Let's make Britain great again

[Brian Peacock]

Yep. One man's shit is another man's bread and butter.

[Seth]

Yep. One man's shit is another man's bread and butter.

Or, as Leftists say, "Our shit doesn't stink, but everybody else's does."

[Woodbutcher]

That's how cycles of abuse perpetuate down the generations - when one thinks that being treated like shit is normal then treating others like shit seems normal too. For some, treating others like shit isn't just normal - it becomes something akin to a necessity - an obligation: a duty: an absolute moral imperative. Except that thinking doesn't really come into it - to treat others like shit 'on principle' as it were actually requires that one doesn't get bogged down in reflecting on the consequences of one's actions.

That depends entirely on how you define "treating others like shit."

That is the most fucking idiotic statement in the history of mankind! It justifies every evil thing that has ever been done to mankind in the name of ideology and greed. Very libertarian of you, chum.

[Seth]

That's how cycles of abuse perpetuate down the generations - when one thinks that being treated like shit is normal then treating others like shit seems normal too. For some, treating others like shit isn't just normal - it becomes something akin to a necessity - an obligation: a duty: an absolute moral imperative. Except that thinking doesn't really come into it - to treat others like shit 'on principle' as it were actually requires that one doesn't get bogged down in reflecting on the consequences of one's actions.

That depends entirely on how you define "treating others like shit."

That is the most fucking idiotic statement in the history of mankind! It justifies every evil thing that has ever been done to mankind in the name of ideology and greed.

Well, yes, that's exactly my point. Brian's statement is vague and undefinable as to what "treating others like shit" actually means, which means that all one needs to do to defy that argument is to define one's own actions as "not-shit" like treatment. Stalin, you see, didn't think that sending "counterrevolutionaries" off to die on the Road of Bones was "shit" treatment because he considered counterrevolutionaries to be a danger to his larger Marxist objectives.

Nor did Hitler think that his treatment of Jews, gays, Gypsies and others to be "shit treatment" because his motives were pure (to him) and his objectives rational (to him).

Very libertarian of you, chum.

Libertarianism pretty carefully defines what "treating others like shit" means, unlike socialism, which seems to define it as "being unwilling to engage in compulsory, enforced labor on behalf of others. It means, quite specifically, initiating force or fraud upon another, which is the very antithesis of socialism.

What Libertarianism does not do is define leaving other people alone and allowing them the freedom to make their own mistakes and suffer the consequences of those mistakes to be treating them "like shit." Leaving other people alone to exercise their own liberties and freedoms, even when they make mistakes and suffer because of those bad decisions isn't "treating" them like anything at all, it's rigorously respecting their individual right to autonomy privacy and liberty.

If someone in a Libertarian society finds that they need assistance they are of course free to ask for assistance from others, and others are free to voluntarily render whatever degree or amount of assistance in whatever form they please.

But for a person to make bad decisions and suffer as a result of those bad decisions and then attempt to coerce assistance by force is anathema to Libertarians and such attempts can and should be resisted and defeated by any means necessary, up to and including the use of deadly physical force in self defense.

[Woodbutcher]

Boils down to the Golden Rule, doesn't it. I'm OK with that as long as their right to fuck up doesn't fuck me up. I'm somewhat libertarian, although that is amended by liberal,conservative and democratic views. And I would rather help animals than people.

[Seth]

Boils down to the Golden Rule, doesn't it.

I think so, in main.

I'm OK with that as long as their right to fuck up doesn't fuck me up. I'm somewhat libertarian, although that is amended by liberal,conservative and democratic views. And I would rather help animals than people.

Well, if their exercise of their right to fuck up fucks you up then it's not an exercise of a valid right because their action exports harm to others, which is to say it initiates force or fraud. Rights are too often misstated as something that imposes an obligation to some sort of positive action on the part of others in order for the individual to enjoy that right. Thus the "your right to swing your fist ends at my nose" is another good aphorism describing how it is that individual actions thought to be rights are often naturally limited in their just exercise to avoid harm to others.

Thus the right to keep and bear arms does not include a putative right to discharge that firearm in a time, place or manner that exports (or even potentially could export) harm to others. No opening up with your pistol in a crowded shopping mall for example. That's not a right. What is a right is to peaceably possess that pistol in a public place, but the right to discharge it is heavily burdened with regulations intended to ensure that if and when you exercise that particular right you only do so when it is legally permissible to do so and in a manner that does not improperly export harm to anyone who doesn't deserve to be harmed.

A "right" in my opinion can be defined as "a freedom of individual action that can be defended against intrusion by others." This means, for example, that I have a right to swing my fist and no one has a right to prevent me from doing so unless my exercise of my right exports (or reasonably threatens to export) harm to another person or interfere with her exercise of her equal or superior rights.

There is of course a hierarchy of rights that places some rights above some other rights when it comes to adjudicating complaints of interference. For example, the right to life clearly supersedes the right to discharge a firearm if discharging that firearm would export harm to the other person's life.

On the other hand, the right to engage in free speech is not constrained by the inferior right of another individual to not listen to that speech. In that case the person who does not wish to hear the speech cannot interfere with the speech but must instead take action not to hear that which is objectionable, such as by stopping their ears or leaving the venue.

But the right to free speech IS constrained when that speech is of an inflammatory nature that causes, or is reasonably likely to cause an immediate breach of the peace by those listening to it, thus the "incitement to riot" laws that allow police to shut down demonstrations and speeches that cause riots.

