One law for us...
Two criminals caught on CCTV cameras vandalising cars in a city street have not been taken to court to face prosecution - because police said they were "unemployed foreign nationals" and it would cost too much to bring them to justice.
One victim received a letter from an officer at Norfolk Police explaining that the pair would not be prosecuted because they were "both unemployed foreign nationals with no income and it was not in the public interest to pursue due to the expenses incurred in having a trial".
At least five cars were damaged during the vandalism spree in
Two men aged 19 and 29 were arrested on suspicion of damaging a number of cars, but a police spokeswoman said that after "careful consideration of all the evidence" they were handed an official police caution.
These people should not only have been charged they should have been deported after their prison sentence had been finished. I see no reason to continue to allow these people into this country. If they were British you can bet they would have been sent to prison.
11 comments:
At the very least they should have been immediately deported, not freed to commit more crimes, as they will almost certainly do now that they know they are above the law.
Disgraceful!
It all depends if you think damaging a car is a crime.
I think damaging the environment - which cars do, on a massive scale - is a far greater crime.
Car drivers, particularly those who make repeated, non-essential trips in huge, inefficient vehicles (because they can afford to) are just as much "criminals", and possibly even more so when you look at the real effects of what they are doing. Their collective lack of care for our planet is burning a vital resource (oil) for a non-vital purpose, and polluting our atmosphere. Whether or not you believe in Man Made Climate Change, the taste left in your mouth from walking down a busy road is evidence enough of serious pollution occurring - it's disgusting, it's offensive, it's destroying our only life support system, and it affects us all a lot more than most people realise.
To be honest, I think we should deport (say, from the planet) anybody who doesn't take great care not to damage the environment that we all have to live in. After all, if they don't like it here and can't allow the natives (humans who do care about the planet, animals, trees etc.) to live free from (environmental) crime, then they should leave.
Of course, this is an absurd idea - there's nowhere else to "leave" and go to, which is why we have a problem. We do not have another planet to go to when this one is ruined.
The party is over! The age of the car is coming to an end very soon, all because people (who probably don't think enough) believed their individual actions had absolutely zero effect on the bigger picture, or cared not what that effect was. Note that I am not expressly "anti-car" - there's a use for them, but it should be minimised as much as possible, shared where possible, and considered with great care every time a journey is made.
What is the sound of a billion tiny droplets of water hitting the ground? A storm! Nobody's (in)action is insignificant, everybody is responsible.
Now, because I am a reasonable person, I wouldn't seriously suggest that we "deport" people who don't respect and take care of the planet - even if that were possible. I would much rather they learned the error of their ways (which can clearly be demonstrated), gave up their cars (while they still have a choice in the matter) as I have done, and took a long hard look at the way they live their lives, and the reasons they do things.
Not asking "how will I drive to work?", but "why do I drive to work?", or even "why do I work at all?". Because really, what are you working for? It's certainly not to put food on your table - you could pretty much do that in a few hours a day without ever leaving your garden! There is no basis for the employment system other than to generate money for other people - we don't need employment at all, though working (to look after ourselves, family and friends) is of course necessary.
That's the point, and the answer to the question: all of this "employment" stuff is an unnecessary joke, and people wouldn't "need" cars (which wouldn't "need" to be made by other people) if they just worked closer to home, on things that directly affected them, such as growing the food to feed themselves and the people around them. You may say that's rather "anti-progress" or somesuch thing, but what is "progress" if it leads us to absolutely certain environmental devastation, to the point our species is going to die out anyway because the planet can no longer support us?
You do realise that modern food production uses a hell of a lot of oil, don't you? Once the oil runs out, the question isn't going to be "how will I drive to work?" but "how will we feed ourselves?". Is it really sensible to be putting that oil in luxury cars and burning it for fun? Does it even approach sensible?
I'm getting in there early and growing my own food right now - not wasting time with this "employment" rubbish. Sure, I work to earn money, but not much - just enough to live off. To be honest, I can't imagine being happier with my situation, or wanting more "stuff" - more material possessions are somewhat irrelevant when you live a life that is fulfilling and free.
I want to help everyone and anyone to do the same - so then they won't need employment, won't need cars, and will be a lot happier. Happy people do not need laws - respect for each other and for our environment is enough.
Back to the car vandals...
What is "the law" anyway, if not a bunch of rules decided by one group of people (those with the power) to control another group of people (those without the power)? I don't know the motives of the individuals concerned in this case, however I don't remember being asked whether I thought protecting property was more important than protecting the environment (because it certainly isn't).
Vandalism is a pretty braindead thing to do at times. However, at other times, it has undoubtedly saved the lives of countless thousands/millions of people. There is no moral or legal absolute - everything is relative to the individual scenario, and the motives of the person doing it.
Again I stress that I do not know the motive of the individuals in this case, but it just goes to show you can't really judge someone else's actions (at all, ever), because nothing is ever that simple. The least we can do is treat others as we expect them to treat us, which includes not destroying our living environment, and allow everyone the same freedom.
If for example, these individuals had only vandalised luxury cars - playthings of those rich enough not to care about such things as fuel efficiency, resource depletion or environmental damage (for the moment) - then I would say their act is entirely moral and justifiable.
The point is: life is not black and white, and neither is "crime".
In the same way that billions of people "justify" making unnecessary journeys in their cars ("What difference does my journey make? Everyone else is doing it so, it must be OK!") despite clear evidence of environmental devastation and the rising costs of extracting oil so we can set fire to it, it is entirely possible, nay, easy to demonstrate the moral argument for causing deliberate damage to the vehicles that perpetrate this "crime", in order that they can do it no more.
