

This is why I occasionally ask you if you are genuinely a Christian. I find it difficult to believe authoritarians can be Christians

I'm not an authoritarian. I believe in society and a representative government which runs it, that's not authoritarian.
You only seem to be able to think in absolutes - either we have absolute freedom or absolute authority. There are shades of grey. We have many freedoms than people in certain other regimes do not. That might not be enough for you, but it's working for me because day to day the government pretty much let us get on with it. As you know of course. Your issues are ideological, not practical.

[Niall_Quinn]

You can't help but lie. I did anything but speak in absolutes, I leave that to you. I explained how I had no interest in controlling your personal choices, I said if you needed government because you aren't enough of a man to stand on your own feet then have it. The only absolute is how nuts you must be to still believe in the state given the shit state of the world around you. But defending abject failure to the hilt is your MO. You did it for years with Wenger too.

Then you claim I think things are true just because I say so. You confirm you deprive others of choice so you can exercise your choice. Then you just say, no, that's not authoritarian. Well then, what happens if I don't comply with your demands Captain Liberty? That's right, you'll send thugs to enforce your demands. And here's me claiming you don't understand freedom? Where would I get such an idea?

There's no defence for your behaviour, which is why you can't address any of my points and instead issue a blanket rejection of even the notion of sane alternatives to the obvious insanity of government. I don't know how you do it, at the same time as hounding Johnson for being a hypocrite, you have your mouth clenched on the state's giant teat wondering who the next Johnson will be. Regardless, you get Johnson up the arse, but it's the only way? You know they piss in your face yet you say, with a straight if not soaked face, there's no possible alternative?

That's weird behaviour, right there. Self abuse dressed up as civic duty in an attempt to preserve a shred of dignity. Which, if that's what you want, go for it.

But you demand I spread and give thanks too? So you can hide your shame in a crowd?

[HCZ_Reborn]

Ha ha ha ha is this still going ??

I shouldn’t be surprised. This was going four years ago when I left here

There does appear to be something of a impasse, in that you seem to think you’re clear as Crystal in conceptualising your alternative society, Letters however thinks you’re as clear as mud.

I’ve never been especially been convinced by the libertarian argument, for me it comes down to corruption, cupidity and incompetence that we see in governance would be writ large and that we would be paying the price for someone’s stupidity….except everyone shrugs when it comes round to dealing with the issue.
The fact is maybe ten thousand years ago we had the option to leave each other alone and thrive or die by ourselves but ultimately it’s inevitable that ultimate freedom for one means the curtailment of freedom for others simply because we aren’t rational actors.
A system of laws that is flexible at least tries to acknowledge this, and actually half the problem is the chicken or the egg does the system attract entirely the wrong kind of people (that would be presumably NQ’s belief that the system is inherently wrong and therefore will only ever attract wrong uns) or whether a well meaning system is manipulated and abused by the wrong kind of people.
What I believe is that people who seek power are the very people who should be prevented from having it, and that governance would be better as a civic duty like jury service, in terms of councils that propose law and then it’s left up to the people to decide via plebiscite whether to accept it or not.
For those who want to opt out, this of course must be allowed with the only provision being that in being left alone they must in turn leave others alone.

[Letters]

You can't help but lie.

You can't help think the worst of people and assuming malice. I didn't read the rest, I will later.

It's this sort of paranoia which leads you down the path which ends up with you saying that there will be army on the streets, curfews and checkpoints. One would think that when the exact opposite happens you'd try a bit of introspection, but that doesn't really seem to be your thing.

[IBK]

Ha ha ha ha is this still going ??

I shouldn’t be surprised. This was going four years ago when I left here

There does appear to be something of a impasse, in that you seem to think you’re clear as Crystal in conceptualising your alternative society, Letters however thinks you’re as clear as mud.

