The Wish They Were All Dead Tory Cunt Thread

[Niall_Quinn]

If I was elected as PM tomorrow (not that that would likely happen or could ever happen because I'm against the very notion of government), my first act would be to publicly release every single state document without redaction. The greatest revolutionary act in history. Every dirty secret laid bare for each individual to consider as their reality flipped 180 around them.

Yes, national interest as they currently stand (gross corruption) would be harmed. No doubt about that, but such a small price to pay for the reality of government to be exposed to the governed. If, after that, the majority still demanded to be ruled, I'd move to a small island somewhere and plant vegetables (to remind me of everyone I'd left behind).

[Letters]

Rees-Mogg after last night's result:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7KBaxF4v60k
"It was a good result for the Prime Minister, he won the vote comfortably"

Rees-Mogg after the Theresa May confidence vote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLObEJnDve4
"This is a very bad result for the Prime Minister, 117 votes against her"

148 voted against Boris Johnson last night...

What an utter, UTTER cunt.

This is the most despondent I've felt about politics. The country is being run by such incompetent, self-serving, corrupt arseholes and there's nothing we can do about it

[HCZ_Reborn]

The gradual, uninterrupted devolution of power from the centre to the individual, facilitated by radical reform of all the establishment institutions that exist solely to preserve the status quo. Why do you think I despise the media? And the EU? And the globalisation project? And net zero carbon bullshit? And censorship? And the abuse of the education systems and the health systems? Etc, etc, etc.

None of these institutions operate for the benefit of society, they are all gatekeepers for a higher society that dictates to the lower society. You can't change anything while each new generation is so ruthlessly indoctrinated. So change must begin with these corrupted and inverted institutions.

How are you defining society? And if society should exist, what is the cohesive force that keeps it together

Thomas Hobbes called it the Leviathan. But I would imagine the one thing we share is that we don’t wish to be ruled over by a King.

And indeed in a libertarian utopia is there any need for society?. It’s actually the opt out mentality…leave me alone, don’t tread on me and don’t bother me with your demands.

The issue is either a complete failure to define the boundaries between individualism and collective cooperation.

Libertarians are correct in that they accurately point out that the governing principle starts from Tyranny. Even Democracy is a very new concept in human history. However they seem to be in denial of the fact that ultimate individual freedom can bring about another form of tyranny, humans came from a state of nature to form societies to protect themselves from the violence of savage mobs…their utopia can only exist from the misapprehension that government and tyranny are seperate entities like the serpent in the garden and not merely a manifestation of human nature like cruelty and savagery.

[Letters]

And indeed in a libertarian utopia is there any need for society?

This is the issue I have with NQ's philosophy. He says I don't understand freedom. I do understand it, I just don't think it's possible in the context of a society.
If you're going to have a society then there's a contract with comes with that - you give up certain freedoms but you get certain benefits.
As soon as you have a society then you need to agree the rules of that society, and given that you are unlikely to reach consensus you need some way of defining what those are.
When society gets sufficiently large and complex you can't have a vote on every single issue, so you inevitably end up with some kind of representative government - or a dictatorship, benevolent or otherwise.
It seems pretty inevitable to me.
It's an imperfect solution, but it's probably the best you're going to get. I do think our version of it with FPTP is particularly bad though. We end up with governments which the majority of people didn't vote for and there is little or no accountability. Johnson literally broke the laws he defined, and there's bugger all we can do about it.

[WMUG]

and there's bugger all we can do about it.

For 2 years.

I'm hoping after that, there'll be a hung Parliament with Labour as the biggest party, but who need the Lib Dems to prop them up.

Lib Dems will demand electoral reform in return, no sodding referendum this time, and hey presto, FPTP fucks off.

That's the dream, anyway.

[HCZ_Reborn]

For 2 years.

I'm hoping after that, there'll be a hung Parliament with Labour as the biggest party, but who need the Lib Dems to prop them up.

Lib Dems will demand electoral reform in return, no sodding referendum this time, and hey presto, FPTP fucks off.