What constitutes a "crime" depends on your perspective. The "law" is an ass and is unenforceable by default, because it can never cope with the dynamic reality of our existence.
If it wasn't illegal to commit murder, would murder therefore be perfectly OK? Hardly!
Just because something is "the law" doesn't mean it should be obeyed, and just because something isn't "the law", doesn't make it perfectly OK.
The very premise of our entire society is based on a lie, so the laws created within that society are moot. To hell with the law - make your own truth and your own judgements based upon it! Start asking big questions, and you will find answers, but they aren't the ones you've been told all your life - far from it.
Me? I'm off to smash up a few luxury cars in between tending my garden. Good day to you.
I think damaging the environment - which cars do, on a massive scale - is a far greater crime.
You should read up a bit more on the environment. I think you will find that cows are actually worse for global warming than cars. Infact mans contribution is has been downgraded by the UN to 25%. I covered that here:
http://ydkmwayne.blogspot.com/2006/12/climate-change-blame-cows-london.html
I don't believe that we will have any affect on climate change. it has been happening all the time. at one stage the ice from the poles covered north america and parts of europe. Why did it recede? Where were all the very old cars?
I don't believe man can change global warming. its going to happen and we can't do anything to stop it.
So maybe you should be killing cows instead of smashing up cars or even killing farmers because they irresponsibly breed cows?
Who are those cows being farmed for on such a large scale, if not man? Or is it somehow not man's fault if the animals we're breeding for food cause the pollution?
Your argument doesn't stand up to even basic scrutiny, unless you somehow ignore the fact that the cows are being bred by man for man's consumption.
I don't eat cows, and yes, I realise that they have a massive effect on pollution - we should stop farming them of course, it's obvious! (Though too many people are in denial about that as well.)
I'm not a vegan, and neither am I opposed to the idea of killing animals to eat them - that's nature's way. I just wish it happened on a small, sustainable scale (like maybe one meat meal per week per person, which would be fine), not the crazy industrial, unsustainable way it happens at the moment. So for now, I don't eat meat, and I've massively reduced my consumption of milk, eggs, cheese and so on.
My post was not really about climate change, though on that I will say that although climate change does occur naturally, and we are not the primary cause, we are a catalyst accelerating the rate of change beyond safe levels, and that's what we need to stop. Climate change will continue to happen, but we need to get our impact on it right down to a sustainable level.
If you're right, we'd still lose nothing (and we'd gain a lot) in the grand scheme of things by being a bit more realistic and fair about our resource usage.
If I am right and you take no action because you don't see why you should, then what kind of future does that leave our children? Do you care?
Make no mistake - the Earth will survive just fine without us.
I'd rather not take that gamble, if you don't mind, because our odds are not good.
Anyway, the point I was really trying to make in my previous post, and the points that you didn't counter (fair enough, it was a long post), are that:
1. The law is not absolute, and often it is right to break the law.
2. Do you think it is sensible to allow unlimited burning of a limited and vital resource such as oil - a resource on which nearly all of the current human food chain depends?
3. Why do we actually need cars in the first place? Really? (Examine the root cause.)
4. If the state will not take action to adequately protect our living environment from the criminals who damage it and waste vital resources, what are we left with without breaking the law?
5. What are you going to eat when the oil runs out? Because you'd better start planting it soon.
Answers to those, if you please!
1. The law is not absolute, and often it is right to break the law.
It is never right to break the law if you are harming someone physically or financially.
Do you think it is sensible to allow unlimited burning of a limited and vital resource such as oil - a resource on which nearly all of the current human food chain depends?
No but there is no way to stop it. I think they have just found a new very large oil field in kazakhstan anyway.
3. Why do we actually need cars in the first place? Really? (Examine the root cause.)
To get around.
4. If the state will not take action to adequately protect our living environment from the criminals who damage it and waste vital resources, what are we left with without breaking the law?
Its not a crime to waste resources therefore they are not criminals.
5. What are you going to eat when the oil runs out? Because you'd better start planting it soon.
I haven't thought that far ahead yet. no one knows when the oil runs out. .they have theories but no one really knows. there are even conspiracy theories that oil is a renewable resource (I don't believe them). it was apparently found by soviet russia that it was a renewable resource.
In reply to youdontknowme's replies to my questions:
1. "It is never right to break the law if you are harming someone physically or financially."
OK, so the oil which your car runs on - where does it come from?
I presume you're aware of the fact that we're engaged in a war (arguably a war of somewhat questionable legality) at the moment? A war to find weapons of mass destruction? Nope! A war to bring democracy to the Iraqi people? Pull the other one! A war for control of oilfields? Now we're getting somewhere.
Is it OK to harm people (in other countries) to get oil for ourselves?
Ever heard of Ken Saro Wiwa and the Ogoni Eight? (Google it if not.) All they did was try to protect their homeland from Shell, but the Nigerian government executed them for it. Presumably you're OK with that?
Who's law gets upheld, who profits, who dies, few of us get to decide... it's all a matter of perspective, and luck. That's not "democratic", is it?
You can consider yourself lucky to never have experienced that kind of hardship, because if you'd been born to a different set of parents elsewhere on Earth, you might not be so lucky.
