Political Crossfire Forums

[Sparse1]

Lord Hargreaves wrote: Why anyone thinks its the business of the state to build things like that is beyond my capabilities of comprehension.

It's usually the result of media pressure to prove how important and successful a nation still is. Unfortunately the nations who feel the need to build these things are usually neither important or successful.

[Lord Hargreaves]

Sparse1 wrote: Lord Hargreaves wrote:
It is being challenged - by me

Somewhere meaningful??

:lol: Touche

Sparse1 wrote: Lord Hargreaves wrote:
by eurosceptic parties

Eurosceptic parties are not challenging anything because they come across as pompous and childish, all they need to is publish the figures of how Britain will be Economically better off outside of the EU and they have won the debate.

How does on publish figures for something which hasn't happened? But they have made predictions and estimates which show Britain will not suffer economically from withdrawal

Sparse1 wrote: Lord Hargreaves wrote:
other assorted patriots

Nationalists. Patriotism is the most misused political term in the dictionary - it is by definition difficult to be hold genuine Patriotism towards an entire country.

Sure, fine, nationalists - people who love their country.

Sparse1 wrote: Lord Hargreaves wrote:
So even if you looked on something objectively and deemed it wrong, immoral, and illegitimate - it must be right, moral and legitimate if it benefits your own selfish interests?

If it benefits your interests then it also benefits the interests of others,

This makes no sense at all

Sparse1 wrote: if it benefits others then what right do you have to try and take that benefit away from them on a point of highly subjective ideological principle??

perhaps the "benefit" is subjective? I don't think we are better off with the passing of the European Convention on Human Rights, so I oppose it. Others think we are, and support it. Its called ideological debate.

Sparse1 wrote: Lord Hargreaves wrote:
What on earth is this thinking?

Something other than theory.

Sigh. Its a shame ideology is viewed with such distain nowadays.

Sparse1 wrote: Lord Hargreaves wrote:
Do you not believe in principle?

No, I believe in reality.

How does one make sense of reality without principles?

Sparse1 wrote: Lord Hargreaves wrote:
social groups sure, largely as a result of the destruction of communities by the welfare state.

The welfare state has destroyed communities?? That's an interesting debate - perhaps you could outline that in another post if you have the time??

I agree, another debate for another time. Though an interesting website is: http://www.thewelfarestatewerein.com/

Sparse1 wrote: Lord Hargreaves wrote:
In times of war, it may be acceptable to hold different standards indeed. But this has to be more than taking it on trust from the PM.

So who do you trust?? Parliament?? The House of Lords?? A Judge??

I don't make my views based on trust. I agree with people them when they've presented an argument good enough to convince me. Its called reason.

Sparse1 wrote: Lord Hargreaves wrote:
We already have laws which prevent say human sacrifice which have nothing to do with religion. In this sense, I can't see a reason why a law concerning religion would be needed. They may be an exception, but i can't see it at the moment.

So why do we need a point in a Constitution for Religion then??

We don't - we could have one entrenching the view that laws concering religion are not needed. Not that thats a particular problem today - just if you were to have a written constitution, you might as well include that.

Sparse1 wrote: Lord Hargreaves wrote:
This is a bizarre argument, since I said nothing about education.

I was talking about education and you replied to that point, I took it that we were in the same conversation.

You were saying as I understoof it that "average" people don't understand the issues required to run the nation. I said this may be the case, but its still just that they make the decisions. You then said my views would lead to a dictatorship, and thus your train of thought seemed to wander off.

Basically, I agree "the people" would probably make better choices with better education, but I defend the right of the people to make those choices, whatever they are, regardless.

Sparse1 wrote: Lord Hargreaves wrote:
I'd love compulsory education before 16 on our historical documents of liberty so the people would be more aware than they are now when a government tries to piss on their rights. With this, the people would be much likely to make the "right" decisions.

That's indoctrination though. People need education on government, politics, rights and law in general - they will then be in the position to do as you say and also to judge whether the British tradition is appropriate.

I don't plan indoctrination, I merely think people who know more about traditional liberties would be less inclined to support this obscene government. If they did know more, and yet they support the government even more - i hold up my hands, fair enough. I just can't see how that can be the case.

