"Society cannot exist unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere, and the less there is within, the more there must be without." - Edmund Burke
Do you honestly think this is because of a liberal attitude to crime that favours community punishments, fines, ASBOs over incarceration? In Edwardian Britain? Where criminals are still be hanged for murder and beaten by coppers and prisons are so strict that convicts are not even allowed to speak? Come off it. As a historical theory this is on a par with David Irving.
But you're otherwise right. The sensible approach is to emulate the "something else". Unfortunately, if you don't approve of prison, you're really not going to like the "something else".
That's the wrong conclusion. There's something else about those places that causes low crime and consequently low incarceration. It might well be a more robust approach to law enforcement, or something different about the culture which discourages crime.
For instance, the UK prison population was pretty low until the latter half of the 20th century. This is because there wasn't much crime. That was because the culture was very different and the approach to policing was also very different.
Is that really what you meant? Cultural background? We already have a parliament, indeed a Cabinet, like that. I wonder how much more diverse, and in what way, it would need to be in order to meet with your approval. Are we talking quotas here?
But of course, no matter how culturally diverse the MPs may be, there still has to be a single culture of government and establishment. Otherwise power could not be exercised, and a government that cannot use power is no government at all.
There's a correlation between high crime rates and high incarceration rates? Well, in that case, it's obvious that prison causes crime. There is no other possible explanation.
I don't think I'd hold up any modern Western nation as an example of how to achieve a low-crime society, since they all have the same laissez-faire approach.
Are you really telling us that a rioter, smashing up a shop, is completely indistinguishable from the shop's owner?
Or, worse, are you telling us that such a distinction can be made, but should not be, lest someone be discriminated against?
The fact is that you can make a distinction between deserving and undeserving, it isn't even difficult, and doing so is absolutely necessary for law enforcement. By refusing to admit that such a distinction may be worthwhile, you betray your responsibility to side with the civilised working class against the yobbos and the scum. It is our duty to discriminate in favour of the civilised. And if you don't want that duty, maybe you don't deserve civilisation. Somalia's just over there.
It cannot have escaped the attention of Britain's criminal underclass that our government has a policy of trying to avoid sending anyone to prison if at all possible. Those who do go to prison serve pathetically small sentences. And our "conservative" Justice Minister is intent on further cuts to sentences and greater use of "community punishments", known amongst criminals as "a joke" or a "walkout".
You can wish for situations like this to be resolved without violence, but your wish won't be granted. Would you prefer to have the small chance that some innocent person will be wrongly attacked by the police? Or the very real certainty that innocent people will be attacked in their homes and businesses by rioters and looters? That fireman and ambulances will be attacked? That people will be robbed and assaulted in the streets by thugs?
That is the reality here. You either trust the police, or you let the gangs run amok.
If nothing else, conservative government is surely characterised by its approach to law and order.
And yet, right now, we see a huge amount of both crime and disorder which the authorities appear to be unable to control. This suggests that they may not actually be conservative at all
This becomes even clearer if we look deeper, because when we ask why the police are not engaging the rioters, we find that they are afraid to do so, knowing that if someone is hurt, they will be blamed for it and hung out to dry by their superiors. They seek a guarantee from the top that officers will not be blamed if someone is injured. Example.
It seems to me that if the government is truly conservative, then it would provide that guarantee in a heartbeat. But perhaps you can provide some other explanation as to why it has not and will not.
By the way, you are right when you say that these people have not been governed well. You are simply mistaken about the way in which they have been misgoverned.
In that particular conflict, neither side was especially likable. Both revolutionary and radical, not particularly civilised, and both with their own "Anonymous" army.
The best approach would have been to avoid involvement if at all possible. And if that was not possible (for example, if I were Spanish and living in a conflict zone) then my "side" would have been chosen for me.
On the one hand we have this fairly hateful little cult that goes around upsetting people, apparently for religious reasons. On the other hand, we have another hateful little cult which also goes around upsetting people, apparently for fun. Sorry, "lulz".
The difference? We know who WBC are. We know where they are and who their leader is. This makes them better than Anonymous, because they operate in the open. If the WBC commits a crime, then they can (and will) be arrested. And if you have a reason to sue the WBC, then you can.
