[BBC News] Man is charged after drugs raid

[WTF]

Take a look at news bulletins to see what happens to societies when they decide not heed laws and live as decent citizens

 

Take a look at the Horn of Africa and its environs. There are areas with no government and no legal system and they are doing quite fine.

.

 

no thay prob have there own way of law, you get caught u prob get shot,

there is allways laws everywhere, maybe there not set by a local goverment or wriiten in stone, but who ever controls that area there will be some sort of code, be it gangs/goverment

 

Yes, I think you are right. There will always be some form of law in a society or group, or as you say a code of living. What I disagree with is the law in our society where the government decides on something and we are expected to follow it whether that law makes sense or not.

 

i think the law must make sense to those bringing it in or they wouldn't? ( you'd hope so anyway ) the fact you disagree with it isn't really the point. i don't agree with some laws myself, but i still try and abide by them. there a 2 sides to every coin and the decission is not likely to always be what we want, but it ought to be justifiable. you only have to look at the differing laws between countries to see that we all don't see things in the same light.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

i think the law must make sense to those bringing it in or they wouldn't? ( you'd hope so anyway ) the fact you disagree with it isn't really the point. i don't agree with some laws myself, but i still try and abide by them. there a 2 sides to every coin and the decission is not likely to always be what we want, but it ought to be justifiable. you only have to look at the differing laws between countries to see that we all don't see things in the same light.

 

Ok, what I mean is that often you get laws which are severely unfair, haven't been well thought out, or are created over issues which more so than others laws legislate on things that the state has absolutely no business interfering in.

 

It should be recognised that the politicians who push for particular laws do not hold the same interests and have same perspectives as the general populace because whether they came from a working class background or were a good friend of yours once they are in power their salary, power, and distance from the public alters their perceptions, and this is a big problem. In the last sentence you say WE see things differently, but are you saying it is about just about culture, don't forget it isn't WE who set the law but it is different elite with a different cultural background.

 

I mean when I really think about it I wouldn't there would be anything who would say that no matter what the law is it should always be followed. I mean what if you had a really barmy law being introduced. I think the only reason people would 'adhere' to it would be because of the consequences. If people blindly obey any laws that come in then they are basically opening themselves up to being shafted by those who rule them.

 

Many law are based around property, something I don't have any respect for and for good reason, but it seems very clear that the agenda behind such laws is to protect those with the property, i.e. the rich, big businesses etc., and of course such laws also apply and aim to protect the property of the general populace but this is secondary and simply reinforce the rights that surround property. So basically, I don't agree with property laws and given that they are a product of the desires of the elite in the capitalist system I do not believe they should be respected at all.

 

In explaining my problem with property laws for example I hear about people who get caught and fined for shoplifting, or in the past the person was often given a custodial sentence. Now I think that many instances of shoplifting are actually GOOD. Say you have a massive chain of stores that sells clothes, this business earns hundreds of millions a year. Someone walks into one of these stores and steal a pair of jeans, probably because they don't earn very much (as someone with money would be less inclined to take the risk and less likely to need the jeans). That person will get punished if caught. But why? Do the clothes belong to the store? Due to property laws and importance attached to transactions and contracts the clothes store OWNS those jeans, it is their property. But I don't think the jeans belong to that store any more than they belong to anyone else. The reason is because far away in (maybe) China there are people who HAVE to work for a wage or they will die, they have some options as to where to work but it all involves taking a wage. And the process of working and being given a wage means that when these people make the jeans their produce (what they have produced with their hands) is taken away from them and they have no choice in it. In compensation they are given a meagre wage, something they can just about survive on. So for all that work they get robbed by their employer. The wage slave cannot produce the jeans on their own because the employers and other employers OWN the means of production.

