Will we ever see true Governance?

lufties

With the 'shining light' U.S completely at the behest of Bankers and big business, a puppet administration and a private federal reserve. I wonder will we ever see an establishment acting in the general public's interest The U.K is becoming a police state with regard to security, the EU is a technocratic monster also at the behest of Banks. Then we have our own cabal of cowardly lapdogs who do whatever the can to transfer money from the poor to the rich with their self serving snouts in the trough.

Or perhaps I'm completely wrong and just got out the wrong side of bed :cool:

ArmaniJeanss

lufties wrote: »

The U.K is basically a police state

Lolwat?

lufties

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Lolwat?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_state

Nemeses

lufties wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_state

Yet again - How is the UK a Police State?

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Or perhaps I'm completely wrong and just got out the wrong side of bed

Yes and looks that way!

lufties

Harmony Old-fashioned Verdict wrote: »

Yes and looks that way!

Educate yourself!

seamus

Of course, "true" governance is a philosophical question in itself. What is "true" governance? How would you measure it and define it and decide that it's "true"?

The theoretical purest and fairest form of society is of course an anarchistic one, where every person is in control of their own destiny. But unfortunately the nature of the animal and of existence is that this can never work in the way it's imagined.

The EU, for all its bloatedness, appears to me to be the closest thing we have to a good form of governance. Many of the major improvements to the lives of individuals in this country over the last 30 years have been down to the EU dragging Irish governments kicking and screaming into the modern era. The focus of the EU is largely on the preservation of the union and the improvement of the lives of the citizens therein. This is probably because the EU rarely has to get bogged down in the specifics of fixing the potholes or making sure that Jimmy Mac who runs the concrete plant is happy, so they can make much more general changes with less resistance.

The technocratic nature of the EU is not a bad thing. In reality, we should have experts making decisions and directions on things they know about. Otherwise you get idiots like Sherlock creating laws that are completely moronic and outside the scope of reality, because they're making decision they're unqualified to make.
Technocracy however obviously has some drawbacks (groupthink) and is as open to abuse any other form of governance. So a techno/demo-cratic hybrid seems like an improvement on a pure democracy.

bodice ripper

.

MadYaker

Anyone who writes an OP referring to the UK being a police state can't be taken seriously.

lufties

seamus wrote: »

Of course, "true" governance is a philosophical question in itself. What is "true" governance? How would you measure it and define it and decide that it's "true"?

The theoretical purest and fairest form of society is of course an anarchistic one, where every person is in control of their own destiny. But unfortunately the nature of the animal and of existence is that this can never work in the way it's imagined.

The EU, for all its bloatedness, appears to me to be the closest thing we have to a good form of governance. Many of the major improvements to the lives of individuals in this country over the last 30 years have been down to the EU dragging Irish governments kicking and screaming into the modern era. The focus of the EU is largely on the preservation of the union and the improvement of the lives of the citizens therein. This is probably because the EU rarely has to get bogged down in the specifics of fixing the potholes or making sure that Jimmy Mac who runs the concrete plant is happy, so they can make much more general changes with less resistance.

The technocratic nature of the EU is not a bad thing. In reality, we should have experts making decisions and directions on things they know about. Otherwise you get idiots like Sherlock creating laws that are completely moronic and outside the scope of reality, because they're making decision they're unqualified to make.
Technocracy however obviously has some drawbacks (groupthink) and is as open to abuse any other form of governance. So a techno/demo-cratic hybrid seems like an improvement on a pure democracy.

True Governance, like the way the U.S was a century ago, land of the free etc.
Check out Aaron Russo's Documentry called from freedom to fascism. Its a real eye opener.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

lufties wrote: »

Educate yourself!

You asked and I answered honestly. I suspect that I'm educated to a higher degree than yourself but that's neither here nor there as education does not equal intelligence. That OP was a nonsensical rant. No society can function without some sort of governance, unless you count anarchy as a state preferable to government. A government must govern: hence governance is implicit.
To consider that piece on the UK being a police state is tantamount to belief in all those other whacko notions out there.

