Walsingham

I agree with LC. Very few total freezes. In general I like being asked for permission to do things.

Largely as a conseuqence of listening to counter-arguments on this forum, I've been re-examining socialism. Being nice to others is not actually what happens when it's enacted. Knackering things is what happens. I don't think that's awesome.

That is often the case in a first-past-the-post system, it is not the case in a preferential or prop rep system. And if you think about it for a moment, you quickly understand why. Because in a FPTP system it's almost always a 2 party state where a vote for a third party is wasted, so they can't really do anything BUT vote against the party they like least. So if you want to a system where people are forced to vote for the lesser of two evils rather than vote for what they actually want, sure, stick with your system. Krez, are you not listening to a word I'm writing? <sic> The problem isn't the process. The problem is the raw cognitive input. Are you honestly suggesting that people know what they vote for when they vote 'for' it? If so, fair play. But I really think you would have been better spending three years meeting real people, and not in that monastery. My solution is not to denigrate them for it, but to consider whether they are in fact correct to accept they haven't a hope of formulating grand visions of the future, and are best off simply objecting when things get really ****. Surely, if one accepts for the sake of argument that people aren't thinking of voting for anytthing, then pertending that they are is monstrously undemocratic?

The thought of absorbing even more media even more easily is enough to induce a kind of mental retching.

I've never played DA, but whenever I've run across material from it in wikis I'm always underwhelmed.

There's only one brother/sister hookup (IIRC, with on-screen characters anyway). Viserys is just slightly nutty, and likes to abuse Daenerys. But no sex there, just nipple-pinching. Hold the line, Mr Brown.

That Victoria Stilwell show right? I saw that one. The couple had a kid the dog was terrorizing as well if I remember right. I found it amusing too that they would turn to her for help. I guess chaos was too much even for them! Yeah. I didn't bring up the issue with the kid, because that makes it sound as if the couple were letting their child suffer in order to indulge their politics. Which I think might be assuming a bit much, given the show's heavily edited. And a tortured child isn't funny.

I could probably use you expanding each of those points. But let's try and see if my response makes any sense, to save you some time. It seems to me that your own standpoint is in danger of insisting that the application always reflect the principle. Or as you suggest it is self-referential. The certain failing of this is that one can only aspire to what one can currently achieve. In fact it goes further because it argues we can only intend what we will always be able to deliver. With the result that we will fail to act when we actually can, where the principle may be sound, simply so that we don't fail to act when the principle is still sound but the means unavailable. That may sound very satisfactory to a philosopher, but it does not satisfy me. There's probably a much clearer way of putting that, but since I'm not sure of your point in the first place I'll leave it there for now.

Hey, I only just thought of this. It's not like I'm plotting to implement it! Yet. Ok, I can see that assuming anyone who doesn't vote at present is supporting the status quo would be utter balls. But if they KNEW that was how it would be taken then I don't see why not. Surely it would serve to rile up anyone opposed to the status quo and make them get up and do something about it. Would it be possible to have a 'things are all wrong' vote, followed by a second round of voting if the incumbent is turfed out?

It's the moustache. That's... not my nose.

That surprised cat reminds me of this TV show I saw last night about this couple of anarchists with a dog. The dog was - not inconsistently - totally undisciplined. The dog's name was 'Chaos'. This lack of discipline meant the couple were prisoners in their own bedroom. I laughed and laughed. Talk about being hoist by your own pet.

Never ceases to amuse me when people think I'm a retired officer. Although it can be rather sticky if - as today - somebody refers to you as such five times in twenty minutes. I never know whether to let it slide past and hope they only say it once, or stop them and point out I was only a private with very precise diction.

I've nailed my colours to the masthead of not enforcing the unenforceable. However, I don't see what's unenforceable. We will know what their membership is. They either undergo an audit, or we quit listening to them. Seems perfectly enforceable to me.