 

This employer can then take these jeans and sell them to make a good profit. In my opinion if these jeans belong to anyone it would be the person who made them, as this person should be entitled to choose what THEY want to do with them. But the system of work that these people live in (and that we live in the Western World) does not allow this. You sell your labour and your employer takes what you produce. So the jeans should not belong to the clothes store. Now the Chinese person is not going to get these jeans back but I would be happy if some other poor wage slave in THIS country who is maybe working in a call centre, sweeping the streets, cleaning offices would take the jeans from the store without paying. Again, these clothes were stolen from the person who made them so it is quite fine to take them. It actually is a better result because the person with the low wage is helping sustain themselves by taking away things from the rich business.

 

I know this is long winded, but it shows in one sense how property laws are there to benefit those who control the means of production and those who are rich. It is somehow ok to steal from the poor but not okay to steal from those who never actually made anything other than a profit from selling other peoples stuff. But the government partly exists to support the rights of property, i.e. protect rich people's property. Without such law the poor would justifiably not respect the property.

[WTF]

it was long winded, but if you break that down you are basically saying no one should own anything? and if you have something anyone else has the right to take it? the reason retail businesses are wealthy is because they have a product or produce ( rather than property, property is land or bricks and mortar to me on this level ) that people who want it are willing to pay for. if every body stole the products they wanted the stores would soon not be offering them to us. there is no need to buy label clothes or M&S ready meals to exist hapilly.. and many of the shop lifters are losers on benefits who consider fags and down the pub every night as essentials and proper food and clean appearance and clothes as luxuries they can't afford using jeans as an example is not the best either as it is a non essential item, food if someone was starving i could understand, but it still doesn't make it right. if people contributed to society, then they are usually in a possition to exist in at some level above destitute. another point is that those with no respect for property are the mindless vandals that can't really be justifing their actions. more a case of jeleously and spite of those who can be bothered to play the game of society. the snag is that those that don't contribute and sponge of the state still expect and feel the need to be living with the same level of comfort and service as those that don't. they still want satelite TV, motor transport and the latest phone or games console, but for no effort or contribution. now not every body can be rich, rich is a comparisson to others and only a few can be on top, and it is the same with business and the folks running the country. not everyone is going to get the chance or opportunity to be rich or in power, but it doesn't mean the rest of the wannabes have a right to live the life without the imput.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

it was long winded, but if you break that down you are basically saying no one should own anything? and if you have something anyone else has the right to take it?

 

Oh no, I am saying that property rights and laws should not be respected. Nobody should be allowed to say I OWN this, this is my property. And the society we live in that accepts that people can legally own things need to be changed.

 

However, possessions are a different thing. You possess your car, your house, your clothes, your electrical goods, etc. These are things that your possession of benefits you and does not disadvantage anyone else, nobody has good reason to remove these things from you as it is you who makes USE of them or only have specific value to you. This is where the distinction should be made. It should not be about owning things and claiming them as your property, but in determining what are your possessions and what are not.

 

the reason retail businesses are wealthy is because they have a product or produce ( rather than property, property is land or bricks and mortar to me on this level ) that people who want it are willing to pay for. if every body stole the products they wanted the stores would soon not be offering them to us. there is no need to buy label clothes or M&S ready meals to exist hapilly.. and many of the shop lifters are losers on benefits who consider fags and down the pub every night as essentials and proper food and clean appearance and clothes as luxuries they can't afford using jeans as an example is not the best either as it is a non essential item, food if someone was starving i could understand, but it still doesn't make it right.

 

The reason why businesses such as retail get wealthy is because they make their money off the backs of the work done by those employed. Yes, people are willing to pay for these goods, but they are not possessions that should belong to the business, they should belong to the workers if anyone. I do not recognise that the store should own these things, because they stole them. But I have to recognise that I have purchase these things off these companies in order to live. If everything stole the products then yes the business would not be able to offer such things. Big deal. It is not an ideal situation to have such products sold to the public for jumped up prices and which involve theft and profit making from the people who produced them.

 

Many of these shop lifters are the losers in society. They are at the bottom of the ladder, the ones with the least opportunity, the ones most disadvantaged. In that sense I don't have an issue with them shoplifting. These people consider fags and going to the pub every night as being so important as it is part of the ways of escaping from the shit realities of their situation.