Marxism has failed. Dictatorship throughout history have failed. The totally free market model of the USA certianly fails a huge portion of its citezins. A technocratic overlord certainly has it's failings but the form exhibited by the EU is far from a failure. Perhaps a monarchy would be more to your liking. Oh no, that would allow privilege and status to determine your fate. I honestly don't know what form of oversight you would prefer.

lufties

Harmony Old-fashioned Verdict wrote: »

You asked and I answered honestly. I suspect that I'm educated to a higher degree than yourself but that's neither here nor there as education does not equal intelligence. That OP was a nonsensical rant. No society can function without some sort of governance, unless you count anarchy as a state preferable to government. A government must govern: hence governance is implicit.
To consider that piece on the UK being a police state is tantamount to belief in all those other whacko notions out there.

Marxism has failed. Dictatorship throughout history have failed. The totally free market model of the USA certianly fails a huge portion of its citezins. A technocratic overlord certainly has it's failings but the form exhibited by the EU is far from a failure. Perhaps a monarchy would be more to your liking. Oh no, that would allow privilege and status to determine your fate. I honestly don't know what form of oversight you would prefer.

Private bankers ruling the world and influencing governments are crippling the world. That's what I mean, why can't it be otherwise?

dxhound2005

lufties wrote: »

With the 'shining light' U.S completely at the behest of Bankers and big business, a puppet administration and a private federal reserve. I wonder will we ever see an establishment acting in the general public's interest The U.K is basically a police state, the EU is a technocratic monster also at the behest of Banks. Then we have our own cabal of cowardly lapdogs who do whatever the can to transfer money from the poor to the rich with their self serving snouts in the trough.

Or perhaps I'm completely wrong and just got out the wrong side of bed :cool:

Last time we exchanged views you were in China. What is it like over there?

For Forks Sake

lufties wrote: »

With the 'shining light' U.S completely at the behest of Bankers and big business, a puppet administration and a private federal reserve. I wonder will we ever see an establishment acting in the general public's interest The U.K is basically a police state, the EU is a technocratic monster also at the behest of Banks.

lufties wrote: »

Educate yourself!

lufties wrote: »

Private bankers ruling the world and influencing governments are crippling the world.

You're quite the leftist soundbite machine, I'll grant you that.

Are you in fact Richard Boyd-Barrett?

ScumLord

"True governance" sounds like we need some glorious leader to tell us how to do everything. I don't want to be governed, I want to be part of a democratic process I'd just like the chance and education to be more than part of an uninformed mob.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

lufties wrote: »

True Governance, like the way the U.S was a century ago, land of the free etc.
Check out Aaron Russo's Documentry called from freedom to fascism. Its a real eye opener.

Wow! 1914 in the USA. Blatant apartheid. No votes for women. USA fighting wars in central America. Yes a lot to aspire to there. And a huge depression looming in another few years as well!!!!

As for Aaron Russo, fair enough in itself but irrelevant to our situation.

lufties

dxhound2005 wrote: »

Last time we exchanged views you were in China. What is it like over there?

You are trying to turn it into an argument and being a smart arse, while missing the point. It's obvious china's human rights are abysmal.

Harmony Old-fashioned Verdict

Harmony Old-fashioned Verdict wrote: »

The totally free market model of the USA .

You what? With the govt stepping in to prop up companies,
"Increasing home ownership has been the goal of several presidents including Roosevelt, Reagan, Clinton and George W. Bush." and stuff like this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act
is a United States federal law designed to encourage commercial banks and savings associations to help meet the needs of borrowers in all segments of their communities, including low- and moderate-income neighborhoods./I]
Hello sub prime

lufties

Harmony Old-fashioned Verdict wrote: »

Wow! 1914 in the USA. Blatant apartheid. No votes for women. USA fighting wars in central America. Yes a lot to aspire to there. And a huge depression looming in another few years as well!!!!

As for Aaron Russo, fair enough in itself but irrelevant to our situation.

