Jump to content


Photo

Digital Democracy and Globalisation.


  • Please log in to reply
36 replies to this topic

#17 Monkeypooh

Monkeypooh
  • [DkR] Clan Member
  • 649 posts

Posted 03 March 2017 - 11:15 pm

Sorry tog what kind of dictatorship would allow another body to have a control over it ...below is what the lords can actually do ...which as u can guess is only as much as the commons allows the illusion of free will .

 

The House of Lords debates legislation, and has power to amend or reject bills. However, the power of the Lords to reject a bill passed by the House of Commons is severely restricted by the Parliament Acts. Under those Acts, certain types of bills may be presented for the Royal Assent without the consent of the House of Lords (i.e. the Commons can override the Lords' veto). The House of Lords cannot delay a money bill (a bill that, in the view of the Speaker of the House of Commons, solely concerns national taxation or public funds) for more than one month.

Other public bills cannot be delayed by the House of Lords for more than two parliamentary sessions, or one calendar year. These provisions, however, only apply to public bills that originate in the House of Commons, and cannot have the effect of extending a parliamentary term beyond five years. A further restriction is a constitutional convention known as the Salisbury Convention, which means that the House of Lords does not oppose legislation promised in the Government's election manifesto.

By a custom that prevailed even before the Parliament Acts, the House of Lords is further restrained insofar as financial bills are concerned. The House of Lords may neither originate a bill concerning taxation or Supply (supply of treasury or exchequer funds), nor amend a bill so as to insert a taxation or Supply-related provision. (The House of Commons, however, often waives its privileges and allows the Upper House to make amendments with financial implications.) Moreover, the Upper House may not amend any Supply Bill. The House of Lords formerly maintained the absolute power to reject a bill relating to revenue or Supply, but this power was curtailed by the Parliament Acts, as aforementioned..

 

 

btw atm we are seeing the lords skirt the Salisbury convention ( manifiesto commitments to respect the referendum result from all the parties) but they are on very thin ice and may see a back lash from the commons which may include a reorganisation of that August Body.


Edited by Monkeypooh, 03 March 2017 - 11:19 pm.

  • 0

#18 Douel

Douel
  • [DkR] Clan Member
  • 207 posts

Posted 04 March 2017 - 12:16 am

that is non sense, the house of lords is a safety net, in that, should a goverment, try to impose it's will on the public in general, the lords have the power to defeat that bill therefore preventing un-safe legislation from being past, and become inlaw, they can do that directly or in directly. 

 

Charles the firsts head.

 

i'll stand up and fight against anybody for democracy. 

 

grit one's teeth

Technically the lords can be bypassed if the legislation is passed twice in commons successfully.


  • 0

#19 Salamol

Salamol
  • – BDO Lieutenant –

  • 454 posts
  • Short Name:Sal

Posted 04 March 2017 - 12:24 am

Sorry tog what kind of dictatorship would allow another body to have a control over it ...below is what the lords can actually do ...which as u can guess is only as much as the commons allows the illusion of free will .
 
...
 
btw atm we are seeing the lords skirt the Salisbury convention ( manifiesto commitments to respect the referendum result from all the parties) but they are on very thin ice and may see a back lash from the commons which may include a reorganisation of that August Body.


On the one hand, a body made up of hand picked rich folk turns my stomach. On the other, it (a separate chamber which bills must pass through before becoming law) does have some benefits, one of which is to make a noise about things it does not agree with.

In some cases, to some people, it's massively inconvenient and delays progress. In other cases, to other people, it serves to highlight issues with bills that the vast majority of us wouldn't have known anything about. They do kick up a fuss at times; this gets media coverage and the attention of the public.

I don't like titled Lords having power because of their heritage, but I DO like a body keeping an eye on things, to ensure the law is upheld and that we, the people, are protected from the whims of a populist party ruling with the hatred and fear peddled by right wing media. I'd support a change, but I can't think who I'd like to see form this type of protective body. Probably renowned academics for scientific fields, but generally other areas are going to be open to abuse from self serving entrepreneurs and those with close ties to big business.

I think I'd be happier doing away with the HoL if the EU could curtail extreme legislative changes. Then we'd have a closer, more democratic union, but that ship might have sailed.
  • 0

SalamolBanner.png


#20 Toglos

Toglos
  • Banned
  • 2,588 posts
  • Location:Bude
  • Short Name:Tog

Posted 04 March 2017 - 08:29 am

...