Finally, I notice you support the NO2ID campaign, so presumably you will break the law and refuse to register on the ID database? So you do support breaking the law, as long as it's a law you think it's appropriate for you to break? Where does that line get drawn?
2. "No but there is no way to stop it. I think they have just found a new very large oil field in kazakhstan anyway."
Even if they do continue to find more oil, the cost of extracting and processing it gets higher and higher. It is a finite resource - when we run out, we have run out. In many ways, I'm quite looking forward to it, because that will force all manner of necessary social change to come about. Unfortunately (to put it lightly), it will also mean that a lot of people die unnecessarily, but it's not as if the writing hasn't been on the wall for decades, just nobody thinks it will happen to them.
In the pre-oil age, there weren't so many of us to feed, and our food chain didn't depend on oil. Now there are billions more of us, and almost our entire food chain depends on oil. When that oil is gone, we are going to starve. Probably even those of us who aren't in denial and have made our own provisions for the event. Oh well.
But whatever, keep sticking it in that luxury car, and burn baby burn! Last I checked, you can't eat money anyway.
3. To get around.
But why do you need to get around so much, and so far? Do you need to travel 5 miles to a supermarket, or could you grow most of your own food and buy the rest from local producers? Do you need to travel 30 miles each way to work, or could you just sack your job off, tell the bank to go f*ck themselves (with everyone else who is in the same boat) and build a nice little self-sufficient community? All that's needed is to stick together, because there are always more of us (the exploited) than them (the exploiters).
You do not NEED a car. Humans managed without cars for millennia, and many people all over the world still get by just fine without them. Buses, trains, bikes, horses, space hoppers... hell, I don't care, they all work great, and none of them wreck the planet quite like the personal automobile does.
The age of cars is coming to an end - it's time to adapt and move on, not cling to it's stinking corpse for as long as possible.
4. "Its not a crime to waste resources therefore they are not criminals."
You're missing the point again! Why is it not a crime? Because those in power don't think it should be one.
Hey I know, if I ever get into power, I'll declare it perfectly legal for me to do whatever the hell I like. For my first leisure activity, I shall start by burning things that you need in order to stay alive... perhaps your house. Hey, it's legal (under my crappy law), so no problems!
The point you've missed: the law is not designed to protect any of us from anything. All it does is enforce property rights.
5. "I haven't thought that far ahead yet. no one knows when the oil runs out. .they have theories but no one really knows. there are even conspiracy theories that oil is a renewable resource (I don't believe them). it was apparently found by soviet russia that it was a renewable resource."
If that's the best you can come up with, I don't fancy your chances much when (not if) it happens! If you don't want to starve, I'd suggest you start reading up on permaculture, and get your wellies on pronto.
I'm in my late 20s, and unless you're significantly older than me, the sh1t is going to hit the fan during our lifetimes.
Yet there you are, worrying about "immigrants"...? Wake up! We're all in the same boat, and we are all royally screwed unless we take action to live more sustainably right now. Starvation and disease does not discriminate based on skin colour or country of origin - only (some of) those who learn to adapt will survive.
Bollocks to politicians and their crappy green taxes - those are not going to solve anything. The best thing we could to do maximise our chances of survival is stop listening to their tripe, get rid of the lot of them, and concentrate on building self-sufficient communities.
So, tell me again why I should worry about "immigrants"...? I've got bigger fish to fry, mate.
OK, so the oil which your car runs on - where does it come from?
My guess the middle east.
I presume you're aware of the fact that we're engaged in a war (arguably a war of somewhat questionable legality) at the moment? A war to find weapons of mass destruction? Nope! A war to bring democracy to the Iraqi people? Pull the other one! A war for control of oilfields? Now we're getting somewhere.
I know. I never denied that we were at war because of that
Is it OK to harm people (in other countries) to get oil for ourselves?
No
Ever heard of Ken Saro Wiwa and the Ogoni Eight? (Google it if not.) All they did was try to protect their homeland from Shell, but the Nigerian government executed them for it. Presumably you're OK with that?
I think it’s wrong. Did these people try and get elected and try and change it democratically or did they use terrorism?
Who's law gets upheld, who profits, who dies, few of us get to decide... it's all a matter of perspective, and luck. That's not "democratic", is it?
It is if you vote for it…
Finally, I notice you support the NO2ID campaign, so presumably you will break the law and refuse to register on the ID database? So you do support breaking the law, as long as it's a law you think it's appropriate for you to break? Where does that line get drawn?
I support breaking the law as long as you don’t physically or financially hurt anyone.
3. To get around.
But why do you need to get around so much, and so far? Do you need to travel 5 miles to a supermarket, or could you grow most of your own food and buy the rest from local producers?
It’s not that easy. I don’t have a back garden just like many of the people near me. There is a lot of antisocial behaviour and if I was to grow food in my garden it probably would be dug up within a week. My family do shop at markets though.
Do you need to travel 30 miles each way to work, or could you just sack your job off, tell the bank to go f*ck themselves (with everyone else who is in the same boat) and build a nice little self-sufficient community? All that's needed is to stick together, because there are always more of us (the exploited) than them (the exploiters).
You are obviously not living in the real world. The real world does not work like this. Civilisation is passed just working to pay for food. People now want to work for big houses and so they can afford leisure time.
4. "Its not a crime to waste resources therefore they are not criminals."
Why is it not a crime? Because those in power don't think it should be one.
Those in power who people vote for…
Hey I know, if I ever get into power, I'll declare it perfectly legal for me to do whatever the hell I like. For my first leisure activity, I shall start by burning things that you need in order to stay alive... perhaps your house. Hey, it's legal (under my crappy law), so no problems!
