Viewing 36 posts - 81 through 116 (of 116 total)
  • Role of the state / government in individual behaviour?
  • BermBandit
    Free Member

    Example of what? The state isn’t involved. Some fella has had a badge made for his daughter. Nothing has been banned, nobody has been taxed. Fine by me

    Apart from the fact that you are watching someone quite literally making up an element of our constitution… remember? we are a constitutional monarchy.

    coffeeking
    Free Member

    Our current problem is that we expect others to deal with our issues. Why is that? In the 40 or so years I’ve been around I’ve seen the withdrawal from our streets into our homes. Neighbourhoods exist outside of the net curtains. This is what we need to reclaim. A good starting point would be the motor car and its usage. No one will though

    Because with an increasing level of violence and easy access to weapons, most people don’t want to confront people.

    Junkyard
    Free Member

    But the whole case is about how far (ostensible) consent should go in violence. The judgment doesn’t criminalise BDSM sex. It criminalises wounding or ABH or GBH for sexual purposes.

    so does it limit consent then? Clearly it does as people cannot consent to BDSM beyond a pain/injury level sother deem ok rather than what the person engaes in the act thinks. WTF has ot got to do with someoen else how much pain/injury someone els ewant sfor sexual pleasure? Consent was curtaled.

    did you read our comments on your quote? care to comment?

    Yes – they’re based on a false premise.
    No idea what you mean
    That person is clearly giving a moral judgement based on outrage. I really dont expect to see consensual sexual practices described as evil
    You may agree with the judgement but you cannot really deny your quote involved moral outrage or the judgement curtails consent.

    Fresh Goods Friday 696: The Middling Edition

    Fresh Goods Friday 696: The Middlin...
    Latest Singletrack Videos
    TandemJeremy
    Free Member

    coffeeking

    Because with an increasing level of violence and easy access to weapons, most people don’t want to confront people.

    Decreasing surely. Its fear of violence and weapons that the tabloids feed not the reality which is a year onyear decrease in crime.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13117337

    TandemJeremy
    Free Member

    On Habeas Corpus. Diplock courts? 1973 under Ted Heath IIRC

    bagpuss72
    Free Member

    Are you lot still bickering? 😯

    Right that’s it everyone…. GET TO YOUR ROOMS NOW you’re all grounded

    *taps feet* come on….. :mrgreen:

    binners
    Full Member

    But…. BUT… HE STARTED IT!!!

    TandemJeremy
    Free Member

    It was HIM!

    *Kicks binners shins*

    Junkyard
    Free Member

    TJ year in year rise till mid 1990’s for recorded crime then a decline we could debate why , what and accuracy etc but recorded crime has increased massively since 1900’s

    binners
    Full Member

    but recorded crime has increased massively since 1900’s

    That’s cos they dnever had no DVD players and ipods wot to rob off each other innit

    *gives TJ a chinese burn and runs off*

    TandemJeremy
    Free Member

    And crime is massivly down since the 80s for actual crime – BCS. Mureder rate lowest for 20 years and that cannot be fudged

    http://www.esds.ac.uk/findingData/bcrs.asp

    Junkyard
    Free Member


    howevern note [ copied from where i got the map where someone posted an explanation

    When there are more laws to break, people will commit more indictable offenses. In 1900, there were no drug crimes, no driving-related crimes (DUIs, etc), no internet and communications crimes, hardly any banking crime other than robberies, essentially zero crimes related to consumer fraud (other than theft).

    TandemJeremy
    Free Member

    Crimes against the person would be massively under recorded / reported as well if you were poor or a woman. No rape in marriages and legal to beat your wife for example.

    A gentleman would carry a sword or pistol for self protection ( perhaps dying out by 1900)

    My guess would be 1950s would be the lowest crime era if everything was counted the same

    ernie_lynch
    Free Member

    binners – Member

    Z11 –

    Have you read it,? just out of interest?

    What a question. I thought everyone knew that Dan Hannan was Zulu-Eleven’s guru. He takes very word uttered by the high priest of anarcho-capitalism as gospel.

    I haven’t read the cranky right-wing freak’s book, but I know for certain that it’s full of bollox – on account that I have never heard Dan Hannan ever manage to speak an entire paragraph without talking bollox. And he’s a liar too.

    One of his most spectacular and breathtaking cock-ups was when he held up Iceland’s ‘stunning economic miracle’ which was built on the back of fictitious capital, through a deregulated banking system and freedom from the EU, as the one which we in the UK should follow.

    A few months later Iceland was declared bankrupt, brought down by its deregulated banking system, and the greed and incompetence of the free market…….well done Hannan 🙄

    Mind you the geezer looks a right **** …… and that should tell you enough.

    Zulu-Eleven
    Free Member

    Really Ernie? As personally I’d suggest that Gordon’s dubious action in freezing the assets of Iceland’s solvent banks through use of anti terror laws had far more of an effect on their economy, driving them to the edge of bankruptcy, than (whoa betide) the chance of rich people losing money through making poor (greedy) investments!