 

In reference to my earlier example about the jeans, they are in the same position as the chinese workers. Forced to work every day doing meaningless work and for a small wage (and it is bad enough that they are simply given a wage). Given the amount they are earning why should they be criticised for shoplifting? This is a society of gross inequality and one where freedom and choice about how to live ones life is largely an illusion. These people who do the crap work are probably doing more work than the people who employ him, i.e. the people who are getting rich from his work. So I am happy with any equalisation. If we live in a society where some forms of theft are completely acceptable then we cannot condone others for the same behaviour, especially where the need is greater for the things that are stolen.

 

if people contributed to society, then they are usually in a possition to exist in at some level above destitute. another point is that those with no respect for property are the mindless vandals that can't really be justifing their actions. more a case of jeleously and spite of those who can be bothered to play the game of society. the snag is that those that don't contribute and sponge of the state still expect and feel the need to be living with the same level of comfort and service as those that don't. they still want satelite TV, motor transport and the latest phone or games console, but for no effort or contribution. now not every body can be rich, rich is a comparisson to others and only a few can be on top, and it is the same with business and the folks running the country. not everyone is going to get the chance or opportunity to be rich or in power, but it doesn't mean the rest of the wannabes have a right to live the life without the imput.

 

Those with no respect for property are not mindless vandals. I am not a mindless vandal. And the game of society you refer to is actually the game of capitalism.

 

Those who sponge of the state represent the problem with the society we live in. Too many pratts in our society think work is good and the harder you work the better person you are. You go to work and no matter what job you do the bigger effort you put in the bigger the pat on the back. This attitude ignores a great deal.

The vast majority of work carried out by people is alienating (read about the Marxist theory of alienation), it has no true meaning for the person undertaking it. But the only compensation for mind-numbingly boring and monotonous work is the salary, and the higher the salary the better one can mitigate the drudgery of ones work.

But the disadvantages, uneducated, and poor, etc. their options are very limited. Of all the people in society they are the ones who need work the most but the work on offer is going to be the worst, i.e. the most boring, most alienating, most monotonous. So a lot of people make the sensible decision to sponge of the state. I would rather sponge off the state than if I were to get a little bit more money working in (I don't know) a call centre or a fast food shop. But these people should not really be criticised for making this decision. It is completely sensible and understandable. The issue lies with the wage system and the form of work in our society which makes the extent to which people work seem admirable but who they are completely despicable. We are not machines.

 

People DO have a right to live without input into society. Why should they HAVE to work? However, in a better society there would be clear benefits to working such as sociability and striving for the greater good of society in what one produces. And nobody should have the chance to be rich or have power. The rich are only so because they have made money OFF the work of other people. There wealth is not proportionate to their efforts.

[Cret]

People DO have a right to live without input into society. Why should they HAVE to work?

 

Because if they don't work, ie if no-one does then there would be no society to speak of. No goods, no services, nothing. It would be a pretty shit state of affairs for pretty much everyone frankly.

 

Fair enough if someone can entirely support themselves with stuff they already own, never need any government assistance or healthcare etc, and never use any public services etc then great - don't see why they should have to pay tax etc or go to do a regular job.

 

But if you mean anything other than total self sufficiency you're crackers I'm afraid. Why should some people get carried by others, purely because they can't be arsed to work or to realise that reality means everyone needs to pull their own weight and that life is not a game nor a big freebie. I realise that some idealistic hippy types (I know a good few) think that 'the machine' or 'the man' is a terrible thing and that life would be so much better if we just lived in huts, got baked all day, and grew the odd carrot & turnip to keep ourselves alive but life isn't that simple.

 

They're usually the type of people that say that but have no problem going to the dentist for subsidised work to be done that's funded by people who understand that grown ups have responsibilities. If that looks like a rant, it's not directed at you as such, but I know a few 'life skiver' types that could do with realising this.

[The Old Git]

And nobody should have the chance to be rich or have power. The rich are only so because they have made money OFF the work of other people. There wealth is not proportionate to their efforts.

 

I'm afraid that is bollocks.