By all means try and get yourself elected with that attitude. If you get elected go ahead.
The point you've missed: the law is not designed to protect any of us from anything. All it does is enforce property rights.
So murder doesn’t get investigated? The law should protect property right. If you worked for it and you paid for it why shouldn’t you own it?
I'm in my late 20s, and unless you're significantly older than me, the sh1t is going to hit the fan during our lifetimes.
I am 19.
Yet there you are, worrying about "immigrants"...? Wake up! We're all in the same boat, and we are all royally screwed unless we take action to live more sustainably right now. Starvation and disease does not discriminate based on skin colour or country of origin - only (some of) those who learn to adapt will survive.
You advocate sustainable communities but how can we have sustainable communities when we have hundreds of thousands of people coming here every year. We should be aiming to reduce our population. Infact the Optimum Population Trust has said that the sustainable population for Britain is 30 million which is half of what we have now. Immigration is just going to make that problem worse.
Bollocks to politicians and their crappy green taxes - those are not going to solve anything.
That’s what I have been saying.
So, tell me again why I should worry about "immigrants"...? I've got bigger fish to fry, mate.
The amount of people we have is the problem in creating sustainable communities. They cannot be created if we are going to import more and more people.
Replying again to youdontknowme:
I think it’s wrong. Did these people try and get elected and try and change it democratically or did they use terrorism?
They started a non-violent grass-roots movement that got too successful. Shell were only too happy when the Nigerian government arrested them (presumably to protect economic interests) and had them executed for spurious offences. If you want to know what living under a fascist government would be like, there's your clue.
Not that the Nigerian government was actually fully fascist, but when corporate interests mix with excessive power, people who just happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time end up dead. You may laugh - why should you care? But what's to stop it happening to you, if the right/wrong government come into power?
We need solidarity, uproar, revolt and revolution when things like this happen, because that's our only protection against it happening to ourselves.
It is if you vote for it...
Every tried to change anything by voting? My guess is probably not, bearing in mind your age (no offence intended).
Write to your MP about something, and then you'll find out why nothing changes, because "representative democracy" isn't.
If voting changed anything, they'd outlaw it.
Besides, how can I vote for a completely new system? Or how can I vote for someone to give me my freedom - see the logical impossibility there?
I support breaking the law as long as you don’t physically or financially hurt anyone.
So you agree that the law is not absolute?
Taking natural resources from people all over the world is financially and physically hurting them, it's just not directly hurting YOU (yet).
What right do we have to steal from other countries? Because that's what the oil industry (and many others) do on a continual basis.
It’s not that easy. I don’t have a back garden just like many of the people near me. There is a lot of antisocial behaviour and if I was to grow food in my garden it probably would be dug up within a week. My family do shop at markets though.
You can get an allotment - the cost is minimal (like 20 quid a year), and the council has a legal obligation to make efforts to give you one.
As for the "antisocial behaviour" - what have you personally tried doing about it?
Could it be that the "antisocial" among us are simply no longer willing to play any role in an inherently unfair and disempowering system that is not interested in them? Whether they're consciously aware of it or not, rebellion against the system is a natural outcome of something so completely broken as capitalism.
You are obviously not living in the real world. The real world does not work like this. Civilisation is passed just working to pay for food. People now want to work for big houses and so they can afford leisure time.
"The real world does not work like this" is a circular (and thus false) argument. The real world does not work like this because the real world does not work like this proves nothing. If we want to change "the real world" then we can change it, or at least we could if governments, police and those with the money would stop doing everything they can (short of killing us, although not always even that) to prevent us changing it.
Leisure time is not something that should be "affordable", because the very concept of employment is a lie. What does your boss do, except sell your labour at a higher rate than you can, and cream off the profits for himself? If we refused employment and concentrated on self-sufficiency, we'd have plenty of leisure time. I am living proof - though I still do some casual work in a self employed capacity, as I'm still working on my self sufficiency. But the reality is that it IS possible, and becomes possible the moment you stop believing the employment lie. There are alternative and perfectly legal modes of living that do not require employment, and do not require welfare either. I'm not saying they are easy, but they are fulfilling in many other ways that money just cannot buy.
Sure, civilisation is past working for just food, and look what a mess it's got us into! Our current lifestyles are not sustainable, though I get the impression you don't really appreciate what that means.
If everyone lived like we do in the UK, we would require something like 4 planet Earths to sustain it. If everyone lived like an average American, the number is something like 7 Earths to be sustainable at current levels of consumption. What this means is that you (and probably I too) are using the resources that correctly belong to four other people, which means each of them (wherever they are) is getting a measly amount compared to us.
The reason we have a comfy life here in the UK is because people all over the world are suffering (being robbed blind, actually) for us. Just be glad you aren't one of them, and hope that there's no such thing as reincarnation.
In short, civilisation is going to wipe itself out pretty soon if we continue on our current path, because this unsustainable route is the path of total destruction for us all.
Those in power who people vote for...
Try voting for the BNP (or anyone else for that matter) and see how far you get - welcome to the First Past The Post voting system.
When NuLabour came to power they became just as right wing as the Tories (albeit with a nasty authoritarian failed socialist tint to it.)
The thing is, whoever gets "in power" isn't really in power! They are simply the puppets of corporations, who always get their way, and who care not a jot what you think of this, as long as you keep buying their products and don't get in the way of profits.