Hell, even the Church of Scientology is better than Anonymous. Same reasons. CoS may be a creepy cult, but again, it's all out in the open. The key thing is that CoS and WBC can be forced to take responsibility for bad things they might do. It is the same for all normal, civilised people.
With Anonymous, there's nothing to applaud. They are not activists or protesters, any more than the KKK were. They are bullies, operating under the cover of anonymity which frees them from responsibility for their actions. They are an exclusively destructive force: there is no positive achievement of Anonymous.
Anyone siding with them here should carefully consider their position. Association with Anonymous, even defending them here, will turn out to be to their disadvantage in the future. The organisation will not only be thoroughly discredited, but also shown to be thoroughly evil in nature: capable only of destruction. The mass media will not need to invent anything to do this, just as it was not necessary to invent anything about Nazism to discredit the Nazis. Pure presentation of the facts will be enough. Everyone would be well advised to have nothing whatsoever to do with Anonymous, because such involvement will certainly be regretted in the future.
Then why wish for the liberals to exploit your fears?
Ah, I think I get it. You wish they were actually liberal - that their campaigning concerned things that actually mattered, rather than the sort of thing that's easy to change. Fair enough.
This is absolutely true. Actually, the Arabs don't care about Israel very much at all, and have certainly never celebrated attacks on Israel or the US, its sole Western supporter. The guys with sign boards saying things like "Death to Israel!" and "Drive them into the Sea" are in fact Jewish actors hired by Mossad to justify Israeli aggression against the Middle East. What you think is "the streets of Iran" is in fact a blue-screen television studio in the basement of a government building in Tel Aviv. Why, even the so-called "Hamas" is actually a false flag operation operated by Mossad, which fires rockets into Israel on a regular basis to stir up hate. The Israelis want us to believe that they're fighting for their own survival against aggressive enemies on all sides, but we all know the truth: that they started it and then made it look like their enemy did it.
Except (of course) all of the above is total bollocks. But it's amazing how mainstream those Zionist Conspiracies have become lately, isn't it? How people are willing to believe anything, no matter how retarded, if it justifies their hatred of Israel.
Right, and it's quite easy to be afraid that one group (the Republicans) will be worse than another (the Dems). There will be more wars, more people in prison, etc. So, your fears are being exploited, so that you'll vote one way rather than the other. You'll put up with bad behavior from the Democrats on the grounds that the other lot would be worse.
(Sorry, my previous attempt at making this point was two paragraphs longer than it needed to be.)
Are these really the things you are afraid of, though? Your sig would suggest otherwise. I get the impression that you are much more afraid of patriotism and religious faith.
Aren't you worried about the establishment of a Christian theocracy under President-for-Life Palin? Complete with outlawing of abortion, a total ban on even mentioning evolution, mandatory prayers in schools, death penalty for gay people and atheists, all Americans to be forced to drive SUVs, that sort of thing?
I think if you had a choice between voting for some Dems who will definitely keep the potheads in jail and probably won't do anything about over-reaching police powers, or voting for some Republicans who might possibly turn out to be a Christian version of the Taleban, you'd go for the Dems every time. And the reason for that is fear. You're more afraid of the Republicans than you are of the Democrats; and that's because your fears have been exploited.
(By the way, I don't support any of these people. I'm not even American. But if I were, I don't think I'd bother voting.)
He would make an awesome President and we all know it.
Suppose that Vader wishes to reform the healthcare industry. Does he allow obstructive senators, bureaucrats and insurance industry CEOs to stand in his way? No, and it doesn't take many crushed tracheas to get what he wants. "I find your lack of support disturbing."
And everything else: perhaps you would like to explain to Vader why oil is leaking into the Gulf and union regulations prevent a proper cleanup? Or maybe you'd like to tell Vader that his plans to close Guantanemo aren't possible. Or that the warrantless wiretap programme can't be abolished like he asked. Contrast this with the non-achievements of the Rebel Alliance, who are good at promising and very bad at doing. Quite how they managed to win the war against the Sith is still a mystery...
What happened to the/. that was fairly neutral, objective and unbiased?