Sorry. Didn't mean to imply you were being condescending. It's a turn of phrase I'm used to, and it merely admits what it says - I was feeling a bit thick. So, back to your point. You are saying that information technology is an enabler for a police state. Which is clearly the case. You can't have any control system without information - thermostat to supercomputer. The control has to know the identity and condition of its controlled elements. Of course, a control system is also a beneficial thing. it regulates and protects its elements provided they are within designated parameters. It all comes down to what we expect these systems to define as the key parameters.

Any record of some kind. Fastest mile run, honesty, etc.

I've read through the last few pages, and am still enjoying things. Two points: voter apathy and believing people choose/ yet they have no idea. I think I can square the circle here. What if we accept that people don't vote FOR things, they ONLY vote AGAINST things? - Voter apathy is a tacit admission that things aren't so bad that they warrant taking twenty minutes out of one day every four years to fix. Or slightly less time than it takes to cook a dish of pasta. Voter apathy isn't therefore bad, but a product of things being OK. - AV is simply a way of saying you're upset more strongly. Because you allow your vote to go to any bastard but the frontrunner.

I'm just saying that if it's unnaceptable for our elected representatives to unfairly claim benefits, then why not apply the rule equally to self-appointed representatives?

Thanks for a moderate and reasonable first response! Having worked on a local campaign for a friend, I confirm your point about people voting for NOT something. This would seem to be the opposite of the notion that one votes FOR something. And hence the whole point about a democratic mandate for action. Two rejoinders to this: 1. I'd put

What's not to lik about auto-updates? Unless the update is rubbish. Oh, OK, I get it.

For those who don't know, the UK is about to vote on May 5th as to whether to change its system of voting to 'Alternative Voting'. Where you rank order your preferences. I thought it was, you know, worth having a thread about a massive upheaval to the constitution of the World's longest running democracy*. ~~ Labour, of course, are as usual quite prepared to f*** the country if it scores them a small tactical advantage. Vote no, just to annoy Cameron! ~~ My own view, which I welcome challenging on, is that AV rewards indecisive people who know nothing about politics. I don't think we should listen MORE to those people. I think politics should be about making concrete decisions, because government is about concrete decisions. *If I'm wrong on this please post in new thread.

There's been a lot of material in the news recently about group UK Uncut. In a nutshell this group argue that big corporations don't pay enough tax. And there are enough people debating this already so let's not worry about that. UK Uncut are concerned that government needs money to do things like educate children, and care for the sick. No objections from me here. My notion, however, has been to observe that a lot of people adhering to UK Uncut are the far from mythical dole scrounger. People from privileged backgrounds - by which I mean nothing whatesoever wrong with them - who choose to pursue an alternative lifestyle in urban areas, enjoying both dole and all the manifold public amenities without either paying any tax OR generating wealth by any other means. I propose that UK Uncut be required to undergo a thorough independent audit of all their members to confirm that they take no more than 10% more money from the State than they are due, and pay no less than 10% less tax than they should. This isn't just sauce for a gander, this is...

Would you mind explaining this point to us thickies?

I am not riding some hellish camel-lich around the world. For starters I can only get down with assistance or by falling off. By consequence I would be unwillingly conveyed from atrocity to atrocity, a very squeaky and malodorous witness. Paladins would certainly assume my complicity, and I would end my days being pursued up a burning tower by great bearded human thugs waving improbably large swords, just because YOU WON'T GET YOUR ARSE IN GEAR AND START THE CAMPAIGN!

I'm a little confused, so I'll try to be clear, and you can set me straight easier: 1. I approve of a humanitarian cause for war. 2. I regard a purely humanitarian cause as insufficient to see a war to a successful conclusion. 3. Please explain why justice must be universal, and give an example of it. If there is no example then I suggest your definition is a fantasy and pursuit of it as much use in practical affairs as a pursuit of klingons.

US has Silicon Valley, MIT, Harvard etc. yeah this is why NASA is buying Russian rocket engines made in 60's, being unable to even copy 50 years old technology. Assuming they are, this would be something called capitalism. You may have heard of it.