Besides, even if the BNP did get "into power" (which they won't, ever), their influence would be reduced to mere puppets of the same corporations. Apart from the racist policies, nothing much would change, because the apparatus of power is largely unchanged.
When have the right wing (even the moderate right wing) ever cared about working class people anyway? Fascism by definition is inherently anti working class, and always supports corporate interests above those of the people (yes, even the natives).
By all means try and get yourself elected with that attitude. If you get elected go ahead.
I will never get elected because I wouldn't bother in the first place - it's a total waste of effort, and a farce from bottom to top.
The politicians are powerless to do anything but that which the corporations demand. If a corporation decided to remove you from your home, they would get their way one way or another, and the state would do nothing to protect you - it happens time and time again, all over the world, and it will happen worse under a far-right government.
Government is not, and will never represent "power to the people" or anything like that - it's all about keeping the power centralised, for absolute control by the elite.
So murder doesn’t get investigated?
Murder certainly does get investigated if you're a police officer. What about if you're a Brazilian electrician who just happens to be running to catch a train?
There are murder investigations and there are murder investigations.
The law should protect property right. If you worked for it and you paid for it why shouldn’t you own it?
What is "ownership" anyway? Do you really own anything other than your body? I don't think you do. Sure, we can say "this is my car", because we might agree that it is, but do you actually own (in the fullest sense of the word) that car? Who owns the metal in the ground, mined to make the car? Who owns the driveway upon which it is parked? Who owns the petrol in the tank? Is the entire planet just a collection of lots to be bought and sold to the highest bidder? Is that not theft from the rest of us? Theft on such a gigantic scale it makes your head explode trying to think about it?
Every transaction that involves the selling of natural resources is caked in the blood of those who died so others could claim the land as "theirs". But nobody actually owns anything - our entire surroundings are, for all intents and purposes, public property, or rather nobody's "property", just something we can make use of while we're alive, and something we should use wisely and carefully, if at all, so that it's sustained for future generations.
I am 19.
Good, then you still have a few years to live in "the real world" and with a bit of luck realise how flawed your outlook is.
You advocate sustainable communities but how can we have sustainable communities when we have hundreds of thousands of people coming here every year. We should be aiming to reduce our population. Infact the Optimum Population Trust has said that the sustainable population for Britain is 30 million which is half of what we have now. Immigration is just going to make that problem worse.
The global system (capitalism) is inherently unfair. Until that is destroyed completely, worldwide (and when it happens, it will happen with immense speed), any talk of trying to limit immigration is mere hot air. You want capitalism and the free market? Live with the consequences! People want to come here because we are an advantaged country.
If you want to sort out the "immigration problem" (which by the way is a work of bad fiction), then destroy all national borders, dismantle all states, and create a worldwide society that is fair for EVERYONE, and ruled by no-one. Then we'll talk about sustainable communities.
(Bollocks to politicians...) That’s what I have been saying.
But you honestly think the BNP politicians would be any better? Get real!
If you are frustrated and working class (or even middle class), the BNP have not got your interests at heart! No politicians have, or ever will. The class with power is not interested in the class with no power, and unless you're a politician or big business owner yourself, you are not in the class with power.
I'm just sorry to see you pinning all your hopes on such a dire group of losers, because I know fully that your hopes will be shattered should they ever come to power (which they won't).
The BNP are not your friends, and they will only protect your interests as long as it suits them to do so. When it becomes possible to dispose of you and attain more power for themselves, they won't even think twice.
The amount of people we have is the problem in creating sustainable communities. They cannot be created if we are going to import more and more people.
So destroy capitalism, scale down our cushy lifestyle to a realistic level, and the "immigrant problem" vanishes overnight. You really don't have a choice in the matter - ultimately it's this or our total destruction.
At the moment, we (the rich countries) are stealing from the majority of the world, and then being surprised when they turn up here to collect what is theirs. There will be no peace without a fair and just system for all people worldwide, and such a system can never come from any government, because the very concept of governor and governed is inherently unjust.
Government? Forget it! (Or rather: make it irrelevant and extinct, before it does that to us!)
TEXT
We need solidarity, uproar, revolt and revolution when things like this happen, because that's our only protection against it happening to ourselves.
I agree.
Every tried to change anything by voting? My guess is probably not, bearing in mind your age (no offence intended).
Write to your MP about something, and then you'll find out why nothing changes, because "representative democracy" isn't.
If voting changed anything, they'd outlaw it.
Besides, how can I vote for a completely new system? Or how can I vote for someone to give me my freedom - see the logical impossibility there?
This is why I have been advocating more democracy. We need citizens initiatives like they have in Switzerland and in some states in America. We need recall elections like they have in America. The government should never hold all the power. We need government to be weaker than they are now.
I have also been advocating a type of trilateral chamber instead of a bilateral one we have at present.
So you agree that the law is not absolute?
Sometimes.
Taking natural resources from people all over the world is financially and physically hurting them, it's just not directly hurting YOU (yet)
This is why immigration also harms them. We are literally plundering the third world of medical personal. We have left vast swathes of Africa without any doctors or nurses. In one African country they had to close down the hospital in the capital because they never had any nurses because they all left.
What right do we have to steal from other countries? Because that's what the oil industry (and many others) do on a continual basis.
It isn’t stealing if they let us do it.
You can get an allotment - the cost is minimal (like 20 quid a year), and the council has a legal obligation to make efforts to give you one.