 

I've a friend who I would consider to be rich. He has a large property over here and another property in Egypt. He's self employed, works massively long hours. Why shouldn't he be rewarded for his efforts?

 

If you're talking about mega rich people then surely some of them also deserve it by the hard work, risks, etc., they've taken to build up their wealth.

[WTF]

i think dolce vita has ran out of medication, i wonder who they think owns the computer they type their drivel on?? one minute jeans are your possesion and the next they belong to the workers?? what if the workers formed a co op and offered them for sale?? who's would they be then and would nicking them be ok?? silly fkr.

[Grianane]

it was long winded, but if you break that down you are basically saying no one should own anything? and if you have something anyone else has the right to take it?

 

Oh no, I am saying that property rights and laws should not be respected. Nobody should be allowed to say I OWN this, this is my property. And the society we live in that accepts that people can legally own things need to be changed.

 

However, possessions are a different thing. You possess your car, your house, your clothes, your electrical goods, etc. These are things that your possession of benefits you and does not disadvantage anyone else, nobody has good reason to remove these things from you as it is you who makes USE of them or only have specific value to you. This is where the distinction should be made. It should not be about owning things and claiming them as your property, but in determining what are your possessions and what are not.

 

the reason retail businesses are wealthy is because they have a product or produce ( rather than property, property is land or bricks and mortar to me on this level ) that people who want it are willing to pay for. if every body stole the products they wanted the stores would soon not be offering them to us. there is no need to buy label clothes or M&S ready meals to exist hapilly.. and many of the shop lifters are losers on benefits who consider fags and down the pub every night as essentials and proper food and clean appearance and clothes as luxuries they can't afford using jeans as an example is not the best either as it is a non essential item, food if someone was starving i could understand, but it still doesn't make it right.

 

The reason why businesses such as retail get wealthy is because they make their money off the backs of the work done by those employed. Yes, people are willing to pay for these goods, but they are not possessions that should belong to the business, they should belong to the workers if anyone. I do not recognise that the store should own these things, because they stole them. But I have to recognise that I have purchase these things off these companies in order to live. If everything stole the products then yes the business would not be able to offer such things. Big deal. It is not an ideal situation to have such products sold to the public for jumped up prices and which involve theft and profit making from the people who produced them.

 

Many of these shop lifters are the losers in society. They are at the bottom of the ladder, the ones with the least opportunity, the ones most disadvantaged. In that sense I don't have an issue with them shoplifting. These people consider fags and going to the pub every night as being so important as it is part of the ways of escaping from the shit realities of their situation.

 

In reference to my earlier example about the jeans, they are in the same position as the chinese workers. Forced to work every day doing meaningless work and for a small wage (and it is bad enough that they are simply given a wage). Given the amount they are earning why should they be criticised for shoplifting? This is a society of gross inequality and one where freedom and choice about how to live ones life is largely an illusion. These people who do the crap work are probably doing more work than the people who employ him, i.e. the people who are getting rich from his work. So I am happy with any equalisation. If we live in a society where some forms of theft are completely acceptable then we cannot condone others for the same behaviour, especially where the need is greater for the things that are stolen.

 

if people contributed to society, then they are usually in a possition to exist in at some level above destitute. another point is that those with no respect for property are the mindless vandals that can't really be justifing their actions. more a case of jeleously and spite of those who can be bothered to play the game of society. the snag is that those that don't contribute and sponge of the state still expect and feel the need to be living with the same level of comfort and service as those that don't. they still want satelite TV, motor transport and the latest phone or games console, but for no effort or contribution. now not every body can be rich, rich is a comparisson to others and only a few can be on top, and it is the same with business and the folks running the country. not everyone is going to get the chance or opportunity to be rich or in power, but it doesn't mean the rest of the wannabes have a right to live the life without the imput.

 

Those with no respect for property are not mindless vandals. I am not a mindless vandal. And the game of society you refer to is actually the game of capitalism.

 

Those who sponge of the state represent the problem with the society we live in. Too many pratts in our society think work is good and the harder you work the better person you are. You go to work and no matter what job you do the bigger effort you put in the bigger the pat on the back. This attitude ignores a great deal.