I'm not sure that Slashdot has ever been neutral about certain topics. But the inconsistency can be annoying. If the Bombay High Court had ruled that Climatology was "a time-tested science", I doubt we'd hear any sarcastic remarks at all. And there are certainly a few similarities between Astrology and Climatology, as in:
I'll just look into my computer simulation to see the future of the Earth for the next century! There's no way that the simulation could possibly be inaccurate, because I have asked another Climatologer to peer-review it.
Hmm... oh dear. It looks like civilisation will certainly be destroyed by a great flood from the polar ice caps within twenty years. I guess you need to renew my research grants so I can figure out how you should prevent it.
You did that? Thanks. Let's see now... I think you should raise taxes and hire more Climatologers. Then you'll be safe. Oh, by the way, turns out I was wrong. Actually, civilisation will be destroyed by a new ice age. I have to do some more research, so how about some more money?
True; but that's actually a different case of the same rule: if the citizens form a mob that is sufficiently powerful that it can make the laws, then it becomes the government. It is tough for citizens to become more powerful than professional soldiers with real weapons - but the military might join the rebellion...
Their dialup capacity is probably 99% idle these days. Might as well offer it for something.
Speaking of paranoia, I wonder if the Egyptian telcos have any way to log callers to that number? I wonder if they might ever be persuaded to hand over the logs to the authorities.
Also, the view that file sharing is moral, and attempts to stop it are immoral, are actually quite contentious. I refer you to Slashdot user "Cliffski", an independent game designer whose games have been widely pirated, because he has the opposite view. To him, sharing without permission is immoral, along with the attitude that excuses and permits it. I find it difficult not to see his point.
Slashdot Mirror
"Society cannot exist unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere, and the less there is within, the more there must be without." - Edmund Burke
So, Britain 1910. About 10,000 people in prison within a country of 42 million.
Do you honestly think this is because of a liberal attitude to crime that favours community punishments, fines, ASBOs over incarceration? In Edwardian Britain? Where criminals are still be hanged for murder and beaten by coppers and prisons are so strict that convicts are not even allowed to speak? Come off it. As a historical theory this is on a par with David Irving.
But you're otherwise right. The sensible approach is to emulate the "something else". Unfortunately, if you don't approve of prison, you're really not going to like the "something else".
That's the wrong conclusion. There's something else about those places that causes low crime and consequently low incarceration. It might well be a more robust approach to law enforcement, or something different about the culture which discourages crime.
For instance, the UK prison population was pretty low until the latter half of the 20th century. This is because there wasn't much crime. That was because the culture was very different and the approach to policing was also very different.
Is that really what you meant? Cultural background? We already have a parliament, indeed a Cabinet, like that. I wonder how much more diverse, and in what way, it would need to be in order to meet with your approval. Are we talking quotas here?
But of course, no matter how culturally diverse the MPs may be, there still has to be a single culture of government and establishment. Otherwise power could not be exercised, and a government that cannot use power is no government at all.
What government would not involve the power dominance of a single culture?
There's a correlation between high crime rates and high incarceration rates? Well, in that case, it's obvious that prison causes crime. There is no other possible explanation.
I don't think I'd hold up any modern Western nation as an example of how to achieve a low-crime society, since they all have the same laissez-faire approach.
Are you really telling us that a rioter, smashing up a shop, is completely indistinguishable from the shop's owner?
Or, worse, are you telling us that such a distinction can be made, but should not be, lest someone be discriminated against?
The fact is that you can make a distinction between deserving and undeserving, it isn't even difficult, and doing so is absolutely necessary for law enforcement. By refusing to admit that such a distinction may be worthwhile, you betray your responsibility to side with the civilised working class against the yobbos and the scum. It is our duty to discriminate in favour of the civilised. And if you don't want that duty, maybe you don't deserve civilisation. Somalia's just over there.
It cannot have escaped the attention of Britain's criminal underclass that our government has a policy of trying to avoid sending anyone to prison if at all possible. Those who do go to prison serve pathetically small sentences. And our "conservative" Justice Minister is intent on further cuts to sentences and greater use of "community punishments", known amongst criminals as "a joke" or a "walkout".