Sparse1 wrote: Lord Hargreaves wrote:
Also, that is why I believe a written constitution that entrenched civil liberties against democratic majorities may be necessary, just in case the peopel are "stupid" and vote for "stupid" things.

But we'd all have a differing idea of what 'stupid' actually is, so it would end up with a really vague point about 'not damaging the country' or something.

Of course I know "stupidity" here is subjective, thus why I type "stupid" in quotation marks the whole time. The point though is that a written constitution would then make that objective.

Sparse1 wrote: Lord Hargreaves wrote:
Following that line of thinking, does this mean there is nothing existing now you would not compromise if "the situation required it"?

Possibly not. It's hard to say in purely hypothetical terms.

Fair enough. On ID Cards I meet a line I will not cross, you will eventually come to a point when the state is too authoritarian too, despite the "threats" and the "situation that demands it". Just then understand that this "leave the textbook and live in reality" rhetoric seems so inappropriate to me.

Sparse1 wrote: Lord Hargreaves wrote:
Thats a terrible way to think. They aren't in the habit, but they should be.

They should be doing lots of things in my opinion but they aren;t going to be.

Not unless the debate is opened, and politicans get elected on a mandate to do just that.

Sparse1 wrote: Lord Hargreaves wrote:
Just because you can afford it, doesn't mean you have to buy it - that logic doesn't work privately, so why does it hold any water at state level?

It works privately in the case of a monopoly, and the state is a monopoly.

:!?: Please explain

Sparse1 wrote: Lord Hargreaves wrote:
Why does it need to be "guaranteed"? Your identity is yours and not the state's.

Why do any rights need to be guaranteed?? Because if they can't be enforced then they are meaningless.

If they aren't being enforced, then they are being violated. This is so much different to saying rights to not "exist". And thats putting aside the fact that the ID Card will not guarantee identity in any meaningful way.

Sparse1 wrote: Lord Hargreaves wrote:
Combining information would make it more efficient for the state. You are not the state.

We are the state, without us there would be no state.

I am not the state, I am a citizen of a nation that delegated powers to the state. I understand what you mean here when you say "we are the state", but then you are not privy to national security briefings, you do not have a say in cabinet meetings, and getting on to this subject, you will not have access to the new ID database. In this sense, you are not the state - and in supporting ID Cards you give people who do not and never will know you or much care about you critical information on yourself. Heavens knows why this is a good thing.

Sparse1 wrote: Lord Hargreaves wrote:
The separation of info helps prevent abuse, and I don't see why a govt department need know more about you than is absolutely necessary to do its own individual scheduled task.

Well, that's a fundamental difference of opinion on our parts - I would rather have it all under one roof so that we can keep track of what's being done with it.

You can keep track ot it separately, and when abuse happens (we are of course talking "when") those in the corresponding department can be held accountable to the govt. When abuse happens in this database, what do you do? Vote the government out in 4 years. This lack of accountability is exactly what you were complaining about earlier.

Sparse1 wrote: Lord Hargreaves wrote:
Not criminals, potential criminals. You either are a criminal, in which the state can infringe your liberty by locking you up, imposing fines, keep your DNA/fingerprints - or you are not a criminal, in which the state has no right to these things.

Why has the state no right to do these things??

Because they have no reason to compell me to give those things to the state, because they don't need it, because i've done nothing wrong, and want nothing from the government

Sparse1 wrote: Lord Hargreaves wrote:
ID Cards and the database state creates a middle ground between these two which is frankly worrying.

Of all of the limitations on Civil Liberties in the UK I see ID Cards as one of the least significant - I can see far more occasions when an ID Card would be a benefit than when it would be oppressive. Back to my original point, it is far less significant than the simple fact that our electoral system disenfranchaises huge sections of the population and results in election results being decided by the votes of less than 5% of the population.