The vast majority of work carried out by people is alienating (read about the Marxist theory of alienation), it has no true meaning for the person undertaking it. But the only compensation for mind-numbingly boring and monotonous work is the salary, and the higher the salary the better one can mitigate the drudgery of ones work.

But the disadvantages, uneducated, and poor, etc. their options are very limited. Of all the people in society they are the ones who need work the most but the work on offer is going to be the worst, i.e. the most boring, most alienating, most monotonous. So a lot of people make the sensible decision to sponge of the state. I would rather sponge off the state than if I were to get a little bit more money working in (I don't know) a call centre or a fast food shop. But these people should not really be criticised for making this decision. It is completely sensible and understandable. The issue lies with the wage system and the form of work in our society which makes the extent to which people work seem admirable but who they are completely despicable. We are not machines.

 

People DO have a right to live without input into society. Why should they HAVE to work? However, in a better society there would be clear benefits to working such as sociability and striving for the greater good of society in what one produces. And nobody should have the chance to be rich or have power. The rich are only so because they have made money OFF the work of other people. There wealth is not proportionate to their efforts.

 

 

Please leave your door open tonight, I'll call round and collect everyones television and other electrical goods - including your PC

[Skeddan]

Oh no, I am saying that property rights and laws should not be respected. Nobody should be allowed to say I OWN this, this is my property. And the society we live in that accepts that people can legally own things need to be changed.

 

However, possessions are a different thing. You possess your car, your house, your clothes, your electrical goods, etc. These are things that your possession of benefits you and does not disadvantage anyone else, nobody has good reason to remove these things from you as it is you who makes USE of them or only have specific value to you. This is where the distinction should be made. It should not be about owning things and claiming them as your property, but in determining what are your possessions and what are not.

 

Property rights and laws begin with possession, which you say is different. You say its ok to possess a car. OK. Now what if you want to hang on to your car which has specific value to you, but don't mind lending it to me for the weekend while you are away. Now I have possession of the car. You want it back. You lent it to me on condition you'd get it back. So even though I have possession, you have an interest in the car - a certain right - the primary right of possession. My right of possession is secondary to yours. I might have the car in my possession, but you own it.

 

You borrow books from the library - they are in your possession - you have a hold of them. You know they belong to the library and should be returned. The library own these books.

 

Someone takes your car away from you without permission and you want it back. They have possession - they are physically in control of it. How are you going to get it back without property laws?

 

You have a small cottage and grow your own vegetables and live very modestly. Someone comes along and takes possession from you to build a big hotel block. They have the security men to stop you getting possession back. You are powerless to stop their thugs kicking you out of your home.

 

It should not be about owning things and claiming them as your property, but in determining what are your possessions and what are not.

 

"determining what are your possessions are what are not." It's easy to know who has actual possession. Bob the Burglar has the TV from your house under his arm - I have possession. What you are really saying is determining who has 'rightful possession' and what kind of possession - e.g. for the weekend, or until books due back etc. Did Bob the Burglar take your possession away from you without you wanting to part with it? Can you show it was your possession? How? If not, why make him hand the TV you say was yours back to you.

 

So it is about possession - and who has rightful possession or not. (and out of that comes the basics of property laws and ownership).

 

Now the small guy in the cottage can hopefully show it belongs to him (having lived there over 21 years peacefully, or having papers or whatever). Now the nasty developer can be ordered to give it back to him, and punished for taking it away from the little guy when he shouldn't have.

 

I think the trouble isn't with property laws or 'ownership' per se. It's that too often the poor don't have access to the law, can't afford it, don't understand their rights, have their rights eroded by governments in the pay of rich interests, and the laws get twisted to favour big business interests and so on. Mr Big can hire big gun heavyweight legal team. Mr little is lucky if he gets legal aid and a third rate hack who's not really interested and just goes through the motions.

 

Had Roly Drower been able to afford to take his case to Strasbourg, the court that issued gagging order and ordered him to reveal his sources would have been hammered - he'd have probably won compensation and so on. It would have taken years and would be very expensive. He couldn't do this. He got hammered instead.