"we have not moved on from the power dominance of a single culture in Britain."
Well, obviously. It's called government. Now, just what would you suggest we replace it with?
You can wish for situations like this to be resolved without violence, but your wish won't be granted. Would you prefer to have the small chance that some innocent person will be wrongly attacked by the police? Or the very real certainty that innocent people will be attacked in their homes and businesses by rioters and looters? That fireman and ambulances will be attacked? That people will be robbed and assaulted in the streets by thugs?
That is the reality here. You either trust the police, or you let the gangs run amok.
But the traditional approach is not being tried. As I explained.
Of course there is fuel. That's your civilisation they're burning.
I really have to challenge you on this point.
If nothing else, conservative government is surely characterised by its approach to law and order.
And yet, right now, we see a huge amount of both crime and disorder which the authorities appear to be unable to control. This suggests that they may not actually be conservative at all
This becomes even clearer if we look deeper, because when we ask why the police are not engaging the rioters, we find that they are afraid to do so, knowing that if someone is hurt, they will be blamed for it and hung out to dry by their superiors. They seek a guarantee from the top that officers will not be blamed if someone is injured. Example.
It seems to me that if the government is truly conservative, then it would provide that guarantee in a heartbeat. But perhaps you can provide some other explanation as to why it has not and will not.
By the way, you are right when you say that these people have not been governed well. You are simply mistaken about the way in which they have been misgoverned.
In that particular conflict, neither side was especially likable. Both revolutionary and radical, not particularly civilised, and both with their own "Anonymous" army.
The best approach would have been to avoid involvement if at all possible. And if that was not possible (for example, if I were Spanish and living in a conflict zone) then my "side" would have been chosen for me.
Anonymous are worse than the WBC.
On the one hand we have this fairly hateful little cult that goes around upsetting people, apparently for religious reasons. On the other hand, we have another hateful little cult which also goes around upsetting people, apparently for fun. Sorry, "lulz".
The difference? We know who WBC are. We know where they are and who their leader is. This makes them better than Anonymous, because they operate in the open. If the WBC commits a crime, then they can (and will) be arrested. And if you have a reason to sue the WBC, then you can.
Hell, even the Church of Scientology is better than Anonymous. Same reasons. CoS may be a creepy cult, but again, it's all out in the open. The key thing is that CoS and WBC can be forced to take responsibility for bad things they might do. It is the same for all normal, civilised people.
With Anonymous, there's nothing to applaud. They are not activists or protesters, any more than the KKK were. They are bullies, operating under the cover of anonymity which frees them from responsibility for their actions. They are an exclusively destructive force: there is no positive achievement of Anonymous.
Anyone siding with them here should carefully consider their position. Association with Anonymous, even defending them here, will turn out to be to their disadvantage in the future. The organisation will not only be thoroughly discredited, but also shown to be thoroughly evil in nature: capable only of destruction. The mass media will not need to invent anything to do this, just as it was not necessary to invent anything about Nazism to discredit the Nazis. Pure presentation of the facts will be enough. Everyone would be well advised to have nothing whatsoever to do with Anonymous, because such involvement will certainly be regretted in the future.
Then why wish for the liberals to exploit your fears?
Ah, I think I get it. You wish they were actually liberal - that their campaigning concerned things that actually mattered, rather than the sort of thing that's easy to change. Fair enough.
This is absolutely true. Actually, the Arabs don't care about Israel very much at all, and have certainly never celebrated attacks on Israel or the US, its sole Western supporter. The guys with sign boards saying things like "Death to Israel!" and "Drive them into the Sea" are in fact Jewish actors hired by Mossad to justify Israeli aggression against the Middle East. What you think is "the streets of Iran" is in fact a blue-screen television studio in the basement of a government building in Tel Aviv. Why, even the so-called "Hamas" is actually a false flag operation operated by Mossad, which fires rockets into Israel on a regular basis to stir up hate. The Israelis want us to believe that they're fighting for their own survival against aggressive enemies on all sides, but we all know the truth: that they started it and then made it look like their enemy did it.