I’ve never been especially been convinced by the libertarian argument, for me it comes down to corruption, cupidity and incompetence that we see in governance would be writ large and that we would be paying the price for someone’s stupidity….except everyone shrugs when it comes round to dealing with the issue.
The fact is maybe ten thousand years ago we had the option to leave each other alone and thrive or die by ourselves but ultimately it’s inevitable that ultimate freedom for one means the curtailment of freedom for others simply because we aren’t rational actors.
A system of laws that is flexible at least tries to acknowledge this, and actually half the problem is the chicken or the egg does the system attract entirely the wrong kind of people (that would be presumably NQ’s belief that the system is inherently wrong and therefore will only ever attract wrong uns) or whether a well meaning system is manipulated and abused by the wrong kind of people.
What I believe is that people who seek power are the very people who should be prevented from having it, and that governance would be better as a civic duty like jury service, in terms of councils that propose law and then it’s left up to the people to decide via plebiscite whether to accept it or not.
For those who want to opt out, this of course must be allowed with the only provision being that in being left alone they must in turn leave others alone.

There's a really good TED talk on how making too many rules and regulations has done the opposite of what many of them were intended to do, and led to a less just world for all, and a dramatic effect on personal freedoms. It starts with a story about a little girl who had a cupcake stall outside her house, and whose cakes were so popular that she and her parents started a little local business. But then the health and safety and food standards people moved in and of course the cost of purchasing the necessary permits was totally prohibitive. A good example of how red tape took away peoples' freedom to chose to buy whatever cupcakes they wanted. Another example is a client of mine who is a builder and used to bring in a picnic table for his workers to sit on for lunch, but H&S regulations came in to say that seats for workers need to have backs on them...so now they have to sit on the ground. The more rules laws and regulations there are, the more expensive it is to administer them and the greater the opportunity for those with money to circumvent them, or to escape the consequences of breaching them - which in turn contributes to the polarisation of society into the heves and have nots. Take the huge disparity in the US between the number of minority people facing the death penalty for example - 58% to 42% white as against 62% of the general poulation being white. Mostly down to the accused being unable to afford even moderate quality legal representation (as well as a degree of institutional racsm of course).

Part of the problem is the conceit that making rules can lead to a perfect world, or eliminate social problems. So in Western Australia you can't drink alcohol outside, anywhere unless you are sat in a licenced area (and even then if you are on the street you can only drink with a meal). Yet there is still a problem with social disorder caused by drinking - the rule actually affects the vast majority who would simply wish to enjoy a drink outside who would never cause a problem.

This isn't to say that there shouldn't be rules, regulations and laws. Of course there should or society would disintegrate. But in fact our system is becoming incresingly inflexible, and there are very good arguments (social; economic and moral) to say that a lighter touch is needed, and that a change of philosophy would benefit everyone.

[Globalgunner]

The Greeks had the best idea. Just draw lots to see who gets to be in parliament. Fixed term of maybe 5 years then you are out. back to being a Carpenter, fisherman or Blacksmith. Entrenched self interest is what makes worthless politicians. Elections should only be for who is President or Prime Minister and parliament can kick him out with a simple majority vote.

If you know you are going back to live in your bedsit at Maida Vale you wont be doling out money to billionaires.

The current system simply doesnt work and will cause a catastrophe for humanity

[Niall_Quinn]

You can't help think the worst of people and assuming malice. I didn't read the rest, I will later.

It's this sort of paranoia which leads you down the path which ends up with you saying that there will be army on the streets, curfews and checkpoints. One would think that when the exact opposite happens you'd try a bit of introspection, but that doesn't really seem to be your thing.

Your responses are so carefully filtered. Any issue raised that you can't deal with is discarded. If you can't deal with any of it you change the subject. And if no subject is available you create one and then get defensive when it's pointed out how readily you are prepared to lie.

You claimed, with no supporting evidence, I deal in absolutes when in fact it's you that insists there is no possible alternative to government. You claim you understand liberty and then state choice cannot be permitted. It's not possible for your opinions to be more absolute.

You then pretend my arguments have been presented without consideration. Why? Because I didn't provide clear examples? No, because you filtered those responses out.