 

That illustrates what I see is the problem - giving better access to the law for those who need it - effective legal assistance and remedies.

[WTF]

it was long winded, but if you break that down you are basically saying no one should own anything? and if you have something anyone else has the right to take it?

 

Oh no, I am saying that property rights and laws should not be respected. Nobody should be allowed to say I OWN this, this is my property. And the society we live in that accepts that people can legally own things need to be changed.

 

However, possessions are a different thing. You possess your car, your house, your clothes, your electrical goods, etc. These are things that your possession of benefits you and does not disadvantage anyone else, nobody has good reason to remove these things from you as it is you who makes USE of them or only have specific value to you. This is where the distinction should be made. It should not be about owning things and claiming them as your property, but in determining what are your possessions and what are not.

 

the reason retail businesses are wealthy is because they have a product or produce ( rather than property, property is land or bricks and mortar to me on this level ) that people who want it are willing to pay for. if every body stole the products they wanted the stores would soon not be offering them to us. there is no need to buy label clothes or M&S ready meals to exist hapilly.. and many of the shop lifters are losers on benefits who consider fags and down the pub every night as essentials and proper food and clean appearance and clothes as luxuries they can't afford using jeans as an example is not the best either as it is a non essential item, food if someone was starving i could understand, but it still doesn't make it right.

 

The reason why businesses such as retail get wealthy is because they make their money off the backs of the work done by those employed. Yes, people are willing to pay for these goods, but they are not possessions that should belong to the business, they should belong to the workers if anyone. I do not recognise that the store should own these things, because they stole them. But I have to recognise that I have purchase these things off these companies in order to live. If everything stole the products then yes the business would not be able to offer such things. Big deal. It is not an ideal situation to have such products sold to the public for jumped up prices and which involve theft and profit making from the people who produced them.

 

Many of these shop lifters are the losers in society. They are at the bottom of the ladder, the ones with the least opportunity, the ones most disadvantaged. In that sense I don't have an issue with them shoplifting. These people consider fags and going to the pub every night as being so important as it is part of the ways of escaping from the shit realities of their situation.

 

In reference to my earlier example about the jeans, they are in the same position as the chinese workers. Forced to work every day doing meaningless work and for a small wage (and it is bad enough that they are simply given a wage). Given the amount they are earning why should they be criticised for shoplifting? This is a society of gross inequality and one where freedom and choice about how to live ones life is largely an illusion. These people who do the crap work are probably doing more work than the people who employ him, i.e. the people who are getting rich from his work. So I am happy with any equalisation. If we live in a society where some forms of theft are completely acceptable then we cannot condone others for the same behaviour, especially where the need is greater for the things that are stolen.

 

if people contributed to society, then they are usually in a possition to exist in at some level above destitute. another point is that those with no respect for property are the mindless vandals that can't really be justifing their actions. more a case of jeleously and spite of those who can be bothered to play the game of society. the snag is that those that don't contribute and sponge of the state still expect and feel the need to be living with the same level of comfort and service as those that don't. they still want satelite TV, motor transport and the latest phone or games console, but for no effort or contribution. now not every body can be rich, rich is a comparisson to others and only a few can be on top, and it is the same with business and the folks running the country. not everyone is going to get the chance or opportunity to be rich or in power, but it doesn't mean the rest of the wannabes have a right to live the life without the imput.

 

Those with no respect for property are not mindless vandals. I am not a mindless vandal. And the game of society you refer to is actually the game of capitalism.

 

Those who sponge of the state represent the problem with the society we live in. Too many pratts in our society think work is good and the harder you work the better person you are. You go to work and no matter what job you do the bigger effort you put in the bigger the pat on the back. This attitude ignores a great deal.

The vast majority of work carried out by people is alienating (read about the Marxist theory of alienation), it has no true meaning for the person undertaking it. But the only compensation for mind-numbingly boring and monotonous work is the salary, and the higher the salary the better one can mitigate the drudgery of ones work.