There are allotments nearby but I doubt it will provide for a family of 4 and a cat.
As for the "antisocial behaviour" - what have you personally tried doing about it?
I am standing as a councillor in May. Does that count?
If we refused employment and concentrated on self-sufficiency, we'd have plenty of leisure time
Really? Could you afford to go to the cinema? Could you afford to be pampered in a hotel.
I am living proof - though I still do some casual work in a self employed capacity, as I'm still working on my self sufficiency. But the reality is that it IS possible, and becomes possible the moment you stop believing the employment lie
Do you live alone?
Try voting for the BNP (or anyone else for that matter) and see how far you get - welcome to the First Past The Post voting system.
I have said on my blog that we should change the voting system a little. I think we should elect our MPs like Finland elect their president.
With the first past the post system I think it will be easier for the BNP to be elected.
The thing is, whoever gets "in power" isn't really in power! They are simply the puppets of corporations, who always get their way, and who care not a jot what you think of this, as long as you keep buying their products and don't get in the way of profits.
Which is why we need more direct democracy and why the BNP campaign for it.
When have the right wing (even the moderate right wing) ever cared about working class people anyway?
Look at BNP policies. They aren’t fascist and they are far more leftwing than rightwing
Murder certainly does get investigated if you're a police officer. What about if you're a Brazilian electrician who just happens to be running to catch a train?
The police are being prosecuted under health and safety laws.
Do you really own anything other than your body?
Yes.
do you actually own (in the fullest sense of the word) that car?
Yes
Who owns the metal in the ground, mined to make the car?
The company that mined it
Who owns the driveway upon which it is parked?
It depends on whether I own the property.
Who owns the petrol in the tank?
Depends who paid for it.
Is the entire planet just a collection of lots to be bought and sold to the highest bidder?
Yes if the government wants to sell it
Is that not theft from the rest of us?
You didn’t own it in the first place so no.
You want capitalism and the free market?
I am against the free market and I am for limited capitalism.
But you honestly think the BNP politicians would be any better? Get real!
Why wouldn’t they?
So destroy capitalism, scale down our cushy lifestyle to a realistic level
Which is what the BNP have been saying. They want a consumption tax on none essential goods.
(We need solidarity, uproar, revolt and revolution when things like this happen, because that's our only protection against it happening to ourselves.) I agree.
Then how on Earth can you justify supporting a fascist party? Do you have any idea what fascists do when people stand in the way of corporate and government interests? (It involves death - a lot of death.)
Do you know what it's like to lose a loved one, someone really close to you? Now think about that on a massive scale, like for example, losing everyone you know, because they were murdered by the state. How can you ever justify supporting those who either deny or condone the Holocaust? (I mean, if anything, fascism and nationalism is un-British almost by definition, and thank goodness for that.)
This is why I have been advocating more democracy. We need citizens initiatives like they have in Switzerland and in some states in America. We need recall elections like they have in America. The government should never hold all the power. We need government to be weaker than they are now.
This will not happen under an authoritarian right-wing government. If you want the government to have less power, you need to be going in the direction of libertarianism, not authoritarianism. The BNP, by nature of their policies, are inherently authoritarian.
This is why immigration also harms them. We are literally plundering the third world of medical personal. We have left vast swathes of Africa without any doctors or nurses. In one African country they had to close down the hospital in the capital because they never had any nurses because they all left.
But you aren't recognising why the immigration is happening! If we take the natural resources from those countries, we put the profit into the hands of a few big business leaders, not the people who live there. If the farmers there are growing for-profit crops for us rather than food for their local area, the people will not be able to eat in a sustainable and affordable manner (eg. it's how we get salad in winter). If pharmaceutical companies set the cost of medicine higher than people in those countries can afford, millions die of easily preventable diseases. It is no wonder the skilled people are emigrating to come here, because we are stealing (and have done for centuries) everything from them and their people. They have nothing, because we have taken or are taking it all, and yes, now we are taking their people too, because the money is better here.
This is our fault, and until we stop and try to make things fair for everyone worldwide, it is never going to change.
It isn’t stealing if they let us do it.
Natural resources belong to everybody and nobody in equal proportion. It's not "letting us do it" if we "ask them" by using military or paramilitary force, and if you look back through history, you will see time and time again that this is always how it happens. I mean, it's happening in Iraq right this second!
There are allotments nearby but I doubt it will provide for a family of 4 and a cat.
The cat is a difficult one, since they are obligate carnivores, though cat food is hardly expensive so it's doable on a deliberately low income. You actually can feed them off plant sources of taurine (which is what they have to eat meat for), but the process of extracting it is rather complicated and wasteful, and not something I intend to get into. Cat food is here to stay, for the moment, though in the future, I am going to try and make arrangements with a local butcher to have cat food made from offcuts of locally sourced meat, rather than cans from a factory. I have friends in America with 7 cats who they feed like this.
As for an allotment providing for a family of four, it depends on the size of the allotment (though there are no rules against having two or more), but if you eat seasonally and plant sensibly, you should be able to get a huge quantity of great tasting organic food for yourselves. See Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall (River Cottage Cookbook) and similar for how it's done.
I am standing as a councillor in May. Does that count?
I don't think so really. Being in some position of power is not going to make antisocial behaviour go away, when the problem that causes it in the first place is the very existence of unfair systems of power. You can't "fix" antisocial behaviour using some position of "authority" from high up, it just doesn't work like that.