That's the dream, anyway.

Giving people the illusion that their vote counts but actually it being that back room deal making rather than people electing governments is the norm. Also if Labour can become the largest party via FPTP what incentive do they have to make concessions about electoral system reform?. Last time the Liberal Democrats settled for a referendum on AV (which I think is a much fairer way of conducting elections)

Plus do you really want Starmer as prime minister a man who is so scared of progressives he cannot even state emphatically than no women do not have dicks, that human beings are sexually dimorphic and that for trans radicals to force a complete negation of agreed upon biological verities because of some insane thoughtless gender ideology goes beyond tolerance and human rights and is about nonsense.
This is important and politicians haven’t quite got a grasp on the issue, anymore than they have around critical race theory or any of the other Foucault derived sheep slop. Facts matter

[Letters]

Last time the Liberal Democrats settled for a referendum on AV (which I think is a much fairer way of conducting elections)

That really isn't a matter of opinion. It yields more representative results than FPTP. That's maths, not opinion.

[Niall_Quinn]

How are you defining society? And if society should exist, what is the cohesive force that keeps it together

Thomas Hobbes called it the Leviathan. But I would imagine the one thing we share is that we don’t wish to be ruled over by a King.

And indeed in a libertarian utopia is there any need for society?. It’s actually the opt out mentality…leave me alone, don’t tread on me and don’t bother me with your demands.

The issue is either a complete failure to define the boundaries between individualism and collective cooperation.

Libertarians are correct in that they accurately point out that the governing principle starts from Tyranny. Even Democracy is a very new concept in human history. However they seem to be in denial of the fact that ultimate individual freedom can bring about another form of tyranny, humans came from a state of nature to form societies to protect themselves from the violence of savage mobs…their utopia can only exist from the misapprehension that government and tyranny are seperate entities like the serpent in the garden and not merely a manifestation of human nature like cruelty and savagery.

This is very much a western point of view (that is in the process of expiring). It comes from having the upper hand. We enjoy our "civilised" societies with the costs out of sight and out of mind. Ask a non-westerner about the savage mobs who come in peace. The opposite of the perfect corruption we have now is not utopia. That's the typical pejorative used against anyone who dares to imagine outside the status quo. Whimsical, unrealistic, contrary to human nature. We would fall victim to the strongest if we did not service the diktats of those same strongest with a blind eye to their inhumanities. The savage mobs never went away, they just refined their proposition.

[Niall_Quinn]

This is the issue I have with NQ's philosophy. He says I don't understand freedom. I do understand it, I just don't think it's possible in the context of a society.
If you're going to have a society then there's a contract with comes with that - you give up certain freedoms but you get certain benefits.
As soon as you have a society then you need to agree the rules of that society, and given that you are unlikely to reach consensus you need some way of defining what those are.
When society gets sufficiently large and complex you can't have a vote on every single issue, so you inevitably end up with some kind of representative government - or a dictatorship, benevolent or otherwise.
It seems pretty inevitable to me.
It's an imperfect solution, but it's probably the best you're going to get. I do think our version of it with FPTP is particularly bad though. We end up with governments which the majority of people didn't vote for and there is little or no accountability. Johnson literally broke the laws he defined, and there's bugger all we can do about it.

You call it a solution without any evidence it solves anything at all. And you also skip over the fundamental principle of this "contract" we are obliged to sign. You cannot have a contract without consent. So it's not a contract and it's not a solution. So I wonder what it is then? This is why I say you have no comprehension of freedom, because you don't.

[Niall_Quinn]

For 2 years.

I'm hoping after that, there'll be a hung Parliament with Labour as the biggest party, but who need the Lib Dems to prop them up.

Lib Dems will demand electoral reform in return, no sodding referendum this time, and hey presto, FPTP fucks off.

That's the dream, anyway.

Oh that'd be great. Two gangs of woke lunatics who believe no human cost is too great in service of their hand-me-down agendas. I'd rate the left as right of the right these days, in terms of subservience to the establishment.