I'm talking about 1912/13 actually, before the federal reserve in america was privatised and banks took control. How is it irrelevant to us? Didn't our great noble mary harney say we're closer to boston than berlin.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

lufties wrote: »

Private bankers ruling the world and influencing governments are crippling the world. That's what I mean, why can't it be otherwise?

You see we'd have to believe all that before we could even begin to contemplate how to go about being otherwise. However, that's not how it is in reality. It may seem like it when taking a factor in our lives in isolation but thankfully the picture is a lot broader than that and many other factors influence our society.

seamus

Harmony Old-fashioned Verdict wrote: »

Wow! 1914 in the USA. Blatant apartheid. No votes for women. USA fighting wars in central America. Yes a lot to aspire to there. And a huge depression looming in another few years as well!!!!

I mean, really? "Land of the free"?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_in_the_United_States

Anyone who thinks that the United States was ever a democratic utopia is living in fantasy land. The US has for most of its life governed with social conservatism and economic liberalism.

Most people really want the opposite.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

lufties wrote: »

Didn't our great noble mary harney say we're closer to boston than berlin.

And doesn't this just prove that we have controls and balances, as she is gone thanks to our system of government

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

seamus wrote: »

I mean, really? "Land of the free"?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_in_the_United_States

Anyone who thinks that the United States was ever a democratic utopia is living in fantasy land. The US has for most of its life governed with social conservatism and economic liberalism.

Most people really want the opposite.

I probably didn't xpress myself properly as I'm flabbergasted by the OP. I agree with you fully. I was trying to point out the absurdity of the OP aspiring to being as the US was a hundred years ago. I wouldn't want us to follow there 1914 model any more than their 2014 one. The greatest open air asylum in the world is no role model.

lufties

Harmony Old-fashioned Verdict wrote: »

You see we'd have to believe all that before we could even begin to contemplate how to go about being otherwise. However, that's not how it is in reality. It may seem like it when taking a factor in our lives in isolation but thankfully the picture is a lot broader than that and many other factors influence our society.

So you don't believe it? Even after all that has happened in the last 10 years..

wendell borton

We need a platonic philosopher king, but who will lead us? It's got to be someone with the know-how and the elbow grease to lead us to a new land. :rolleyes:

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

lufties wrote: »

So you don't believe it? Even after all that has happened in the last 10 years..

In the terms you have put it? No I don't. I accept that you believe so and that's fine if it gets you through the day but I equally am entitled to my belief. Government is complicated, flawed and lacking in many ways but I'd love to hear the idyllic alternative. In the meantime I can live comfortably and freely with what we have.

jimgoose

wendell borton wrote: »

We need a platonic philosopher king, but who will lead us? It's got to be someone with the know-how and the elbow grease to lead us to a new land. :rolleyes:

I'll do it, but I'll tell you now I'm more along the lines of an Eccentric Benevolent Dictator.

jimgoose

Any government is going to be like a two-year-old trying to drive an eighteen-speed artic. It's a big, complicated difficult job for anyone. And anyone attempting to convince you that the likes of the U.K. or even our own corrupt little sh!thole are anything like police states is a little, shall we say, misguided.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

jimgoose wrote: »

Any government is going to be like a two-year-old trying to drive an eighteen-speed artic. It's a big, complicated difficult job for anyone. And anyone attempting to convince you that the likes of the U.K. or even our own corrupt little sh!thole are anything like police states is a little, shall we say, misguided.

A little?????

I Heart Internet

"Will there ever be a rainbow?"
By Charles Montgomery Burns

bumper234

I Heart Internet wrote: »

"Will there ever be a rainbow?"
By Charles Montgomery Burns

Somewhere over the rainbow

Dame Judy Garland

KyussBishop

seamus wrote: »

Of course, "true" governance is a philosophical question in itself. What is "true" governance? How would you measure it and define it and decide that it's "true"?

The theoretical purest and fairest form of society is of course an anarchistic one, where every person is in control of their own destiny. But unfortunately the nature of the animal and of existence is that this can never work in the way it's imagined.

