Re: Parliament isn't working is it?
- From: MM <kylix_is@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2007 11:33:27 +0000
On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 20:27:58 -0000, "Andrew McGee"
<amhome@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
As I suggested in my earlier post, your lsit of changes is not mine - see
comments below:
"Turk182" <digitalradiouk@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:d1dfa859-5eda-4493-9c2b-6e596945b1fd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On 17 Nov, 18:22, allan tracy <thunderbird57...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Look they've tried banning everything and it doesn't work, in fact,
just gets worse.
Let the people decide how they want to live their lives and you might
just be pleasantly surprised.
Parliament is working only too well that's how come we've ended up
with so many f**king laws.
You control freaks just don't get it do you - control doesn't work -
so f**k off and leave us all alone and just you worry about yourself
OK and then we can all see to ourselves.
The control which is breaking us is the control we've given to
companies to hire psychologists to design methods to break down human
defences and expolit without restraint. The 'control' I would like to
see, would involve giving the people the freedom to live and breathe
without being hunted and expoited by corporations who misrepresent
their product's, especially the dangers. You may be strong willed,
but many people have an underdeveloped and vulnerable sense of self.
They can be easily seduced by the trick messages and
misrepresentations they are forced to ingest. Some regard these
people as thick and deserving of misfortune - I think that society has
groomed them to be exploited and I feel society should now offer some
degree of protection.
Totally, utterly wrong. Freedom includes the freedom to screw up and take
the consequences. This is just a different version of the nanny state.
For example, when it is discovered that a
company has extended credit to someone who couldn't afford it, perhaps
they should lose the right to hound that person for the debt.
Absolutely appalling idea. The change we need is to a culture in which
incurring excessive debts and failing to repay them is regarded as
disgraceful conduct worthy of the strongest censure and no sympathy at all.
Another > would be a pub being closed for a night when it is found to have
sold
drink to a drunk
. Another would be Microsoft being partly liable for
the gambling debts of the gambling addicts who responded to their
adverts.
Again, freedom means that people have the freedom to become addicted to
gambling and must then bear the consequences (I make no comment on the
extent to which Microsoft is or is not the proper target for your wrath
anyway)
No - again you seem to want a nanny state, not a free society at all.
The BBC has given nothing but enthusiastic promotion for the lottery.
Why? Why hasn't this great public broadcaster once ever spoken of
the possible negative issues around gambling addiction in respect og
the national lottery? If it is found that a viewer was drawn into
debt by BBC promotion of gambling, they should run the risk of being
liable in certain circumstances.
I do not believe a commercial free-for-all is good. You would expect
a bus company to be liable for not checking the safety of the vehicles
should someone be harmed, so why should we not impose consequences for
gambling promoters for reckless exploitation?
At the moment there are few ethical consequences for companies who
expolit human weakness, even though they may partly contribute to the
destruction of a life.
I want freedom, not control
No you don't - you just want a different form of control. By all means let
us have freedom, but let us accept that in a free society the strong will
prosper and the weak will suffer because the weak will (sometimes) use their
freedom in ways which are harmful to them.
I would prefer to see much less concern with safety and with so-called
exploitation. My ideal government would have very little concern for the
health and safety of its citizens, because it would regard these as
essentially private questions. It would put the primary responsibility for
the well-being of individuals firmly where it belongs - on the individuals
themselves - and in so doing it would recognise the freedom of those
individuals to decide for themselves what risks to take. Of course it would
also follow that it would not be inclined to pick up the pieces when they
took imprudent risks and got themselves into difficulties.
So, yes, I am in favour fo freedom, and I deplore much of what goes in
Parliament and have a low opinion of many MPs and of government generally.
But if you have any notion that there is a real consensus about what changes
are required, then may I suggest to you that you could be under a
misapprehension (not of course that my ideas are necessarily or inherently
better than yours, not indeed more generally accepted - I merely make the
point that agreeing that the place is going to hell in a handcart is a very
different thing from agreeing on the solution).
My solution would be to remove 95% of all laws and keep only major
ones, like not committing murder. Then let the devil take the
hindmost. Most communities would very quickly learn that it's either
sink or swim, and since the natural reaction of people is to survive,
they would soon discover ways of providing their own checks and
balances at a local level. We really should revert to being the
animals we are, at least for a few centuries.
My reactions to the state's worries?
Bird flu? Who cares!
Home-grown Muslim terror attacks? Who cares!
Children kill themselves climbing trees or exploring caves. Who cares!
People are killed on the roads. Who cares!
And so on.
Ooh, it's brutal! But powerul medicine often tastes foul.
MM
.
- Prev by Date: Re: Langham out already....
- Next by Date: Re: Langham out already....
- Previous by thread: Sion Jenkins , followup
- Next by thread: Re: Parliament isn't working is it?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