    Investment without risk due to government guarantees was the problem, and I’m afraid thats got about as much to do with the theory of free market economics as it has with Bjorks latest album!

    For clarity and to repeat – if the UK government had not underwritten deposits into icelandic banks that were offering clearly stupendous rates of interest over and above those available anywhere else (ie. thats enough to ring alarm bells straight away) then people would not have put money into them, since they would have been afraid of losing their money – this is called free market economics.

    ernie_lynch
    Free Member

    thats got about as much to do with the theory of free market economics as it has with Bjorks latest album!

    So basically Iceland is today up shit creek without a paddle
    because it wasn’t sufficiently committed to the free market ?

    .

    It’s a shame that your guru Dan Hannan hadn’t noticed that, when he held up Iceland as an example which we should follow 😀

    Junkyard
    Free Member

    So to clarify then
    State intervention in banking system = free market

    binners
    Full Member

    As has been pointed out many times: Socialism for the bankers, capitalism for everyone else

    coffeeking
    Free Member

    Decreasing surely. Its fear of violence and weapons that the tabloids feed not the reality which is a year onyear decrease in crime.

    I was thinking “perceived” I suppose, however gun and knife crime is a lot higher than when I was a sprog, which were the days when people would happily walk down the street and discipline the neighbours kid for kicking flowers, when the kid would listen and be sorry, without fear that the parent would come back and go batshit mental at them for daring to tell their kid what to do.

    Elfinsafety
    Free Member

    Wunundred! 😀

    Daniel Hannan needs a right punch in the face, followed by a proper good kicking.

    Then all his wealth taken away and forced to live on a council estate on Teeside or somewhere, surviving only on State Benefits and utterly reliant on the NHS for his healthcare.

    Wonder if he’d bang on with his blinkered ignorant right-wing bullshit then? ****.

    konabunny
    Free Member

    people cannot consent to BDSM beyond a pain/injury level sother deem ok rather than what the person engaes in the act thinks

    Yes. That’s exactly right. That is, in fact, the position that you thought should be the outcome!

    I agree a line will need to be drawn but lack of permaanent harm and consent by adults seems to be the line

    TooTall
    Free Member

    We need the government to be our big brother and help us make the right decisions at times. Even the most ‘eco-sensitive’ and well-meaning consumer won’t do 1/3 of what they think / say they will – so we need to be nudged into doing the right thing. Most people won’t do the right thing until it makes a personal difference. Unfortunately, human nature means it needs to hit us in the pocket. We need to pay more to dump stuff to stop us dumping stuff and to recycle. Manufacturers need to be forced to make things that do less damage / use fuel more efficiently / pollute less – government forces those decisions. We need that.

    Edukator
    Free Member

    How about using a carrot rather than just a stick: a zero tax rate on goods and services that are in the interest of society as a whole; insulation materials, renewable energy sources, cars that consume less than 3l/100km.

    Always tax the product, never its disposal. Tax the TV and concrete, but not taking it to the tip.

    How about making sure everyone can be identified so that they can be held responsible for their actions – yes, that includes banning both the rioter’s face scarf and the burka in public.

    How about banning freemasons from the police and legal professions (policing that one would take some doing).

    Out of idle interest, how many of you object to a couple such as osandy-cerbere making money out of making their private SM activities public? (don’t Google it if you’re under 18 or of a Mary Whitehouse disposition). I’m all for letting consenting adults do what they want behind closed doors but when you add a financial incentive then economic necessity infuences freedom of choice – free choice? Or financially constrained as with prostitution. Do we need a list of acceptable and unacceptable SM acts or do we let people themselves decide what they do and to whom they sell the vids?

    Sue_W
    Free Member

    TooTall – yup, the government aims to influence our behaviour not just through legislation but also through behaviour change / social marketing campaigns, especially on ‘lifestyle’ behaviours such as diet, exercise, smoking, and most ‘pro-environmental’ behaviours. It’s been questioned as to whether that’s the right role for the state or whether the government should use behavioural economics to create the ‘right environment’ for people to make the ‘right choice’, ie putting ‘healthy’ foods at eye height in supermarkets but not having any education campaigns to encourage healthy eating. I think we should give more though to what behaviours the state is promoting (and who’s values they represent) and then consider which of the many options would be the most appropriate to influence that specific behaviour, rather than make an ideological stance for one approach over another

    Sue_W
    Free Member

    TooTall – yup, the government aims to influence our behaviour not just through legislation but also through behaviour change / social marketing campaigns, especially on ‘lifestyle’ behaviours such as diet, exercise, smoking, and most ‘pro-environmental’ behaviours. It’s been questioned as to whether that’s the right role for the state or whether the government should use behavioural economics to create the ‘right environment’ for people to make the ‘right choice’, ie putting ‘healthy’ foods at eye height in supermarkets but not having any education campaigns to encourage healthy eating. I think we should give more though to what behaviours the state is promoting (and who’s values they represent) and then consider which of the many options would be the most appropriate to influence that specific behaviour, rather than make an ideological stance for one approach over another

    bullheart
    Free Member

    We need to clear this up once and for all. If only there were an authority figure on the forum. Someone who could decree from his lofty ivory tower what was best for all of us. Guiding us like lost sheep with his faultless philosophy. Almost Mau-ist in its purity and reason. Someone who knows, deep in his heart, that he is always right about everything. Like Ghadaffi without the missiles. Like Pol Pot without the machette’s

    That… if, instead of behaving like petulant children, we would only take in and obey, unquestioningly, his wise words… the world would be such an idyllic place.

