RE: So what do YOU believe in?

RE: So what do YOU believe in? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

seeksfemslave -> RE: So what do YOU believe in? (5/7/2007 5:48:31 AM)
quote: NG who sees the following as positive the British government have held a long term plan for a long time which includes moving away from heavy industry to the higher value creation sectors of light and service industries. answer already given quote: seeks BA employs thousands, lets kill it and rely on Service and Sofware. First is low tech low payed and the second employs dozens.Another big step forward there . NG you dont even appear to grasp the contradictory nature of what you post. You advocate Socialism and the cooperation you believe that will ensue if ever it is implemented and you praise profit when that suits you. Socialists eschew profit in the name of the common good. So my rants are not meaningless, they are to the point. NO? Your position is not CONSISTANT.

NorthernGent -> RE: So what do YOU believe in? (5/7/2007 5:56:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave I thought it should have been perfectly clear that I was engaging in debate and pointing out the fundamental untruth in your assertion that the UK has a liberal history. You said it I think its wrong. MC: I concede that agitators existed but they didnt get very far and met oppression and imprisonment. NO? Magna Carta: designed to protect the aristocracy from the Monarchy. Both could then exploit the masses. Model Parliament: made up of aristocrats, clergy and, the change that was made, wealthy local landowners from around the country, all for what...to raise money for War, NO social legislation of any kind. I believe Tom Paine was active mostly in France , until he became persona non we are going to chop your head off. Even on todays news the Liberal Democrats have refused to consider a coalition with the Scottish Nationalist party because the SNP wants a referendum on Scottish independance. Lets not let the masses have their say. TODAY In fact many liberal changes occured in the UK when the masters of of the time became aware of the economic growth that was occuring err err where err err hold on think about it .....1 2 3 the USA. a place to which many had fled to escape the illiberalism and persecution of nearly all European countries. NO ? An example would be a slight shift to technical education. You're arguing a point that isn't being made. 1) I said Britain has a history of liberalism that Germany doesn't have. 2) All the events I mentioned were a progressive move away from authoritarianism i.e. liberalism, the fact there were elements opposed to representation is a given - there always are. 3) While Britain went down the road of democratisation and representation from the 1200s onwards, Germany was governed by an authoritarian regime until 1921ish. The Magna Carta and the Model Parilament were a move away from authoritarianism, as per my original post.

meatcleaver -> RE: So what do YOU believe in? (5/7/2007 5:59:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave I thought it should have been perfectly clear that I was engaging in debate and pointing out the fundamental untruth in your assertion that the UK has a liberal history. You said it I think its wrong. MC: I concede that agitators existed but they didnt get very far and met oppression and imprisonment. NO? Well there was a revolution seeks though we like to call it a Civil War and many of the ideas did enter the psyche of the mainstream. Britain throughout the 18th century was the best organized, most democratic (considering the age) and most liberal country in the world. Even after the French and American revolutions, both of who claim to have invented democracy, the average Englishman had more rights than either. quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave Magna Carta: designed to protect the aristocracy from the Monarchy. Both could then exploit the masses. Rome wasn't built in a day seeks and you have to start somewhere. The two most important articles in the Magna Carta, the right against incarceration and the right to be tried by ones peers were put in as a sop and to prove the Barons weren't completely selfish but they were put in and entered the national psyche. Though one of the most important developments which is overlooked is Henry II separating the Executive from the Judiciary which happened before the Magna Carta of course. quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave Model Parliament: made up of aristocrats, clergy and, the change that was made, wealthy local landowners from around the country, all for what...to raise money for War, NO social legislation of any kind. Again, it was the erosion of concentrated power. Be fair seeks, we are talking about the 13th century here and in those terms England was still ahead of the game. quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave I believe Tom Paine was active mostly in France , until he became persona non we are going to chop your head off. His ideas were formed in England. Voltaire said England was a place where one could form ideas. 18th century England was renowned throughout the continent for its liberalism and many continentals were shocked to find that English women not only walking around by themselves but engaging in commerce on their own behalf. quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave Even on todays news the Liberal Democrats have refused to consider a coalition with the Scottish Nationalist party because the SNP wants a referendum on Scottish independance. Lets not let the masses have their say. TODAY Why should a political party agree to something it doesn't believe in? If LibDem voters wanted a referendum they would have voted for the Scottish Nationalists. quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave In fact many liberal changes occured in the UK when the masters of of the time became aware of the economic growth that was occuring err err where err err hold on think about it .....1 2 3 the USA. a place to which many had fled to escape the illiberalism and persecution of nearly all European countries. NO ? An example would be a slight shift to technical education. Are you talking about liberal economics now or social liberalism? The two are entirely different.