I have helped set up an open community centre in an impoverished area nearby (which massively helps that area, although really my part in it was quite small), done work at a community gardening project, cooked large meals in a social centre, and generally helped out with outreach to people who feel powerless to make any difference. It was all really good fun, and it has made me a lot of friends as well as helping people who actually need it. You can make a massive difference, but you have to work from the bottom up, not the top down.
Really? Could you afford to go to the cinema? Could you afford to be pampered in a hotel.
Why the hell would I want to do either of those? Damn, if that's your idea of "leisure", no wonder you can't see my side of this.
Paying the best part of ten quid to be cooped up in a big dark room with a hundred people rustling popcorn isn't my idea of fun. I like watching films, but I'd rather do it at my house, or someone else's house, and I'm not so vain I have to see stuff immediately when it comes out - I'll happily borrow the DVD off a friend.
As for being pampered in a hotel - why bother? I get pampered by my girlfriend (and return the favour) on a continual basis, for free, and it's more than lovely.
I can afford to go for a reasonable number of beers with my friends. I can also afford to play in two bands, and to go for walks in the woods with my girlfriend, and to go on long bike rides in the summer, and to go to amazing outdoor raves in the middle of nowhere. I also fix bikes, build walls, paint stuff, write music, make compost, make bread, grow apple trees to make cider, and I plan to get into wine making quite soon too. My life is so busy I barely have any specific time for "leisure", but that's because I incorporate interesting and fun things into the stuff I do every day anyway, so it doesn't really matter.
Fun is not something you can purchase from a company - that's just a cheap imitation of the real thing. Fun can be had for free, when you know how to have it, and it starts by removing (or minimising) money from the equation.
I actually got rid of my TV about six months ago because I never have time to watch it any more!
Do you live alone?
Nope. Me, girlfriend, one housemate (though she's moving out soon, as we're settling down and need more space) and a cat.
I also avoid buying just about anything other than food and drink. Sometimes it's necessary, but not very often. Much of the things I have are inherited or recycled from other people who didn't want them. When I need something specific, I try Freecycle, Ebay or charity shops, and have done pretty well so far.
Admittedly I still have quite a few things from before my realisation that consumerism is boring and destructive (which has been a gradual process anyway), such as a 4-year old computer, still going strong. I also restore old computers to usefulness (so people can go online and do word processing), repair broken stereos and that kind of thing. Nothing like powering up and using some device you have just saved from going into landfill.
Generosity is like a circle - once you start giving people stuff and expecting nothing back, you'll find they often start giving you stuff anyway.
I have said on my blog that we should change the voting system a little. I think we should elect our MPs like Finland elect their president.
OK, well I haven't been reading your blog for more than a couple of days.
I don't think we should elect any MPs at all, because I am quite capable of representing myself, organising non-hierarchical groups, and electing temporary delegates to pass on the concensus of the group where necessary / desirable. I am also quite capable of walking away from a group when it's no longer mutually beneficial to work with them. It all begins with understanding and respect for other people's views (and different needs), and recognising a good compromise when you see one.
Besides, if I was to vote for anything, I don't want to vote for a political party, I want to vote on specific issues. The technology to do this is already in place (eg. see any of the reality TV shows and use your imagination a bit), but there is no way those in government would ever willingly give up their power and allow people a direct say in matters of importance.
Power does not get given up - it must be taken back and distributed equally (de-centralised) so that recapturing it from the people is impossible. Of course, the state would use everything in it's power (including martial law) to prevent this happening, should it ever look likely, because the state is not fond of giving away it's control.
With the first past the post system I think it will be easier for the BNP to be elected.
Is that what you really mean? I would have thought that actually it would be easier for the BNP to be elected if proportional representation or some other kind of "fairer" system came in, instead of FPTP, because FPTP is largely responsible for keeping Greens, BNP and other minority parties out of the commons.
Which is why we need more direct democracy and why the BNP campaign for it.
The BNP only campaign for direct democracy if you are white and British, which is inherently undemocratic.
Look at BNP policies. They aren’t fascist and they are far more leftwing than rightwing
No, they are fascist and right wing to the core, you just don't seem to know how to spot that, sorry.
The police are being prosecuted under health and safety laws.
The police are nothing more than the boot boys of the state, and we would do far better protecting our own communities without them. In fact, if you look back to the formation of the first police force in the UK (The Peelers), there were all manner of protests at the time, because people feared (correctly) that it would go on to become a force that harassed opponents of the government, stopped legitimate protests and suppressed freedom of speech. The first police officer was sacked after only four hours in the job for being a drunkard. Of the first 2800 police, only 600 kept their jobs.
The police are the enemy, not the friend, of the ordinary citizen (though of course many police do not realise this). There are millions of better ways to serve your community.
(Do you really own anything other than your body?) Yes.
I beg to differ. Other than because of agreement (and often "agreement" as in "agree or die") between various people about "who this belongs to", you own nothing other than your body.
(do you actually own (in the fullest sense of the word) that car?) Yes
I'm afraid it's only by agreement again. There is no such thing (in real concrete terms) as "private property" - it's simply the manifestation of an agreement (again, often under threat), which if you trace it's origins back over millennia has always come to those who used murder and violence to take and control land, and thus had the resources to buy things.
There is no such thing as "ownership" of anything except your own body.
(Who owns the metal in the ground, mined to make the car?) The company that mined it
Surely it belongs to the people who live there? Or at least, it would do if rich landowners hadn't forced them off their land at gunpoint in order to force them to work in the mines or starve. (I'm not making this up you know - it's been happening since the dawn of "civilisation".)