    A sort of forum father figure. Almost omnipotent. But who could fulfil such a role? Hmmmmmmmmmmm……….

    Aha! I see where you’re going with this….!

    I’ll phone Elf now.

    Edukator
    Free Member

    I think you’re overestimating the role of the government, Sue. Its role in consumer choice is a drop in the ocean compared with the marketing budgets of the corporates. Turn on the TV in the morning and see what children get brainwashed into eating and playing with. The government itself is under pressure from the lobbies that finance the party itself so any public service message is diluted to appease the corporates pulling the strings. It’s a free for all and we live the lifestyle the marketeers tell us to. How many people have flash car and how many have 3W LED bulbs in their house lights?

    TheSouthernYeti
    Free Member

    If only there were an authority figure on the forum. Someone who could decree from his lofty ivory tower what was best for all of us. Guiding us like lost sheep with his faultless philosophy. Almost Mau-ist in its purity and reason

    Where do I apply?

    Sue_W
    Free Member

    Edukator – you’re right the private / commercial sector has far more influence on people’s behaviour than the government!

    Not sure what the osandy-cerbere case is that you mentioned (and don’t want to google it on the bus!), but I guess there’s always questions about what behaviour is acceptable in private and what is ok in public spheres

    konabunny
    Free Member

    Do we need a list of acceptable and unacceptable SM acts or do we let people themselves decide what they do and to whom they sell the vids?

    That’s really two or possibly three different questions (you might support the same answer for them all):

    – the legality of the act
    – the legality of the act in a commercial context
    – the legality of distributing videos of the act

    kimbers
    Full Member

    it seems that camerons idea of reducing the size of government is just to appoint more mps to the lords
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13137835

    and konabunny you really ought to go to some bdsm clubs and speak to some practitioners maybe get some experience yourself because you are missing the point of it somewhat

    konabunny
    Free Member

    you are missing the point of it somewhat

    You seem to be incapable of disengaging the fact that the one law lord disapproved of sadism as a pastime from the quite sensible legal principle that he (and the rest) asserted: that outside very limited circumstances (medical operations etc) the law (which means the state) should not allow “consent” to vitiate what would otherwise be wounding, ABH, GBH, homicide, but should allow it to vitiate common assault.

    Instead of being all butthurt and tossing off snippy one-liners because some ancient ermine-wrapped fossil doesn’t care for dressing up in gimpsuits at the weekend, how about engaging with the question of whether that is an appropriate role for the state in regulating individuals’ behaviour? If not, what would you prefer to see in that context? Talk about it either in principle or in practice e.g. by reference to what Brown and the rest were actually doing…

    Edukator
    Free Member

    the law (which means the state) should not allow “consent” to vitiate what would otherwise be wounding, ABH, GBH, homicide, but should allow it to vitiate common assault.

    It does though and calls it spectator sport. Boxing, kick boxing and other martial arts have resulted in all of the above. Not to mention the graphic scenes of actual or simulated violence in almost every Hollywood production you’ll watch that occasionally lead to copy-cat crimes.

    kimbers
    Full Member

    boxing is the first example i thought of, injuries can be far worse than bdsm situations

    no i didnt read the entire judgement – its sunny out!-

    you said you agreed with the law lords statement you pasted up
    i think he was talking out of his butt

    society needing protecting from a cult of pain or something similar
    thats just hysterical
    he also failed to understand that s&m involves sadists and masochists
    and he basically ignored the needs of the masochists!

    so as far as im concerned, the state has no business interfering in what happens between 2 consenting adults, although i suppose amputations etc is probably pushing the boundries a tad! and obviously murder
    although assisted suicide imho should be allowed in the case of serious illness
    [video]http://vimeo.com/10364690[/video]

    TooTall
    Free Member

    how many have 3W LED bulbs in their house lights?

    far more since the government made the changes to prohibit incandescent bulb sales. Of course, your choice of technology is one not yet mature, but I get your point.

    5thElefant
    Free Member

    i suppose amputations etc is probably pushing the boundries a tad! and obviously murder

    So consensual cannibalism and consensually being tortured to death are out (both happen, oddly)?

    What’s the difference between drawing the line there rather than earlier?*

    *I don’t care if someone is consensually eaten by the way.

Viewing 36 posts - 81 through 116 (of 116 total)

The topic ‘Role of the state / government in individual behaviour?’ is closed to new replies.