Standing behind all your twisting and misdirection and desperate avoidance of the contradictions that exist in your defence of the indefensible remains the truth you can't compute. There can be no freedom without choice. The fact you openly deny that choice is compelling confirmation of my self evident claim - you do not know what freedom is.

[Niall_Quinn]

Ha ha ha ha is this still going ??

I shouldn’t be surprised. This was going four years ago when I left here

There does appear to be something of a impasse, in that you seem to think you’re clear as Crystal in conceptualising your alternative society, Letters however thinks you’re as clear as mud.

I’ve never been especially been convinced by the libertarian argument, for me it comes down to corruption, cupidity and incompetence that we see in governance would be writ large and that we would be paying the price for someone’s stupidity….except everyone shrugs when it comes round to dealing with the issue.
The fact is maybe ten thousand years ago we had the option to leave each other alone and thrive or die by ourselves but ultimately it’s inevitable that ultimate freedom for one means the curtailment of freedom for others simply because we aren’t rational actors.
A system of laws that is flexible at least tries to acknowledge this, and actually half the problem is the chicken or the egg does the system attract entirely the wrong kind of people (that would be presumably NQ’s belief that the system is inherently wrong and therefore will only ever attract wrong uns) or whether a well meaning system is manipulated and abused by the wrong kind of people.
What I believe is that people who seek power are the very people who should be prevented from having it, and that governance would be better as a civic duty like jury service, in terms of councils that propose law and then it’s left up to the people to decide via plebiscite whether to accept it or not.
For those who want to opt out, this of course must be allowed with the only provision being that in being left alone they must in turn leave others alone.

I'd have no problem with that and in fact it goes further than I was thinking. Those entranced by the habit of government have lost the ability to conceive alternatives. For them it's either government of a total absence of coordination and cooperation. They see the very worst in mankind as the defining nature of mankind and believe violence (which they call law and order) is the only form of containment. They create their own monsters and then hire a monster to defend them. Essentially they have abdicated all personal responsibility and even the duty to think for themselves. Their sheer numbers and the fallout their collective irresponsibility causes envelops us all, condemns us all. This may be the cleanest definition of evil available. Yet it is also normality in the abnormal environment they construct.

There seems to be no way to suggest to these people that choice would only make their desired outcomes (safety, security, avoidance of responsibility) more achievable because those who understand liberty would be released to practise it. Of course monsters may be released too, but we already have plenty of those so I don't see what difference a few more would make. But what a difference a few empowered people of good will and genuine intent might bring about.

But yes, it is rather pointless trying to explain these concepts to somebody who can't conceptualise anything outside the tight confines of authoritarianism.

[Niall_Quinn]

The Greeks had the best idea. Just draw lots to see who gets to be in parliament. Fixed term of maybe 5 years then you are out. back to being a Carpenter, fisherman or Blacksmith. Entrenched self interest is what makes worthless politicians. Elections should only be for who is President or Prime Minister and parliament can kick him out with a simple majority vote.

If you know you are going back to live in your bedsit at Maida Vale you wont be doling out money to billionaires.

The current system simply doesnt work and will cause a catastrophe for humanity

The current system does work, exactly as it is intended to work. The problem is too many have been conned into thinking it works in the exact opposite way.

[Niall_Quinn]

Anyway, the joke is governments are being elected on manifestos that make government obsolete on every level expect globally. Give it a few more election cycles and national governments will be nothing more than PR divisions for Global Government INC. The continued support by so many for this rotten system is bringing about the very thing statists clim they want to avoid at all costs, the supremacy of the corporation and the neutering of the state. But they will keep voting, keep complying, keep insisting they are "as free as they want to be" while the state in service of the master builds the prison planet on the back of the labour of the working man/ statist fool.

This is probably the last chance to get rid of government. Once all the pieces fall into place and the technology is switched on it will be far too late for wise fools to have second thoughts. They'll probably blame the libertarians for not doing something to stop the insanity.