NorthernGent -> RE: So what do YOU believe in? (5/7/2007 6:04:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave quote: NG who sees the following as positive the British government have held a long term plan for a long time which includes moving away from heavy industry to the higher value creation sectors of light and service industries. answer already given quote: seeks BA employs thousands, lets kill it and rely on Service and Sofware. First is low tech low payed and the second employs dozens.Another big step forward there . NG you dont even appear to grasp the contradictory nature of what you post. You advocate Socialism and the cooperation you believe that will ensue if ever it is implemented and you praise profit when that suits you. Socialists eschew profit in the name of the common good. So my rants are not meaningless, they are to the point. NO? Your position is not CONSISTANT. Seeks: 1) I've never once advocated Socialism on this board. As you're so adamant, you'll be able to quickly post a quote where I've done so. 2) What do you mean by praising profit? It is a given that wealth creation is a necessary component of prosperity - one of several necessary components. Is that what you mean? 3) Your rants are meaningless when you get involved with conversations with me because a) you frequently argue points I haven't made (e.g. I'm a socialist) and b) you're falling over yourself with labels such as "pc liberals", "do-gooder socialists" etc

NorthernGent -> RE: So what do YOU believe in? (5/7/2007 7:22:39 AM)
Anyway, back to the EU. I expect full steam ahead in the coming years, but not for the reasons I would like: a) Too much of the wealth creation ideology, not enough of the balanced society in mind. b) I'm not convinced the EU is democratic in nature. Out of the frying pan and into the fire isn't what I want to see. c) The potential leading players - Germany and Britain - have all but surrendered power to corporations. How can it be anything other than more of the same?

kittinSol -> RE: So what do YOU believe in? (5/7/2007 7:25:03 AM)
NG, thank you for bringing the thread back to its original question: the corrupting power of corporations.

meatcleaver -> RE: So what do YOU believe in? (5/7/2007 7:38:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent Anyway, back to the EU. I expect full steam ahead in the coming years, but not for the reasons I would like: a) Too much of the wealth creation ideology, not enough of the balanced society in mind. The problem that this agenda takes place is because those that don't agree with the EU don't participate and complain about it is going the wrong way when really they have left the field open for the people they oppose. quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent b) I'm not convinced the EU is democratic in nature. Out of the frying pan and into the fire isn't what I want to see. It is no more or no less democratic than ones national state. Again, people who don't like the direction the EU is taking always retreat and complain and call for leaving the EU while knowing that is not going to happen. quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent c) The potential leading players - Germany and Britain - have all but surrended power to corporations. How can it be anything other than more of the same? Again, this is because the opposition in the EU always talk about wanting to leave because they don't like what is happening but never leaving and knowing they will never leave. If those wanting more democracy demanded more power to the Parliament (something national establishments don't want) the EU would instantly become more democratic at the grass roots level and weaken the national governments that surrender power to the corporations. The only reason for not giving the Parliament more powers is for nationalistic reasons. With globalisation, retreating behind national borders is not an option so increasing the power of the Parliament is the only way to go in order to increase power at grass roots level. National governments can't protect the ordinary citizen anymore and no country is going to leave in the forseeable future so one has to put up or shut up.I say weaken national power, increase EU democracy at grass roots and give national governments and the people who own them someone to answer to. Having lived half my life in other EU countries I don't have the same wariness of continental democracy as many Brits who believe their own publicity about having the best modern democracy, they don't. I enjoy far more local democracy here as a foreigner as I would in Britain as a citizen.