But the disadvantages, uneducated, and poor, etc. their options are very limited. Of all the people in society they are the ones who need work the most but the work on offer is going to be the worst, i.e. the most boring, most alienating, most monotonous. So a lot of people make the sensible decision to sponge of the state. I would rather sponge off the state than if I were to get a little bit more money working in (I don't know) a call centre or a fast food shop. But these people should not really be criticised for making this decision. It is completely sensible and understandable. The issue lies with the wage system and the form of work in our society which makes the extent to which people work seem admirable but who they are completely despicable. We are not machines.

 

People DO have a right to live without input into society. Why should they HAVE to work? However, in a better society there would be clear benefits to working such as sociability and striving for the greater good of society in what one produces. And nobody should have the chance to be rich or have power. The rich are only so because they have made money OFF the work of other people. There wealth is not proportionate to their efforts.

 

 

Please leave your door open tonight, I'll call round and collect everyones television and other electrical goods - including your PC

 

and i'll continue my quest of trying to have every bodies wife........

[Alex]

Try having my husband's wife and see what happens.

 

I'm throwing all my support on the posters who have argued against the current drug laws. Even if you agree with the laws, is there not a huge issue that needs addressing in that so many people are arguing against these laws? Shouldn't we be looking at the issues people are raising and not burying our collective heads in the sand?

 

At the very least, should we not be even slightly considering that it might be the drug laws themselves that are the problem - all of which have been brought in relatively recently in human history - and all of which are causing massive problems that were not there before the laws were introduced. Look it up, any of you people who say: "Lock him up. And throw away the key!".

 

Look it up! Look at why the laws were brought in, look at how many people are taking illegal drugs, look at who was taking them before the ban, who are taking them now, look at how the laws don't work! And see if you can consider another way of dealing with it.

 

Instead of even attempting to address the issues we're just throwing huge sentences at people. People like to alter their mindset and always have, always will.

 

Almost all of drugs related deaths are because of the illegality of the substance. They are cut with other things to increase the profit. People accidentally overdose, on substances like heroin. Which is perfectly safe if taken regularly and in regulated quantities. As are other illegal drugs. Deaths due to recreational drugs are practically non-existent - unless down to the laws. Which cause people to ingest other substances than they mean to, or more of what they did intend to. Look at the American alcohol ban of prohibition. Put any substance solely in the hands of anyone who wants to make a quick buck and see what happens!

 

You people who argue that the law is the law disgust me. Have any of you actually tried any of these substances? What would you say if the law decided that children are illegal, pets are illegal, sports are illegal??

 

If the law is wrong, we should challenge it.

 

(note: anyone who tries to claim that basic laws such as murder, assault, rape etc would not be obeyed or might be challenged if we challenged the drugs laws is clearly an idiot and should not be listened to at any time)

[keyboarder]

Maybe the law is an ass.

[Gladys]

But it is the law.

[keyboarder]

Well quite.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

People DO have a right to live without input into society. Why should they HAVE to work?

 

Because if they don't work, ie if no-one does then there would be no society to speak of. No goods, no services, nothing. It would be a pretty shit state of affairs for pretty much everyone frankly.

 

Fair enough if someone can entirely support themselves with stuff they already own, never need any government assistance or healthcare etc, and never use any public services etc then great - don't see why they should have to pay tax etc or go to do a regular job.

 

But if you mean anything other than total self sufficiency you're crackers I'm afraid. Why should some people get carried by others, purely because they can't be arsed to work or to realise that reality means everyone needs to pull their own weight and that life is not a game nor a big freebie. I realise that some idealistic hippy types (I know a good few) think that 'the machine' or 'the man' is a terrible thing and that life would be so much better if we just lived in huts, got baked all day, and grew the odd carrot & turnip to keep ourselves alive but life isn't that simple.

 

 

But I am not necessarily speaking as if the ideal system we should live in is capitalism. I am only saying that we should not live in a world where a person MUST work or the WILL die or live a desperate life. There a good deal of rich people who do very little in comparison to the hard working people who earn little.