The EU, for all its bloatedness, appears to me to be the closest thing we have to a good form of governance. Many of the major improvements to the lives of individuals in this country over the last 30 years have been down to the EU dragging Irish governments kicking and screaming into the modern era. The focus of the EU is largely on the preservation of the union and the improvement of the lives of the citizens therein. This is probably because the EU rarely has to get bogged down in the specifics of fixing the potholes or making sure that Jimmy Mac who runs the concrete plant is happy, so they can make much more general changes with less resistance.

The technocratic nature of the EU is not a bad thing. In reality, we should have experts making decisions and directions on things they know about. Otherwise you get idiots like Sherlock creating laws that are completely moronic and outside the scope of reality, because they're making decision they're unqualified to make.
Technocracy however obviously has some drawbacks (groupthink) and is as open to abuse any other form of governance. So a techno/demo-cratic hybrid seems like an improvement on a pure democracy.

That's an interesting viewpoint that I haven't considered before, but I have to disagree with attributing credit to technocracy: I think if we had a purely democratic Europe (would require a federal state), that we'd get the same benefits, and that technocracy hasn't got anything to do with it.

Right now technocracy is damaging us enormously, because the technocrats in charge of managing and guiding the development/practice of economics in Europe, have landed us in a currency union that has greatly worsened the current crisis, and has deadlocked our ability to get out of this crisis as well.


The EU is definitely, in many ways, pulling us in a progressive way into the 21st century, but we are at risk of getting trapped in a downward spiral we can't get out of, due to the Euro and potential for recurring economic crisis - and this can be exploited as a means of dismantling democracy across all European nations, by permanently removing citizens ability to vote on their economic future (since no one/single democratic entity, can decide this, and multiple governments trying to decide this, leads to a deadlock).

How a country is managed economically - especially its monetary system - significantly determines (through purse strings) how a country is managed politically and societally; if we accept a loss of democratic control over our economic/monetary system, in deference to technocracy (which is what we have done already with the Euro and ECB), then it's pretty easy for those technocrats to erode our remaining democratic control over politics/society (nevermind the rest of the economy).

KyussBishop

Harmony Old-fashioned Verdict wrote: »

Marxism has failed. Dictatorship throughout history have failed. The totally free market model of the USA certianly fails a huge portion of its citezins. A technocratic overlord certainly has it's failings but the form exhibited by the EU is far from a failure. Perhaps a monarchy would be more to your liking. Oh no, that would allow privilege and status to determine your fate. I honestly don't know what form of oversight you would prefer.

The Euro is increasingly regarded as a gigantic mistake - even by its creators:

Euro flawed from start says main creator
Jacques Delors, one of the architects of single currency, says his plans for economic co-ordination were never followed.

One of the main architects of the euro has said the eurozone was "flawed from the very beginning".

Jacques Delors, who headed the European Commission from 1985 to 1995 in an interview with Britain's Daily Telegraph, said "over-optimism shown by the euro's creators meant the current debt crisis was inevitable".

Delors blamed the crisis on "a fault in execution" by politicians during the currency's early days, particularly their refusal to acknowledge the threat caused by imbalances in the economies of member states.

"Everyone must examine their consciences," said the former French politician.

"The finance ministers did not want to see anything disagreeable which they would be forced to deal with," he added.

The comments come amid growing doubts over the viability of the eurozone.

Delors, who was a key player in creating the framework for the euro's 1999 launch, singled out Germany as the
biggest stumbling block in finding a swift solution to the crisis.

"A combination of the stubbornness of the Germanic idea of monetary control and the absence of a clear vision from all the other countries" was responsible for the ongoing situation, he argued.

The former commissioner also accepted that "Anglo-Saxon" politicians and economists "had a point" when they warned that a single currency and central bank could not bring economic stability to a union of nations.

Delors also accused current European leaders of amplifying the crisis by doing "too little, too late", in his first
interview with a British newspaper for almost a decade.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/europe/2011/12/201112313753755193.html

The Euro is pretty much one of the worst mistakes in modern European history, causing enormous (ongoing) economic damage (and human suffering/deaths as a result, due to the effects of high unemployment and worsening public services) - and it's one of the defining features of the EU.