 

 

they used to make ships where I live


  • 0

Posted Image


#21 Darkademic

Darkademic
  • – Enigmatic Overlord –

  • 4,971 posts
  • Location:United Kingdom
  • Short Name:Dark

Posted 04 March 2017 - 08:49 am


  • 1

darkademic_thin_sig.png
Рациональный разум. Военачальник Загадочных Призраков.


#22 Salamol

Salamol
  • – BDO Lieutenant –

  • 454 posts
  • Short Name:Sal

Posted 04 March 2017 - 12:41 pm


Something about this guy bugs me, I remember you linking things by him before. It's almost like his target audience is really insular, self-obsessed, blinkered, middle income people that have no notion of critical thinking. It's probably an American thing after they spent so long spewing propaganda about the Red Menace.

Perhaps it's because I reside at the bottom of the heap, and it's in my self interest, but the baseline purpose of all society and government should be to ensure the wellbeing of those at the bottom. That's the elderly, the sick, the disabled and the poor. All humans (starting with the UK) should have a basic, comfortable existence with which they can build on to exercise self improvement and wealth improvement to push themselves as far as they want to go.

Is tax state sponsored theft? Sure, if you take an extremely negative view of it. But it also goes towards funding just about everything we use every day and everything that got us to where we are and made us who we are. People with money want to keep it and many would probably do away with taxation because they no longer have much use of the services it provides. Doing so would take us back to the dark ages and the wealthy would live in castles and the peasants (who would probably now encompass 99% of the population) would be left to fester. Crime and disease would be rampant because the only medicine and protection would belong to the rich.

Instead we should go the other way, increase taxation and fund clean, renewable energy. With unlimited, free energy, the possibilities are endless. In time we could create free, clean transportation. More money for the NHS (not by leaving the EU... FFS!) and education. Embrace automation! Create a UBI to ensure everyone can live a basic, comfortable life and can spend time improving their community, themselves and their wealth if they desire. There is so much GOOD we could do for our population and eventually humanity and the planet if a minority of humans could stop being so selfish, greedy and power hungry.
  • 0

SalamolBanner.png


#23 Monkeypooh

Monkeypooh
  • [DkR] Clan Member
  • 649 posts

Posted 04 March 2017 - 07:23 pm

SAL  i take on board the policy u want to see enacted and suggest u have a look at a the one party state of singapore ..https://en.wikipedia.../wiki/Singapore ....if u had a choice to raise a child would u pick Greece in the eu or Singapore ....on every indice of care for that child sigapore far out strips the achievements of Greece bar the incredible compassion shown by the greek people ( by far the greatest heros of Europe) ....i would also hold greece as a example of the powerful protecting them selves and for a moment u saw the wizard behind the curtain ...demorcarcy was not very active and still not on show in Greece ...and soon the loans run out ( Grexit ) ...take another look again at Singapore.


Edited by Monkeypooh, 04 March 2017 - 07:24 pm.

  • 0

#24 mixe

mixe
  • [DkR] Clan Member
  • 1,123 posts
  • Location:javia
  • Short Name:Mike

Posted 04 March 2017 - 08:52 pm

ohh the yelp of free markets well in a free market fook all gets done 

 

question what commercial aircraft can I get on at mo that can travel faster than the speed of sound  ?


  • 0

#25 Darkademic

Darkademic
  • – Enigmatic Overlord –

  • 4,971 posts
  • Location:United Kingdom
  • Short Name:Dark

Posted 04 March 2017 - 11:04 pm

Something about this guy bugs me, I remember you linking things by him before. It's almost like his target audience is really insular, self-obsessed, blinkered, middle income people that have no notion of critical thinking. It's probably an American thing after they spent so long spewing propaganda about the Red Menace.

Perhaps it's because I reside at the bottom of the heap, and it's in my self interest, but the baseline purpose of all society and government should be to ensure the wellbeing of those at the bottom. That's the elderly, the sick, the disabled and the poor. All humans (starting with the UK) should have a basic, comfortable existence with which they can build on to exercise self improvement and wealth improvement to push themselves as far as they want to go.

Is tax state sponsored theft? Sure, if you take an extremely negative view of it. But it also goes towards funding just about everything we use every day and everything that got us to where we are and made us who we are. People with money want to keep it and many would probably do away with taxation because they no longer have much use of the services it provides. Doing so would take us back to the dark ages and the wealthy would live in castles and the peasants (who would probably now encompass 99% of the population) would be left to fester. Crime and disease would be rampant because the only medicine and protection would belong to the rich.

