Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Don't be such a wuss Brendan. Call yourself man. You haven't lived until you've had a Zombie in the Black Cherry. It should be part of the EDF initiation rights.


Agree with you about the Absinthe Mockney, it spoils it completely as it's all you can taste until you're halfway through.

I am rather biased. Not available in ED, but lovely stuff. I have wondered if I could convince Black Cherry to carry the black or gold. The old is too pricey for a cocktail, but you wouldn't want to spoil it with a mixer anyway. What a rum!! :)-D

2 topics dear to the Forum's heart on the comment pages today


Forget your bias against the columnists, but I'd be interested in any arguments against them (Monbiot particularly)


Bleedin Libertarians - George Monbiot


You think crime is bad now??? - Polly Toynbee

I just read that George Monbiot article Sean. It raised the question that if libertarian ideals which generally focus around the rights of the individual are put into practice in government, what sort of social obligations would institutions that provide services that we consider to be basic human rights (housing, education, etc) have? Which led me to ask:


In our society where personal banking is becoming increasingly compulsory if you are to be a functional member of society, at what point will access to personal banking become a basic human right?

Brendan, I think that if the premise came to pass (ie individuals not governments were in control) the the concept of "human rights" would be defunct. it would be dog-eat-dog, survival of the fittest - ie pretty much where we started as mammals before we discovered civilisation.

In general Libertarian ideals are that an individual is allowed complete freedom and is not forced into or obligated to do anything BUT they must allow other people leave to do the same. The second part of the statement implies that there is some obligation upon the individual in order to maintain the right to his freedom and quite possibly the need for some kind of law and enforcement.


Surely what you are describing is Anarchy?

Just scrapped a whole page of stuff as it was far too wide-ranging and ended up quite ranty. I can express it better as "what Sean said"


Brendan, what you are describing is pretty much exactly the anarchist ideal. Sadly it simply doesn't function in society anything above a collection of hamlets really. Now throw in an intensely selfish consumerist society and libertarianism boils down to:


"I'm alright Jack, keep your hands of my stack (and my family and mates), someone will step in and take care of you, like a charity, or something...innit"

[in reply to Brendan]

Not really (or should I say not intentionally)


Allowing other people to do the same assumes that everyone has the same goals - Monbiot's article argues (correctly IMO) that the reality of that would mean a land-grab by the fittest who could then turn around and say "well, you had equal opportunity" assuming, in effect, power


Anarchic societies (the theory as I understand it anyway) would not allow that level of autonomy by individuals


This is all very simplistic but I'm quite scatty today and trying to multitask


[edit after MP's post - I'd love to see that page rant ;-) ]


I was drawn to the term libertarian on the back of Bill Hick's description of himself - but then I forget that was 15 years ago.. sighs....

Below is a paragraph lifted from wikipedia (so it could be about Japanese cheeses for all you know) which sums up generally what I have always understood the term Libertarian to mean.


??all human interaction, including government interaction with private individuals, should be voluntary and consensual. Or, to state it another way, they assert that all persons are the absolute owners of their own lives, and should be free to do whatever they wish with their persons or property, provided they allow others the same liberty. They maintain that the initiation of force by any person or government, against another person or their property?with force meaning the use of physical force, the threat of it, or the commission of fraud against someone?who has not initiated physical force, threat, or fraud, is a violation of that principle. They do not oppose force used in response to initiatory aggressions such as violence, fraud or trespassing.?


The way I interpreted the article was Monbiot describing Ridley using these apparent ideals to justify his being at liberty to take risks with other peoples? money. Then going further to say Libertarianism in practice would just be, as Sean said, ?A land-grab by the fittest who could then turn around and say `well, you had equal opportunity` assuming, in effect, power? i.e rampant capitalism.


I must just say that I do not subscribe to any particular school of thought but rather think that different ideas can be applied to societies in different situations and for different reasons. It is just a matter of finding what works, when and how.


Oh and when mentioned Anarchy I was not referring to the socio political ideal of some kind of collective with no leader. I meant the literal meaning of complete chaos and lawlessness.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Surprised at how many people take the 'oooh it's great it got approved, something is better than nothing' view. This is exactly Southwark council's approach, pandering to greedy developers for the absolute bare minimum of social and affordable housing. It's exactly why, under their leadership, only a fraction of social and affordable housing has been built in the borough - weirdly Mccash chose to highlight their own failures in his 'near unprecedented' (yet unbiased 😆) submission. All the objectors i have met support redevelopment, to benefit those in need of homes and the community - not change it forever. The council could and should be bolder, demand twice the social and affordable housing in these schemes, and not concede to 8 storeys of unneeded student bedsits. If it is a question of viability, publically disclose the business plan to prove how impossible it might be to turn a profit. Once the thing is built these sites can never be used for social or affordable housing. The council blows every opportunity, every time. Its pathetic. Developers admitted the scale was, in this instance, not required for viability. The student movements data seemed completely made up. The claim that 'students are taking up private rentals' was backed up with no data. There is empty student housing on denmark hill, needs to be fixed up but it's there already built. The council allows developers years to build cosy relationships with planners such that the final decision is a formality - substantiated objections are dismissed with wooly words and BS. Key meetings and consultations are scheduled deliberately to garner minimal engagement or objection. Local councillors, who we fund, ignore their constituents concerns. Those councillors that dare waiver in the predetermination are slapped down. Not very democratic. They've removed management and accountability by having no nomination agreement with any of the 'many london universities needing accommodation' - these direct lets MAKE MORE MONEY. A privately run firm will supposedly ensure everyone that those living there is actually a student and adheres to any conduct guidelines. There's no separation to residents - especially to ones on their own development. Could go on... We'll see how many of the 53 social/affordable units that we're all so happy to have approved actually get built. 
    • I am looking for 1 unit which is working for £50 cash. Thank you
    • Can’t recommend the company enough, great service. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...