Your priorties are mixed up. My economic history is on a database avaliable to anyone in the government, along with my eyescan and DNA - with the probable chance that very soon i won't be able to do anything without carrying a card to prove to officials I exist. If you truly understood what is meant by negative liberty, you would be much more likely to compell state officials to carry ID cards, with a database of all govt employers given to citizens through the post, and establish a right for any member of joe public to request to see the ID of any official, and the right to ask him/her what on earth they are doing, and why the hell it costs so much money.

Faced with ID Cards, who cares that first past the post is a bit iffy? It always has been. ID Cards create an historic precedent

Sparse1 wrote: Lord Hargreaves wrote:
What rights do we talk of here? My rights include freedom from physical harm, free to speak my mind and believe what i want, freedom to earn money. Are these the "rights" ID cards will protect?

Your point was that you do not have rights through the benevolence of the state.

ID Cards would protect all of those things that you suggest if they were very difficult and expensive to forge - the fact that they won't be will torpedo the whole scheme.

They won't be difficult or expensive to forge. It almost worth putting money on that perfect fake replicas will be avaliable within the same week ID Cards have begun being issued. Anyway, the documents needed to apply for an ID Card are much, much easier to fake.

Sparse1 wrote: Lord Hargreaves wrote:
Or were you thinking of the right to increasingly scrounge benefits off the state, because ID Cards will surely do that.

The ID Cards being suggested should limit 'scrounging', one of the key causes of benefit fraud and the like is the lack of communication between government departments and the ease of lying to them. If you just mean that everybody who collects benefits is a scrounger then that is a different point entirely.

lol yeah i was leaning toward the latter, going into "insane right wing rant" mode :lol:

[Sparse1]

Lord Hargreaves wrote:
How does on publish figures for something which hasn't happened? But they have made predictions and estimates which show Britain will not suffer economically from withdrawal.

It's interesting that you say that because many Eurosceptics accept that Britain would be damaged economically by a withdrawal from the EU - they just make the case that it's worth the cost for the recapturing of sovereignty - but again another discussion for another time.

Lord Hargreaves wrote:
Sigh. Its a shame ideology is viewed with such distain nowadays?

It's not so much that it is viewed with distain as that it is viewed as distinct from reality. My personal problem with ideologists (if I were to clumsily group them all together) is that they seem to draw up their ultimate objective first, and then hastily shoehorn some ill-thought method of getting there in afterwards.

Lord Hargreaves wrote:
How does one make sense of reality without principles?

Ok I have one principle, that the government's sole responsibility is the survival of the nation-state - beyond that I think we need to be reactive.

Lord Hargreaves wrote:
I don't make my views based on trust. I agree with people them when they've presented an argument good enough to convince me. .

That isn't all that helpful if you are writing a constitution that has to deal with future events.

Lord Hargreaves wrote:
You were saying as I understoof it that "average" people don't understand the issues required to run the nation. .

Yes, I then complained about what wasn't taught in schools.

Lord Hargreaves wrote:
Basically, I agree "the people" would probably make better choices with better education, but I defend the right of the people to make those choices, whatever they are, regardless.. .

I just can't help feeling that it would leave people hopelessly open to manipulation by vested interests.

Lord Hargreaves wrote:
I don't plan indoctrination, I merely think people who know more about traditional liberties would be less inclined to support this obscene government.

What traditional liberties are we talking about here?? Liberty has always had certain limts in Britain.

Lord Hargreaves wrote:
Of course I know "stupidity" here is subjective, thus why I type "stupid" in quotation marks the whole time. The point though is that a written constitution would then make that objective"?

But it couldn't ever be objective - a written constitution only ever gets interpreted.

Lord Hargreaves wrote:
Fair enough. On ID Cards I meet a line I will not cross, you will eventually come to a point when the state is too authoritarian too,

If a policeman knocked on my door and asked to see my ID Card then I would object, if he stopped me in the street and did so then I wouldn't. It's an issue of public and private for me. Doubtless you will use the 'slippery slope' argument but I do not see this one as being too slippery.

Lord Hargreaves wrote:
Just then understand that this "leave the textbook and live in reality" rhetoric seems so inappropriate to me,

Come on, it's pretty obvious that I am fairly theoretical about things, I accept that. I just think that we need to be as objective as possible about it.

Lord Hargreaves wrote:
:!?: Please explain.