Instead we should go the other way, increase taxation and fund clean, renewable energy. With unlimited, free energy, the possibilities are endless. In time we could create free, clean transportation. More money for the NHS (not by leaving the EU... FFS!) and education. Embrace automation! Create a UBI to ensure everyone can live a basic, comfortable life and can spend time improving their community, themselves and their wealth if they desire. There is so much GOOD we could do for our population and eventually humanity and the planet if a minority of humans could stop being so selfish, greedy and power hungry.

 
He more than bugs me, especially his more recent stuff, but I think that particular video is more or less spot on. No idea what you mean about his target audience; it used to be simply those interested in philosophy (his earlier videos covered ethics, epistemology etc.), whereas these days it's the same audience as Donald Trump appeals to.
 
In my view, the role of government is to protect individual rights and nothing more.
 
Tax is theft whether one takes a negative view of it or not. Altrustic intentions do not excuse what is ultimately violence, nor do they change the fact that an economy will fail to the extent it is centrally controlled -- the ends do not justify the means, especially when those means result in the opposite of what was intended. Higher levels of taxation factually do not lead to more prosperous societies; the reverse is true. More economic freedom, less regulation, and lower taxation generally lead to greater prosperity for all people, whereas it is socialism that always leads back to the dark ages; Venezuela being a good contemporary example of it.
 
It's more or less impossible for the rich to hoard their wealth in such a way that it doesn't benefit the wider economy. If they put it in a bank, the bank will use the money to provide loans to new businesses or to prospective home owners looking for a mortgage. If they use it to buy a yacht, the yacht companies will need more employees to build the yachts and everything that goes alongside their construction and sale (yacht may be substituted with any other expensive luxury). If they put it in the stock market, the companies they invest in will use it to pay employees and expand their business. If they use it to go on extravagant holidays, airlines, travel comapnies etc. will all use the money to pay/hire their employees, who will then have more disposable income to spend on things which will benefit those businesses etc. etc.
 
How would it benefit Apple, or Google, or BMW, for the 99% to be poor and unable to buy anything but the most basic of goods? It is not in the interests of the very wealthy to let the rest of society "fester", and in a society where such was the case, they wouldn't be able to remain wealthy for long.
 
http://www.heritage....ok/chapter1.pdf
 
"Those countries that have adopted some version of free-market capitalism, with economies supported by efficient regulations and open to the free flow of goods, services, and capital, have participated in an era of globalization that has generated dramatic improvements in living standards, including, and perhaps even especially, in poorer countries."
 
http://www.econlib.o...micFreedom.html
 
"Much scholarly research has been and continues to be done to see if the index correlates with various measures of the good society: higher incomes, economic growth, income equality, gender equality, life expectancy, and so on. While there is scholarly debate about the exact nature of these relationships, the results are uniform: measures of economic freedom relate positively with these factors. [...] While there is no clear evidence that economic freedom creates greater income inequality, there is clear evidence that lowest-income people in freer countries are better off than their counterparts in less free countries."
 
This video is better, Yaron Brook much more closely represents my own views than Molyneux does (just the sound crackles and cuts out a bit):

 


  • 0

darkademic_thin_sig.png
Рациональный разум. Военачальник Загадочных Призраков.


#26 Monkeypooh

Monkeypooh
  • [DkR] Clan Member
  • 649 posts

Posted 05 March 2017 - 10:59 am

I suggest u have this backwards ..both in the example of nature and from observable fact from nurture ..In my view, the role of government is to protect individual rights and nothing more.

 

we in society abdicate our rights for self defense to social grouping, which in what ever form we call government ...we act and see that the rights of the many always out strip the rights of the few ....

 

 

sorry dog walkiing time have to go 


  • 0

#27 Darkademic

Darkademic
  • – Enigmatic Overlord –

  • 4,971 posts
  • Location:United Kingdom
  • Short Name:Dark

Posted 05 March 2017 - 11:29 am

I suggest u have this backwards ..both in the example of nature and from observable fact from nurture ..In my view, the role of government is to protect individual rights and nothing more.

 

we in society abdicate our rights for self defense to social grouping, which in what ever form we call government ...we act and see that the rights of the many always out strip the rights of the few ....