KyussBishop

bluewolf wrote: »

You what? With the govt stepping in to prop up companies,
"Increasing home ownership has been the goal of several presidents including Roosevelt, Reagan, Clinton and George W. Bush." and stuff like this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act
is a United States federal law designed to encourage commercial banks and savings associations to help meet the needs of borrowers in all segments of their communities, including low- and moderate-income neighborhoods./I]
Hello sub prime

The Community Reinvestment Act is a straw-man used to try and shift the blame for reckless bank lending, away from banks who put out reckless and often fraudulent loans, and put that blame onto the US government - instead of acknowledging the role played on all sides.

Here are two fed economists picking apart the CRA claim:

As the current financial crisis has unfolded, an argument that the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) is at its root has gained a foothold. This argument draws on the fact that the CRA encourages commercial banks and savings institutions (collectively known as banking institutions) to help meet the credit needs of lower-income borrowers and borrowers in lower-income neighborhoods.1/ Critics of the CRA contend that the law pushed banking institutions to undertake high-risk mortgage lending.

This article discusses key features of the CRA and presents results from our analysis of several data sources regarding the volume and performance of CRA-related mortgage lending. On balance, the evidence runs counter to the contention that the CRA lies at the root of the current mortgage crisis.
...

http://www.minneapolisfed.org/publications_papers/pub_display.cfm?id=4136

KyussBishop

lufties wrote: »

I'm talking about 1912/13 actually, before the federal reserve in america was privatised and banks took control. How is it irrelevant to us? Didn't our great noble mary harney say we're closer to boston than berlin.

While many of the facts surrounding the feds history are interesting/noteworthy, and while you're looking in the right area of what there is to be concerned about, it's actually a bad thing to focus on the feds history because it is prone to conspiracy theories, and there is actually a much bigger more immediate problem, that is far easier to show problems with in its own right:

Private banks (nevermind the fed) have the power to create money, and are effectively in control of money creation (and you can easily find reputable economists like Martin Wolf/Sir Mervyn King to back this) - which is a huge amount of undemocratic power, that they often exercise in extremely irresponsible ways.

It's better to focus on that (it's bad enough in its own right, to not need embellishment with less consequential things like who owns the fed), and learning about it and what it means about economics, than who owns the fed, or the feds history: It gets to the core of what is actually wrong with all of the banking/monetary systems all over the world, and precisely why they are harmful to democracy (through putting extremely great powers, of money creation, into private hands - creating a large amount of undemocratic power, which are usable to influence/shape the course of politics/business/society in huge ways).

lufties

KyussBishop wrote: »

While many of the facts surrounding the feds history are interesting/noteworthy, and while you're looking in the right area of what there is to be concerned about, it's actually a bad thing to focus on the feds history because it is prone to conspiracy theories, and there is actually a much bigger more immediate problem, that is far easier to show problems with in its own right:

Private banks (nevermind the fed) have the power to create money, and are effectively in control of money creation (and you can easily find reputable economists like Martin Wolf/Sir Mervyn King to back this) - which is a huge amount of undemocratic power, that they often exercise in extremely irresponsible ways.

It's better to focus on that (it's bad enough in its own right, to not need embellishment with less consequential things like who owns the fed), and learning about it and what it means about economics, than who owns the fed, or the feds history: It gets to the core of what is actually wrong with all of the banking/monetary systems all over the world, and precisely why they are harmful to democracy (through putting extremely great powers, of money creation, into private hands - creating a large amount of undemocratic power, which are usable to influence/shape the course of politics/business/society in huge ways).

Yes therein lies the biggest problem, I think though regarding the fed that it is one of(if not the biggest) private bank on the planet. If it was shut then the rest would follow suit, the U.S being the biggest economy and all. Hence my mention of the fed.

Bog Standard User

lufties wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_state

so the usa is a police state too by that definition

lufties

Bog Standard User wrote: »

so the usa is a police state too by that definition

Well yes, Perhaps I should have chosen my words better and said that it is heading that direction with regard to government control, security and lack of privacy.