NorthernGent -> RE: So what do YOU believe in? (5/7/2007 7:47:31 AM)
Kittin, yeah, it's fair to say we went astray somewhere :-) The German Finance Minister on resigning - "the heart is not traded on the stock exchange yet". German firms simply threatened to move production abroad when the Finance Minster attempted to provide for the economic problems in the East. Anything that the corporations don't like (such as social provision) - they threaten to move production abroad, or the banks threaten to raise interest rates to dampen investment, or they threaten to collapse the currency - politicians can't live with the social and political costs of such actions. In effect, between the banks and corporations, they run the show, and if they say there's not going to be provision for health care because it will damage competition, then we're not getting any health care. Brown putting interest rate management in the hands of the banks was great for big business, but a disaster for those in the poorest socio-economic groups. The essence of the liberalism spoken about in earlier posts i.e. equal opportunity, mass participation etc has been sacrificed for a narrow view of democracy i.e. market democracy. Most won't agree, but the people to get us out of this mess are politicians. They need to take control of government instead of stepping into the shadows and forgoing their responsibilities. Of course, the trick is to elect politicians who actually act in our interests, and where they get above their station to vote them out of power.

NorthernGent -> RE: So what do YOU believe in? (5/7/2007 8:25:33 AM)
The only directly elected institution in the EU is the European Parliament, and they are largely subordinate to the unelected Commission. Many here agree with the principles of the EU, but want representation. We've been through this in the past and democracy by proxy is not good enough. Part of the problem in terms of participation is the EU went off the agenda when the Dutch and French rejected the proposal that was on the table then. Prior to this, there was debate and participation in the process - many wanted in, but only under a fully democratic and elected system. People want the mechanism to vote politicians out of office where they're not performing and the current EU doesn't satisfy that criteria.

meatcleaver -> RE: So what do YOU believe in? (5/7/2007 8:36:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent The essence of the liberalism spoken about in earlier posts i.e. equal opportunity, mass participation etc has been sacrificed for a narrow view of democracy i.e. market democracy. Most won't agree, but the people to get us out of this mess are politicians. They need to take control of government instead of stepping into the shadows and forgoing their responsibilities. Of course, the trick is to elect politicians who actually act in our interests, and where they get above their station to vote them out of power. I agree that politicians are the ones to get us out of this mess, if you believe that human beings being reduced to a pawn of the market is a mess but I don't look towards the politicians that got us into this position as being the best ones to get us out of it. Hell, they have already been bought and aren't going to bite the hand that feeds them. But also national politicians don't have the power which is illustrated in your quote by the German finance minister. The only solution is to organize across borders and go suprenational. Europe has a resady made institution, all it needs is more power. There are plenty of politicians in the European Parliament that believe corporations should serve and not rule the people. Should a company then threaten move production abroad rather than take their share of social responsibility there would be the power to resit the blackmail and say fine but you won't sell your products in Europe.

meatcleaver -> RE: So what do YOU believe in? (5/7/2007 8:46:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent The only directly elected institution in the EU is the European Parliament, and they are largely subordinate to the unelected Commission. Many here agree with the principles of the EU, but want representation. We've been through this in the past and democracy by proxy is not good enough. Part of the problem in terms of participation is the EU went off the agenda when the Dutch and French rejected the proposal that was on the table then. Prior to this, there was debate and participation in the process - many wanted in, but only under a fully democratic and elected system. People want the mechanism to vote politicians out of office where they're not performing and the current EU doesn't satisfy that criteria. The Parliament isn't surbordinate to the Commission, the Commission is merely the mouth piece of elected governments and can do nothing without the the say so of the governments, all who have a veto on cases of national interest. The fact that Blair goes back to Britain and says it is everyone elses fault is an absolute and downright lie. The reality is the Parliament is subordinate to national governments who conveniently use the Commission to distance themselves from their decisions.. The reason why the Dutch and the French rejected the constitutional treaty was for completely opposite and contradictory reasons. The real problem with that treaty was it was so vague and was all things to all men so every government could sell it to their voters. However, it turned out that it was so vague, voters could reject it on any reason they cared to name. Which was why the Dutch could reject it for ignoring the rights of small countries and the and the French could reject it for making large countries subservient to the small countries. The whole concept was misconceived and having read it in four languages and not being able to make sense of it in any, I would have voted against it too.