 

 

sorry dog walkiing time have to go 

 

We don't abicate our right to self-defense. If someone breaks into my house or attacks me on the street, I'll defend myself, and should have every right to do so. Government does and should however hold a monopoly on the use of retaliatory force, simply because allowing unilateral use of retaliatory force would lead to complete chaos, with no due process or validation that the use of such force was actually warranted or proportional.

 

The rights of the many do not outweigh the rights of the few, and when rights are properly defined, positive rights are invalidated and therefore cause no conflict between the rights of any given individuals (e.g. a positive right to education contradicts the negative right to be free from the initiation of force because a right to education implies someone must provide that education, even if it requires force).

 

Granting government additional responsibilities above and beyond the defense of individual rights (life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness) is contrary to the economic/social freedoms that have been shown to, as a general trend, lead to the greatest levels of prosperity.


  • 0

darkademic_thin_sig.png
Рациональный разум. Военачальник Загадочных Призраков.


#28 mixe

mixe
  • [DkR] Clan Member
  • 1,123 posts
  • Location:javia
  • Short Name:Mike

Posted 05 March 2017 - 11:58 am

a true capitalist knows what the true value of socialism is

 

free markets are not that hot at building infrastructure whether it be supersonic commercial flight nuclear plant building high speed rail the code that made windows or e explorer the analytic code used for google all them drugs being invented in university's face book Myspace all uni project too even most the moving auxiliary parts in cars are a subsidy of government company's ie Rockwell international  bae systems ect

 

the closest we have had to a free market ended with the great depression in the 1920s


  • 0

#29 Darkademic

Darkademic
  • – Enigmatic Overlord –

  • 4,971 posts
  • Location:United Kingdom
  • Short Name:Dark

Posted 05 March 2017 - 01:20 pm

a true capitalist knows what the true value of socialism is

 

free markets are not that hot at building infrastructure whether it be supersonic commercial flight nuclear plant building high speed rail the code that made windows or e explorer the analytic code used for google all them drugs being invented in university's face book Myspace all uni project too even most the moving auxiliary parts in cars are a subsidy of government company's ie Rockwell international  bae systems ect

 

the closest we have had to a free market ended with the great depression in the 1920s

 

Supersonic commercial flight is banned over land in the United States and Europe, so that's not exactly a case against free markets. The Aerospace industry is one of the most heavily regulated and government subsidised areas of the economy, which is why planes haven't really changed much in over 50 years (link, link, link).

 

The MTR in Hong Kong (which I've used loads myself) is one of the most profitable and efficient rail systems in the world (link), as is Japan's JR (link). Both are almost completely private.

 

Nuclear power has never been within the domain of the free market (the energy sector, like aerospace, is one of the most heavily regulated and subsidised areas of the economy), so whether it's "not that hot" at providing it remains to be seen.

 

State owned car manufacturers would provide a better comparison re: cars. Any success stories there? It's no coincidence that the Chinese have a strong preference for foreign cars despite deep national pride. Chinese car manufacturers are mostly state owned, and they produce rubbish or copies of foreign cars.


  • 0

darkademic_thin_sig.png
Рациональный разум. Военачальник Загадочных Призраков.


#30 mixe

mixe
  • [DkR] Clan Member
  • 1,123 posts
  • Location:javia
  • Short Name:Mike

Posted 05 March 2017 - 01:53 pm

Construction of the MTR was prompted by a study, released in 1967, commissioned by the Hong Kong Government in order to find solutions to the increasing road congestion problem caused by the fast-growing Hong Kong economy.[8] Construction started soon after the release of the study, and the first line opened in 1979. The MTR was immediately popular with residents of Hong Kong; as a result, subsequent lines have been built to cover more territory. There are continual debates regarding how and where to expand the MTR network.[9][10]

 

 

In the 1950s, the Japanese national attitude was that railways would soon be outdated and replaced by air travel and highways as in America and many countries in Europe. However, Shinji Sogō, President of Japanese National Railways, insisted strongly on the possibility of high-speed rail, and the Shinkansen project was implemented.