It depends on whether I own the property.
Depends who paid for it.
Same, same.
(Is the entire planet just a collection of lots to be bought and sold to the highest bidder?) Yes if the government wants to sell it
But what if it's was never for sale in the first place? What if that entire idea was a work of fiction and enforced by violence? That is the reality - the planet is not for sale, because it belongs to nobody (and thus it belongs to everybody equally, to a point).
You have no right to sell what isn't yours in the first place - but of course that doesn't matter if you can just kill or suppress anyone who points that out.
(Is that not theft from the rest of us?) You didn’t own it in the first place so no.
Neither did they! Nobody owns anything - in the first instance, they just took it by force, and killed anyone who stood in the way, and that continues right up to this day. Property is theft, really (though I am hardly whiter than white myself, but in my defence nearly everything I "own" is stuff I bought before I realised this).
I am against the free market and I am for limited capitalism.
Capitalism is not for limited capitalism. Capitalism is for unlimited growth, and while capitalism controls the power (which it will do, until we smash it, or until it runs out of resources to consume and we all die anyway), your opinion does not matter in the slightest.
(But you honestly think the BNP politicians would be any better? Get real!) Why wouldn’t they?
When has any politician ever done what is beneficial for the masses? The very nature of politicians "representing" us means that they can't, because it is impossible for one person to "represent" others who may have polar opposite views on something. The very "best" a politician can do is force the will of the majority on a minority, which is never going to be satisfactory.
Ironically, as a member of the BNP, I suspect you know only too well what it feels like to be in a minority and have the will of the majority forced upon you?
Though I disagree with your ideas probably almost completely, I respect your right to have them (however distasteful I find them), and would never force my views on you, though as I'm sure you can tell, I might try to persuade you to think about your views again, until such time as you tell me to get lost!
Politics and politicians is all about forcing the will of the majority onto the minority, and if you are in the minority, it's just tough luck. That is not a system of progress, it is a system of inherent oppression, because no matter who is in charge of the system, it is impossible to eliminate it's inherently oppressive nature (because you can't "approximate" polar opposite views to a satisfactory middle ground that can be "represented"). Under this system, someone always loses.
There's no government like no government!
Which is what the BNP have been saying. They want a consumption tax on none essential goods.
Yet you are against "green taxes"...? Not very consistent if you ask me.
Then how on Earth can you justify supporting a fascist party?
Read their manifesto. They are not fascist.
How can you ever justify supporting those who either deny or condone the Holocaust?
The BNP neither deny or condone it. If they did either do you think they would have jews in the party?
The BNP, by nature of their policies, are inherently authoritarian.
If you look at their policies they aren’t. they are in favour of far more democracy and freedom than me.
If we take the natural resources from those countries, we put the profit into the hands of a few big business leaders, not the people who live there
That is unfortunate. Either way we should stop plundering the third world of its most needed resource: life
If the farmers there are growing for-profit crops for us rather than food for their local area, the people will not be able to eat in a sustainable and affordable manner
Which is why we should be buying from this country.
If pharmaceutical companies set the cost of medicine higher than people in those countries can afford, millions die of easily preventable diseases
What are they supposed to do? Set the cost so low that they can’t make money?
Paying the best part of ten quid to be cooped up in a big dark room with a hundred people rustling popcorn isn't my idea of fun.
Its 5 quid here.
Besides, if I was to vote for anything, I don't want to vote for a political party, I want to vote on specific issues
Which is what initiatives and referendums are.
The technology to do this is already in place (eg. see any of the reality TV shows and use your imagination a bit), but there is no way those in government would ever willingly give up their power and allow people a direct say in matters of importance.
The BNP have said we should allow people to vote online.
Power does not get given up - it must be taken back and distributed equally (de-centralised)
I agree and so does the BNP.
Is that what you really mean? I would have thought that actually it would be easier for the BNP to be elected if proportional representation or some other kind of "fairer" system came in, instead of FPTP, because FPTP is largely responsible for keeping Greens, BNP and other minority parties out of the commons.
You are right that it is responsible for keeping minority parties out but I am not planning on the BNP being a minority party forever. The BNP will never get 50% of the vote. No party has done that in 50 years and none of the parties we have at present will ever get into a coalition with the BNP. Look at Belgium. There version of the BNP is the largest party yet they can’t get into power because no party will go into a coalition.
The BNP only campaign for direct democracy if you are white and British, which is inherently undemocratic.
No they don’t. Look at their policies.
No, they are fascist and right wing to the core, you just don't seem to know how to spot that, sorry.
If you actually look at their policies you will see that they are leftwing. Lets say the leadership of the BNP are racist and have been lying through their teeth since nick griffin became leader. The problem now is that they have convinced so many people that the membership has more than tripled. These people also have voting rights so what may have started out as a lie can no longer be a lie because those new members believe in the policies. They believe that they are right and just and they will carry those policies forward.
Surely it belongs to the people who live there?
If they had the resources to mine it then it would be.
But what if it's was never for sale in the first place?
Whatever is in the boarders of the country is owned by the country unless the rulers of that country sell it.
When has any politician ever done what is beneficial for the masses?
Clement Attlee and the NHS.
Ironically, as a member of the BNP, I suspect you know only too well what it feels like to be in a minority and have the will of the majority forced upon you?
And the BNP are working to govern this country.
Post a Comment