No rights, of course, are absolute and all rights are subject to reasonable regulation so long as that regulation meets the stringent tests set forth by the Supreme Court that authorize the government to regulate rights. This is the balancing mechanism, by way of adjudication, that keeps the peace in a society by only imposing constraints on the free exercise of rights where and to the extent that it is absolutely necessary to do so in the interests of public order and peace. Such constraints must of course be applied not to the individual alone, but rather must be laws of general applicability that apply to all persons. Thus, an "incitement to riot" charge applies to neo-nazis as much as it applies to Black Lives Matters activists and is based on the potential for imminent public disorder and not the actual content of the speech.

The same is true of the right to keep and bear arms. The government may justifiably and rigorously regulate when, where and how an arms-bearing individual may operate (discharge) or use their arms, but may not prohibit the simple and peaceable keeping and bearing (owning and carrying) of arms merely because it, or its constituents, are afraid of persons exercising that right. The actual potential of exported harm in carrying a firearm only exists if the firearm is operated, not if it's merely peaceably possessed.

The common refrain "Well, I'm afraid that someone carrying a gun will improperly operate it" is not an expression of a right that can or should be protected. To do so is to grant the individual a right to control (ie: export harm in the form of constraint on his rights) the exercise of a right by another based only on opinion or fear. Freedom from fear is NOT a right that anyone enjoys to a degree that constraint on other people's lawful exercise of other rights is justifiable.

For example, your fear that I might crack my skull while riding my motorcycle without a helmet is not justification for infringing on my right not to wear a helmet.

[DaveDodo007]

But srsly flocks, what does it mean to be 'Great' in this context? To have power and influence? To be feared? To be admired and envied? To be clever and sexy? To be a defender of truth over lies, hope of dismay, tolerance over hatred? Or to confuse self-reliance with looking inward, being insular, isolated, or misapprehending the idea of being in control by increasing the means by which we are controlled? To apply 'Greatness' as a descriptor of one's national identity is pure egotism, and one predominantly proffered by insecure, and sometimes downright paranoid, egotists unduly concerned with their social standing and personal popularity.

Popularism is a symptom of a nation's dysfunction, not its cure.

FFS, you just need a red cap with 'Make Britain Great Again' written on it, why do you lefties have to complicate everything.

[Woodbutcher]

Sonuvabitch, I agree with Seth . Although I think that with the right to bear arms comes the consequence that a cop may shoot you because you look suspicious and he is scared for his life. Or he is an asshole with a gun and a licence to shoot .

[JimC]

DaveDodo007 wrote:

...why do you lefties have to complicate everything...

Yes, Dave, we know that anything other than the very, very simple makes your head hurt...

[pErvinalia]

Yeah, but unlike you I'm not a booster of a fuckup of an economic system. You've got to be a bit of a sadist to support something that does you harm.

You are a booster of the most fucked up economic system that has ever existed.

False dichotomy. And besides, you are wilfully ignorant of anything other than your own blinkered world view.

[Seth]

Sonuvabitch, I agree with Seth . Although I think that with the right to bear arms comes the consequence that a cop may shoot you because you look suspicious and he is scared for his life. Or he is an asshole with a gun and a licence to shoot .

Yes, that is a danger, which is why they call it a "concealed weapon." If you keep it concealed until you're legally authorized to discharge it at a person, and it appears only 0.75 seconds before it is discharged and it returns to its holster immediately thereafter...and you follow the cop's instruction to the letter and move slowly you're unlikely to have that problem.

But, I'd rather have that problem than to need my gun to take out a criminal and not have it, which is far more likely since I don't break the law and thus attract the attention of the police.

When I was a cop I always told people who got upset that I was contacting them "If you don't want the police to be interested in what you're doing, don't do things that the police find interesting."

Sage advice for everyone, that.

[Seth]

Yeah, but unlike you I'm not a booster of a fuckup of an economic system. You've got to be a bit of a sadist to support something that does you harm.

You are a booster of the most fucked up economic system that has ever existed.

False dichotomy. And besides, you are wilfully ignorant of anything other than your own blinkered world view.

Wrong, it is because I'm very well educated that I can see through the bullshit that leftists spew by the gigaton.

[Forty Two]

When Britain fi-i-irst, at heaven's command,
Aro-o-o-ose from out the a-a-a-zure main,
Arose, arose from ou-ou-ou-out the a-zure main,
This was the charter, the charter of the land,
And guardian a-a-angels sang this strain:

Rule Britannia!
Britannia rule the waves
Britons never, never, never shall be slaves.
Rule Britannia!
Britannia rule the waves.

Britons never, never, never shall be slaves.
The nations, no-o-o-o-ot so blest as thee,
Must i-i-i-i-in their turn, to ty-y—yrants fall,
Must in their turn, to ty-y-rants fall,
While thou shalt flourish, shalt flourish great and free,
The dread and e-e-e-e-nvy of them all.

Rule Britannia!
Britannia rule the waves.
Britons never, never, never shall be slaves.

Rule Britannia!
Britannia rule the waves.
Britons never, never, never shall be slaves.

[surreptitious57]

If you do not want the police to be interested in what you are doing do not do things that the police find interesting

That is a simple but brutal piece of street philosophy which would look really great on a tee shirt or a billboard
Whoever came up with it had their head screwed on. But it sounds glib till you actually realise how serious it is

[Hermit]

If you do not want the police to be interested in what you are doing do not do things that the police find interesting

That is a simple but brutal piece of street philosophy which would look really great on a tee shirt or a billboard Whoever came up with it had their head screwed on. But it sounds glib till you actually realise how serious it is

It also echoes: "You have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide". There are millions of examples disproving that false platitude. Significantly, it has been attributed to Joseph Goebbels.