Government approval came in December 1958, and construction of the first segment of the Tōkaidō Shinkansen between Tokyo and Osaka started in April 1959. The cost of constructing the Shinkansen was at first estimated at nearly 200 billion yen, which was raised in the form of a government loan, railway bonds and a low-interest loan of US$80 million from the World Bank. Initial cost estimates, however, had been deliberately understated and the actual figures were nearly double at about 400 billion yen. As the budget shortfall became clear in 1963, Sogo resigned to take responsibility


  • 0

#31 mixe

mixe
  • [DkR] Clan Member
  • 1,123 posts
  • Location:javia
  • Short Name:Mike

Posted 05 March 2017 - 02:08 pm

regardless of regulation concords was still faster and ppl was willing to pay for that

 

 

With carmakers struggling to secure credit, a 6.0 billion-euro ($7.8 billion) rescue plan announced by the French government on Monday should give Renault and Peugeot Citroen further options for refinancing.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy’s office unveiled an auto industry plan late Monday afternoon that would include credit lines of 3.0 billion euros ($3.9 billion) each for Renault and Peugeot Citroen. The bailout was announced on the same day that Renault’s international partner Nissan Motor reported a $3.0 billion net loss for 2008 and set it was cutting 20,000 jobs.

The loans will last five years and include conditions such as a halt to layoffs, the exclusion of major restructuring plans and a suspension of factory closures in France during the period of the credit. The state will make the lines of credit available at an interest rate of 6.0%. The French government will reportedly not be a stakeholder in the companies

 

 

where the free market solution is rover ?

 

also would you like free market interest rates on your mortgage at 15 % ?


Edited by mixe, 05 March 2017 - 02:17 pm.

  • 0

#32 Darkademic

Darkademic
  • – Enigmatic Overlord –

  • 4,971 posts
  • Location:United Kingdom
  • Short Name:Dark

Posted 05 March 2017 - 03:21 pm

Construction of the MTR was prompted by a study, released in 1967, commissioned by the Hong Kong Government in order to find solutions to the increasing road congestion problem caused by the fast-growing Hong Kong economy.[8] Construction started soon after the release of the study, and the first line opened in 1979. The MTR was immediately popular with residents of Hong Kong; as a result, subsequent lines have been built to cover more territory. There are continual debates regarding how and where to expand the MTR network.[9][10]

 

 

In the 1950s, the Japanese national attitude was that railways would soon be outdated and replaced by air travel and highways as in America and many countries in Europe. However, Shinji Sogō, President of Japanese National Railways, insisted strongly on the possibility of high-speed rail, and the Shinkansen project was implemented.

Government approval came in December 1958, and construction of the first segment of the Tōkaidō Shinkansen between Tokyo and Osaka started in April 1959. The cost of constructing the Shinkansen was at first estimated at nearly 200 billion yen, which was raised in the form of a government loan, railway bonds and a low-interest loan of US$80 million from the World Bank. Initial cost estimates, however, had been deliberately understated and the actual figures were nearly double at about 400 billion yen. As the budget shortfall became clear in 1963, Sogo resigned to take responsibility

 

They're private now. There's no example of a railway that was entirely or originally built by the free market, because no government allows it, so it's a non-argument to say the free market isn't good at building them.

 

regardless of regulation concords was still faster and ppl was willing to pay for that

 

 

With carmakers struggling to secure credit, a 6.0 billion-euro ($7.8 billion) rescue plan announced by the French government on Monday should give Renault and Peugeot Citroen further options for refinancing.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy’s office unveiled an auto industry plan late Monday afternoon that would include credit lines of 3.0 billion euros ($3.9 billion) each for Renault and Peugeot Citroen. The bailout was announced on the same day that Renault’s international partner Nissan Motor reported a $3.0 billion net loss for 2008 and set it was cutting 20,000 jobs.

The loans will last five years and include conditions such as a halt to layoffs, the exclusion of major restructuring plans and a suspension of factory closures in France during the period of the credit. The state will make the lines of credit available at an interest rate of 6.0%. The French government will reportedly not be a stakeholder in the companies

 

 

where the free market solution is rover ?

 

No reason to think that a free market wouldn't result in faster aeroplanes. One of the least regulated industries, computer hardware/software, also happens to be one of the most rapidly advancing.

 

Don't know what your point is about the car industry, none of that says anything about free markets.

 

also would you like free market interest rates on your mortgage at 15 % ?

 

No reason to think this would happen, but interest rates should be whatever the market determines. https://mises.org/li...ght-job-markets


  • 0

darkademic_thin_sig.png
Рациональный разум. Военачальник Загадочных Призраков.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users