 

Though you are right in saying that if nobody worked there would be no production. Though work in our society is almost solely driven by the need to survive lest we starve. But I would like to see a society where work is driven by the desire to add to the productive output of society, that is a desire to work to a greater good to benefit all. And I don't think it would be that difficult to achieve. Work should be something that is meaningful and has far benefits than drawbacks. The desire to work would be far greater if we lived in such a society. But for that to happen you need to do away with unnecessary management, property, and the wage system.

 

QUOTE (La_Dolce_Vita @ Oct 28 2008, 11:05 AM) *

And nobody should have the chance to be rich or have power. The rich are only so because they have made money OFF the work of other people. There wealth is not proportionate to their efforts.

 

 

THE OLD GIT: I'm afraid that is bollocks.

 

I've a friend who I would consider to be rich. He has a large property over here and another property in Egypt. He's self employed, works massively long hours. Why shouldn't he be rewarded for his efforts?

 

If you're talking about mega rich people then surely some of them also deserve it by the hard work, risks, etc., they've taken to build up their wealth.

 

No, I don't think it is bollocks at all. You genuinely think that the man or woman who has maybe put in some more hours a day at work, who may have talent, or entrepreneurial skill deserves the fortunes which they reap? I definitely do not. Ok, that person works long hours, maybe he works 14 hours a day. I don't believe he has any 'entitlement' to a fortune. From a conventional perspective I very much doubt his efforts in work are proportionate to his pay (and you say he is rich) when compared a person working 9-5 on a £6 an hour wage in a supermarket.

 

When you are talking about the mega rich, if anything the situation is even worse. Here you have people who are receiving incomes and owning property WAY out of proportion to any work they have done. Fair enough, these people have ambition and talent, they are maybe business savvy and know how to accrue wealth. But in no way do their 'rewards' reflect the work they have done. In an extreme example, does Bill Gates deserve the fortunes he has? Do the high-flying executives in London city deserve it? Do they hell. I could start work in a bank and be a clerk on £7 an hour. But if I moved in Management my salary would jump up to quite a big extent in the financial services. Is this jump in salary proportionate to the work done by a manager compared with a clerk? No.

 

Going back to my politics, the rich in owning property and accruing wealth do so at the expense of the everyone else. The capitalist system in which they make good use of works to their benefit in allowing them to make a profit from the work undertaken by their employees and by the process of acquiring the means of production at the expense of everyone else.

 

i think dolce vita has ran out of medication, i wonder who they think owns the computer they type their drivel on?? one minute jeans are your possesion and the next they belong to the workers?? what if the workers formed a co op and offered them for sale?? who's would they be then and would nicking them be ok?? silly fkr.

 

I don't think I am the silly f*cker as you seen to be desperately trying to misunderstand me. I own my computer. In this capitalist system I have purchased this laptop so it is my property. But that is not how it should be. There are other forms of possession that do not have to involve PRIVATE PROPERTY ownership.

 

If the workers got together, ran the factory, made the goods themselves, and agree together in a democratic fashion how much they sell the clothes for and share the profits equally then you would have a FAR better system than that at present. The reason is because the workers are not having the fruits of their labour stolen from them by having an employer assuming a right to own the clothes and giving the workers a wage. But although a co-op is a big improvement I would prefer that the eradication the transaction between the workers and the consumer with money.

 

Please leave your door open tonight, I'll call round and collect everyones television and other electrical goods - including your PC

 

I am not condoning theft.

 

QUOTE (La_Dolce_Vita @ Oct 28 2008, 11:05 AM) *

Oh no, I am saying that property rights and laws should not be respected. Nobody should be allowed to say I OWN this, this is my property. And the society we live in that accepts that people can legally own things need to be changed.

 

However, possessions are a different thing. You possess your car, your house, your clothes, your electrical goods, etc. These are things that your possession of benefits you and does not disadvantage anyone else, nobody has good reason to remove these things from you as it is you who makes USE of them or only have specific value to you. This is where the distinction should be made. It should not be about owning things and claiming them as your property, but in determining what are your possessions and what are not.