If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
Of course, as they are all based on force and fraud they all follow the exact same organisational pattern. The mafia also shares the same pattern.
Still no facts, still no real response.
Stop reading and do some thinking, then come back to me, eh?
That's if your brain still works under all that crap you've fed it.
If you can't see whay organisationally they are the same, then god help you. :eek:
this is like explaining things to a 5 year old. Apart from the swearing of course
That's not an organisational difference. That's content, not process. The structure remains the same if you put a family of saints in, or you vote in a family of german wankers.
King - heir prince- next heir - dukes - earls or however the fucking thing goes.
At the same time - King - useful people kept close - enemies (potential rivals) kept close yadday yadda
PM- ministers- backbenchers - party members - and so on
Same structures, different content.
Monarchies are just inbred hicks who claim to have a special right to their position.
You need to leanr the difference between content and process.
Never said they weren't. Of course, they would stop governing if no one voted, wouln't they? :rolleyes:
Once they are "elected", that is people have made a choice between one of two astonishingly similar alternatives, they then proceed to organise exactly like all humans do everywhere. One guy at the top and so forth.
Mp's claim they have a special right to their position because lots of other people have marked a piece of paper with an "x". Is this as far away from claiming that because someone put a shiny hat on your head you are boss as you are claiming?
Don't forget, that the whole rationale is that they can kick your front door in and look for "terrorists" because lots of people have marked paper with an "x". They can take your stuff because lots of other people said it's ok and gave them that power. None of those people actually have that power, of course but let's not think about that right now. Just as screwy, your just used to the second one and not used to the first.
You're just throwing more words around without knowing what they mean.
Sorry, your point is?
Do humans always organise like that? This is where an education and reading comes in klintock...
Are you feeling OK?
*worried*
Your whole analysis hasn't got beyond the level of a teenager whose just discovered their first Crass album. You're a joke.
Erm..I thought that you grasp of english was better. Spliffie and I were talking about the "ideal", not the current...
Read the words not your inflection of them...
Have you lost the ability to follow a thread now? You asked "worker as opposed to what?" I told you. Whats the problem?
Either you really are an arse, or you are just deliberately argumentative. Not that it makes much difference.
Let's do a recap..
Spliffe:Take the example of Blagsta's vision of the ideal society. Workers running industry collectively, on a democratic basis.
Me: Define "worker"...
And then tell me what the alternative is - a worker as opposed to what exactly?
Then explain how that differs from the current situation, and how such a society would be maintained - how would decent be managed for example.
So, who are the workers in that ideal, and who else is there? Do you follow? If everyone in that ideal is "a worker" then the title ceases to exist because there is no alternative. They are just "people".
Therefore the suggestion is that you have to define someone as a "worker" in your ideal, and that there must also be another group. What?
That is the "as opposed to what exactly?" I was talking about.
This
http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/~wright/Foundations.pdf
is a good primer
Yeah, alright mate, whatever.
That the "ideology" is irrelevent, only there to hide the violent control.
Yes, they do. Voluntarily is much more fluid and useful than fixed, and the closer we get to that the more productive and happy people become.
Yeah, fine. You think that politician's dont' claim they have special immunity from being called a thief, liar or murderer because some people marked bits of paper with names on them? Where do you live?
Politics = violent domination of others for a stated goal. True or false?
Good response. As ever. :rolleyes: At least you're not dressing it up in some imagined privilged view of humans.
A analysis on the level of a 14 year old.
You don't actually know what you mean by this do you?
Eh?
False. Politics is primarily about how we organise resources and production and the power that comes with these things.
What fucking analysis? This is just the bare facts.
No mate. I don't undertsand this sentence i am typing right now either. (Fucking hell....)
Ok, aside from physical violence and the threat of physical violence how do you get me to do what you want?
Yeah, you are a bit.
Exactly, what analysis?
Eh?
Reason? Persuasion? Debate? Thrashing things out? Coming to an agreement? Finding some common ground? Consensus?
Well, before we start analysis, lets get our facts straight.
And do governments use any of these methods to get what they want?
What do they have to trade with?
What common ground do they have?
What possible reason would I have for following or even making an agreement with some guy I had never even met?
How long would they debate if you had something they really wanted?
What do they do when there is no consensus?
I can't help but notice that you don't list "leaving me the fuck alone and doing something else instead" among your alternatives.
You really do sound like a teenager.
I was aiming for about 5 or 6 years old.
Still no answers, still no facts. Not much point me even talking to you is there?
Oh, so I was right after all. Aladdin is seeking to use power (aka violence) to get what he wants.
The original point was pretty simple. If you seek to make others behave your way by using violence or employing others to be violent for you, you have lost all moral justifications for doing 99% of the things you set out to achieve. Al is banging on about someone not being able to say something he doesn't like, and conveniently forgets that the wish can only be granted at the end of a weapon.
I mean, I can see the argument for stopping/catching murderers using violence and threats, but providing some fucking TV channels or telling your neighbours what to say in public?
How has that happened? Would you wander into your neighbours house to take from him to pay for the BBC? No. Few would. But if you can just wish for something and the messy theft is done by hidden forces, You can absolve yourself of all responsibility for having your wishes carried out.
In most civilised people's eyes, saying bad/unpopular things < using violence. In fact in this case, Al is advocating that people who advocate using violence should have violence directed at them. He sees no irony in this at all. That he can't see the folly of that position is because how his wish will be granted is hidden from his view. Someone else will be doing the dirty work of enforcing his opinion, "so that's alright then."
So sorry, I guess you have to spend few years cooped up in the british library pointing out the currently fucking obvious and inventing a system that has fuck all chance of ever coming about before I get one, eh?
On a point of note, what was your analysis of the issue? You only seem to be any good at disection, lord knows you never come up with anything yourself, so nows your chance to shine.
C'mon Agent Starling, thrill me with your acumen.
I'm sorry, but reality is somewhat more complex. Educate yourself a bit, use your brain a little bit, think a bit and you might understand a bit more - the messiness, complexity and grey areas makes life a bit more scary, but infinitely more interesting. Come on in, the waters lovely!
Until then, you can piss off.