A monopoly operates by pushing the price up as high has people can afford, safe in the knowledge that it has no competition to worry about - the same is true of the state - and the state has a monopoly on necessities.

Lord Hargreaves wrote:
If they aren't being enforced, then they are being violated.

But if they aren't being enforced then it is only academic interest that they are being violated.

Lord Hargreaves wrote:
This is so much different to saying rights to not "exist".

Well it says that they don't tangibly exist (and I know that you put exist in quotes so were saying that) so can't really be seen as absolutes - rights are just ideals.

Lord Hargreaves wrote:
And thats putting aside the fact that the ID Card will not guarantee identity in any meaningful way.

You will tangibly exist rather than just philosophically existing ;)

Lord Hargreaves wrote:
I am not the state, I am a citizen of a nation that delegated powers to the state. I understand what you mean here when you say "we are the state", but then you are not privy to national security briefings, you do not have a say in cabinet meetings, and getting on to this subject,

But none of those inhibit your ability to make a judgement on the strength of argument, none of that affects your ability to hold the government to account. The two positions offer little difference in power - one is just an intellectual comfort blanket.

Lord Hargreaves wrote:
you will not have access to the new ID database.

But isn't that a good thing?

Lord Hargreaves wrote:
In this sense, you are not the state - and in supporting ID Cards you give people who do not and never will know you or much care about you critical information on yourself.

If they don't know me and never will know me then why does it practically matter what they know about me??

Lord Hargreaves wrote:
You can keep track ot it separately,

Can we??

Lord Hargreaves wrote: When abuse happens in this database, what do you do? Vote the government out in 4 years. This lack of accountability is exactly what you were complaining about earlier.

Presuming that there are no laws regarding the usage of this data of course. What do you think that the government is going to be able to do with this information that they can't do already??

Lord Hargreaves wrote:
because they don't need it,


And that is all that the debate on ID Cards should ever come down to.

Lord Hargreaves wrote:
and want nothing from the government.

But you do want things from the government, you want police, you want security, you want education etc.

Lord Hargreaves wrote:
Your priorties are mixed up. My economic history is on a database avaliable to anyone in the government, along with my eyescan and DNA - with the probable chance that very soon i won't be able to do anything without carrying a card to prove to officials I exist.

But as you have just said that you want nothing from the government then that won't happen to you.

Lord Hargreaves wrote:
If you truly understood what is meant by negative liberty,

Negative liberty is founded upon the ethos of being free from the hinderance of others, and at some point you have to decide how much hinderance actually constitutes hinderance - it's an entirely subjective concept because of that fact. Negative liberty is not quantative.

Lord Hargreaves wrote: you would be much more likely to compel state officials to carry ID cards, with a database of all govt employers given to citizens through the post, and establish a right for any member of joe public to request to see the ID of any official, and the right to ask him/her what on earth they are doing.

That would only fit if the state was a single entity rather than one made up of people. Also I can't help feeling that may open up the state to fairly extreme manipulation (and I know it wasn't a serious suggestion).

Lord Hargreaves wrote:
why the hell it costs so much money.

It costs so much because the electorate make excessive demands, the day a politician stands up and says 'No, you can't have reduced crime, a better NHS and a better education system' is the day that the cost of government may start to fall.

Lord Hargreaves wrote:
Faced with ID Cards, who cares that first past the post is a bit iffy? It always has been. ID Cards create an historic precedent.

They are only a historic precedent if you choose to see them as such.

Lord Hargreaves wrote:
They won't be difficult or expensive to forge. It almost worth putting money on that perfect fake replicas will be avaliable within the same week ID Cards have begun being issued. Anyway, the documents needed to apply for an ID Card are much, much easier to fake.

Which is why in the current climate it would be very surprising if compulsory ID cards do actually appear.

[bob.appleyard]

Sparse1 wrote: bob.appleyard wrote:
If you left it up to New Labour it'll just be another sodding Millenium Dome, which is,

On a totally tangental note; I went to the Millenium Dome (when it was open obviously) and thought it was great - never really understood why the media spent the entire time it was open saying that it was crap.

I went too. It was rubbish.