The question is do we want it to be different and how many people as a percentage of the population really truly care how we are governed.

As far as I can see people moan, they are asking for change, but their main concern is that what ever governance is there make It possible for them to pay less tax! followed by wanting a system that stops the rich from, what they perceive as getting away with it!

There is very little real appetite for change other than he above.

The reason for this is that in Ireland, the rest of Europe and the US, life is alright for the majority nobody is starving or in fear of being randomly shot at on the behest of a corrupt state.

Of course there are those who lose out as well but for the vast majority that is not the case.

People know how governance is working on their lives they can see the contradiction in the system they just make adjustment for it and get on with their lives.

The vast majority know about CCT cameras every where, the amount of information that is stored about them, they know and can discern the bias in the media none of it is hidden, there is no conspiracy to keep the population ignorant al la Noam Chomsky, the sad truth is the vast majority don't care, some do care but not enough to be noticeable.

KyussBishop

lufties wrote: »

Yes therein lies the biggest problem, I think though regarding the fed that it is one of(if not the biggest) private bank on the planet. If it was shut then the rest would follow suit, the U.S being the biggest economy and all. Hence my mention of the fed.

The Fed isn't like a private bank though, it's a central bank; the ownership of it and all, is interesting in its implications on who has influence over the fed, but it's not really of great consequence - the major thing of consequence, is how the private banks (not the fed) are pretty much able to create money through lending (as can be backed by Martin Wolf/Mervyn King etc.).

It's not the banking institutions that matter, it's the how the banking/monetary system work is what matters - and it works the same all over the world, so it's a massive problem of undemocratic power, that spans the world, and isn't limited to just the fed.


The problem is though, on a topic like this, is that how the monetary system works is complicated and often hard to understand/explain, especially the implications of how it works, so it's really easy for people to get distracted by easier-to-see but less consequential things, like the ownership of the fed - that's missing the real problem, by a really long way, and because that topic surrounding the fed is surrounded with conspiracy theories, it allows those views to be easily smeared/discredited.

Better to forget about fed ownership and stuff (it's interesting and worth exploring though, granted), and start by focusing discussion on how the monetary system actually lets banks create money, and the unjust/undemocratic power this grants them.

KyussBishop

mariaalice wrote: »

The vast majority know about CCT cameras every where, the amount of information that is stored about them, they know and can discern the bias in the media none of it is hidden, there is no conspiracy to keep the population ignorant al la Noam Chomsky, the sad truth is the vast majority don't care, some do care but not enough to be noticeable.

There's no conspiracy, it's done in plain sight - it's pretty easy to pick out the propagandising in the news and online, there are entire industries of think-tanks dedicated to producing (often anti-science/anti-intellectual, the latter being the very definition of spreading ignorance) propaganda.

hatrickpatrick

Nemeses wrote: »

Yet again - How is the UK a Police State?

Government sponsored internet censorship, detainment of journalists under terrorism laws, deep packet inspection by intelligence (and proposed future DPI by ordinary police) recording everything UK internet users do, tyrannical restrictions on free speech, unaccountable police (remember that innocent Brazilian lad who was murdered on the London Underground, was anyone ever actually charged with that?), apparently universal use of stop and frisk powers against certain demographics... Need I go on? The place is an absolute shambles when it comes to freedom.

hatrickpatrick

Harmony Old-fashioned Verdict wrote: »

A technocratic overlord certainly has it's failings but the form exhibited by the EU is far from a failure.

The EU is pandering to the financial system at the expense of ordinary people, and stripping away national sovereignty one treaty at a time.
How you define failure is up to you, but if we're talking in terms of citizen autonomy and rule by the people for the people, the EU has been an absolute disaster.