Except (of course) all of the above is total bollocks. But it's amazing how mainstream those Zionist Conspiracies have become lately, isn't it? How people are willing to believe anything, no matter how retarded, if it justifies their hatred of Israel.
Right, and it's quite easy to be afraid that one group (the Republicans) will be worse than another (the Dems). There will be more wars, more people in prison, etc. So, your fears are being exploited, so that you'll vote one way rather than the other. You'll put up with bad behavior from the Democrats on the grounds that the other lot would be worse.
(Sorry, my previous attempt at making this point was two paragraphs longer than it needed to be.)
Are these really the things you are afraid of, though? Your sig would suggest otherwise. I get the impression that you are much more afraid of patriotism and religious faith.
Aren't you worried about the establishment of a Christian theocracy under President-for-Life Palin? Complete with outlawing of abortion, a total ban on even mentioning evolution, mandatory prayers in schools, death penalty for gay people and atheists, all Americans to be forced to drive SUVs, that sort of thing?
I think if you had a choice between voting for some Dems who will definitely keep the potheads in jail and probably won't do anything about over-reaching police powers, or voting for some Republicans who might possibly turn out to be a Christian version of the Taleban, you'd go for the Dems every time. And the reason for that is fear. You're more afraid of the Republicans than you are of the Democrats; and that's because your fears have been exploited.
(By the way, I don't support any of these people. I'm not even American. But if I were, I don't think I'd bother voting.)
He would make an awesome President and we all know it.
Suppose that Vader wishes to reform the healthcare industry. Does he allow obstructive senators, bureaucrats and insurance industry CEOs to stand in his way? No, and it doesn't take many crushed tracheas to get what he wants. "I find your lack of support disturbing."
And everything else: perhaps you would like to explain to Vader why oil is leaking into the Gulf and union regulations prevent a proper cleanup? Or maybe you'd like to tell Vader that his plans to close Guantanemo aren't possible. Or that the warrantless wiretap programme can't be abolished like he asked. Contrast this with the non-achievements of the Rebel Alliance, who are good at promising and very bad at doing. Quite how they managed to win the war against the Sith is still a mystery...
What happened to the /. that was fairly neutral, objective and unbiased?
I'm not sure that Slashdot has ever been neutral about certain topics. But the inconsistency can be annoying. If the Bombay High Court had ruled that Climatology was "a time-tested science", I doubt we'd hear any sarcastic remarks at all. And there are certainly a few similarities between Astrology and Climatology, as in:
I'll just look into my computer simulation to see the future of the Earth for the next century! There's no way that the simulation could possibly be inaccurate, because I have asked another Climatologer to peer-review it.
Hmm... oh dear. It looks like civilisation will certainly be destroyed by a great flood from the polar ice caps within twenty years. I guess you need to renew my research grants so I can figure out how you should prevent it.
You did that? Thanks. Let's see now... I think you should raise taxes and hire more Climatologers. Then you'll be safe. Oh, by the way, turns out I was wrong. Actually, civilisation will be destroyed by a new ice age. I have to do some more research, so how about some more money?
True; but that's actually a different case of the same rule: if the citizens form a mob that is sufficiently powerful that it can make the laws, then it becomes the government. It is tough for citizens to become more powerful than professional soldiers with real weapons - but the military might join the rebellion...
Their dialup capacity is probably 99% idle these days. Might as well offer it for something.
Speaking of paranoia, I wonder if the Egyptian telcos have any way to log callers to that number? I wonder if they might ever be persuaded to hand over the logs to the authorities.
Indeed, it's important not to confuse law and morals. But piracy advocates do this all the time. For instance, on OS News, Thom Holwerda cannot resist mentioning that "downloading is perfectly legal in The Netherlands and many other European countries", a matter he has mentioned before. He says this as the ultimate answer to any question about whether piracy is right or wrong. But heating on your wife is also legal in The Netherlands, and that doesn't make it right.
Also, the view that file sharing is moral, and attempts to stop it are immoral, are actually quite contentious. I refer you to Slashdot user "Cliffski", an independent game designer whose games have been widely pirated, because he has the opposite view. To him, sharing without permission is immoral, along with the attitude that excuses and permits it. I find it difficult not to see his point.