seeksfemslave -> RE: So what do YOU believe in? (5/7/2007 12:55:51 PM)
Two points: If for most of its history the UK has not been liberal at all I fail to see how it can have been more liberal than Germany. If corporations are such a bad thing why do local and national governments bend over backwards to offer concessions to encourage inward investment on to their patch ? One argument in favour of the UK being a member of the EU is that CORPORATIONS such as Toyota and Honda would not have inevested here otherwise. How much did the UK govnt offer de Lorean to build that gull wing car in Ireland.? Why did they do it ?

seeksfemslave -> RE: So what do YOU believe in? (5/7/2007 1:05:15 PM)
quote: NG Anything that the corporations don't like (such as social provision) - they threaten to move production abroad, or the banks threaten to raise interest rates to dampen investment, or they threaten to collapse the currency - politicians can't live with the social and political costs of such actions. In effect, between the banks and corporations, they run the show, and if they say there's not going to be provision for health care because it will damage competition, then we're not getting any health care. Brown putting interest rate management in the hands of the banks was great for big business, but a disaster for those in the poorest socio-economic groups. Surely getting rid of corporations is beneficial.? NO? after all they are so so wicked NO? Oh just a minute, NG admits there will be costs, what are they then ? Investment in Health care and Social benefit has actually INCREASED under the Blairs govnt and. The rich have got very much richer therefore since the poor have only got a little bit richer that is classed as increased poverty. Note both groups have increased their wealth. lol

meatcleaver -> RE: So what do YOU believe in? (5/7/2007 3:02:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave Two points: If for most of its history the UK has not been liberal at all I fail to see how it can have been more liberal than Germany. It's a matter of degrees and in comparison with the accepted norms of the world at the time but you do have a point. Modern Germany has only been a state since 1871 and a lot of the authoritarianism came from trying to hold those disparate states together as one, which is where the national anthem comes from Deutschland Deutschland Uber Alles, meaning Greater Germany above all its constituency parts not above all other nations. The 39 small states of the previous German Confederation were anything but authoritarian and this is the irony of Bismarck's Germany, the German principalities where liberal, cultural and fiercely independent. quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave If corporations are such a bad thing why do local and national governments bend over backwards to offer concessions to encourage inward investment on to their patch ? One argument in favour of the UK being a member of the EU is that CORPORATIONS such as Toyota and Honda would not have inevested here otherwise. How much did the UK govnt offer de Lorean to build that gull wing car in Ireland.? Why did they do it ? It is when corporations blackmail countries that is the problem and politicians create social policy for the good of corporations rather than the good of the people. DeLorean was a joke but Hyundi was paid a mint by Britain to build a factory it never occupied. That was ridiculous. The whole policy of subsidizing corporations is misconceived. If a corporation wants 20m pounds from a government to build a factory, the government would be better sharing that 20m pounds of money between would be employees and tell them to do what they want with it. Some will spend it, some will save it and some will start businesses with it. My guess is the money will end up being better spent.

seeksfemslave -> RE: So what do YOU believe in? (5/7/2007 3:58:20 PM)
quote: MC If a corporation wants 20m pounds from a government to build a factory, the government would be better sharing that 20m pounds of money between would be employees and tell them to do what they want with it. Some will spend it, some will save it and some will start businesses with it. My guess is the money will end up being better spent. This form of political organisation actually has a name , is it Syndicalism.? Not sure. What it boils down to is that a govnt periodically prints and distributes to everybody a fixed income. The UK is fast approaching that. lol No its not Syndicalism which is one of those movements that idealises the inherent tolerance and capacity of the working classes.

Page: << < prev 2 3 4 5 [6]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875