KyussBishop

An interesting article I saw elsewhere earlier as well, pointing out how the EU may be in breach of certain human rights terms due to austerity - and particularly noteworthy, is a part of the article mentioning how the ECB has gone beyond its democratic mandate, and has become an even more undemocratic institution (meshes well, with my description of how the way the monetary system is managed, is undemocratic):
http://euobserver.com/social/122899

hatrickpatrick

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Government sponsored internet censorship, detainment of journalists under terrorism laws, deep packet inspection by intelligence (and proposed future DPI by ordinary police) recording everything UK internet users do, tyrannical restrictions on free speech, unaccountable police (remember that innocent Brazilian lad who was murdered on the London Underground, was anyone ever actually charged with that?), apparently universal use of stop and frisk powers against certain demographics... Need I go on? The place is an absolute shambles when it comes to freedom.

Tyrannical restrictions on free speech.

This is the country of Abu Hamza and Nick Griffin.

Free speech, although under some restrictions, is arguably better protected than almost any country in the world that I can think of.

hatrickpatrick

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Tyrannical restrictions on free speech.

This is the country of Abu Hamza and Nick Griffin.

Free speech, although under some restrictions, is arguably better protected than almost any country in the world that I can think of.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120328/04254118274/uk-they-jail-people-being-obnoxious-jerks-twitter.shtml

Can't see something like that happening here.

lufties

KyussBishop wrote: »

The Fed isn't like a private bank though, it's a central bank; the ownership of it and all, is interesting in its implications on who has influence over the fed, but it's not really of great consequence - the major thing of consequence, is how the private banks (not the fed) are pretty much able to create money through lending (as can be backed by Martin Wolf/Mervyn King etc.).

It's not the banking institutions that matter, it's the how the banking/monetary system work is what matters - and it works the same all over the world, so it's a massive problem of undemocratic power, that spans the world, and isn't limited to just the fed.


The problem is though, on a topic like this, is that how the monetary system works is complicated and often hard to understand/explain, especially the implications of how it works, so it's really easy for people to get distracted by easier-to-see but less consequential things, like the ownership of the fed - that's missing the real problem, by a really long way, and because that topic surrounding the fed is surrounded with conspiracy theories, it allows those views to be easily smeared/discredited.

Better to forget about fed ownership and stuff (it's interesting and worth exploring though, granted), and start by focusing discussion on how the monetary system actually lets banks create money, and the unjust/undemocratic power this grants them.

Its a bank owned by Elitest bankers, not the U.S government. The income tax that Americans pay is to pay interest on debt(I.E Fed loaned money). So I ask why is this. Why can't the U.S government kick this cartel out and make the Fed truly state owned, like JFK tried to do.

I agree with you that the monetary system is complicated and if you start going on about conspiracy theories you will be labelled a paranoid looney. From what I've seen happen in this world over the last 5 years, with regard to greed and distribution of wealth leaves me very skeptical.

I don't disagree with capitalism, It is better than the alternative. The thing is though the nature of capitalism is that if you gamble and lose, you do just that. What we have seen with regard to speculators and bankers being bailed out by governments at the expense of the taxpayer is not capitalism, but something very sinister.

hatrickpatrick

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120328/04254118274/uk-they-jail-people-being-obnoxious-jerks-twitter.shtml

Can't see something like that happening here.

Hmm, that's an interesting one alright. As quite rightly stated in the link, there is something chilling about somebody being thrown in jail for Twitter comments. I don't think he was about to round up a mob with pitchforks, and therefore I think his tweets, though idiotic, did not warrant being thrown in jail.

However, I'm quite confident that the UK will develop a more sane approach to tweets like this. Or be consistent at least.

Days 298

I miss FF. Everyone cheered their budgets..........

KyussBishop

KyussBishop wrote: »

There's no conspiracy, it's done in plain sight - it's pretty easy to pick out the propagandising in the news and online, there are entire industries of think-tanks dedicated to producing (often anti-science/anti-intellectual, the latter being the very definition of spreading ignorance) propaganda.

That may well be true, but you have to answer the question why do people both buy in to and not challenge the system, information is freely there for everyone in the days of the internet, and yet a large minority will believe the anti science anti intellectual why is that.

Why don't the vast majority want change what is stopping them.