This App Takes The Biscuit

[jimbms]

The easy option would be to help the few English left emigrate as it is already one big refugee camp.

75% want to emigrate

Ah well all that is needed now is a shit load of razor wire to cover the costal area, Hadrians wall and that Welsh gits dyke Offa I think (I can never remember his bloody name). <BR>Edited to add: Nice job for you there LDV, you can be camp commandant. (No pun intended).

[mæŋksmən]

!!Camp commandant!!

 

love it jim,

[Rog]

 

Why should anyone place judgement on a situation as to whether it is right or wrong simply because of the legal definition or a legal outlook? I make up my mind whether something is correct or not.

 

And to be honest, I see little good justification for the imposition of border controls. Movement should not be restricted, if we wanted to live in a decent world.

 

Were it not that I am now convinced you are a Troll I would reply to those points.

[mæŋksmən]

Thats it rog, the old troll excuse to avoid what you dont like.

[somewhatdamaged]

@LDV

 

Would you rather we lived in an anarchist state with no laws, with everyone doing whatever they "thought" was acceptable? Even if you don't like or agree with the law, you still have to stand by it. Although i seriously doubt you were making a statement you actually believed, rather one that would cause a bit of a stir. You're obviously very intelligent, which is why some of your more ludicrous posts make me wonder what kind of fantasy world you think we should live in

 

Back on topic, many illegal immigrants get a very cushy number entering the UK. I hope that the Con-Lib Government try and tighten up our border controls and keep the freeloaders out.

[Rog]

Thats it rog, the old troll excuse to avoid what you dont like.

OK, let’s work on the basis that LDV isn’t a troll and take his outlandish comments at face value.

 

Let’s start with the matter of legality and right and wrong. Legality or otherwise is determined by society deciding what it considers to be right and what it considers to be wrong and memorialising those things into rules and laws. If an individual with a society disagrees with those democratically agreed definitions of right and wrong he has three options.

 

1. Put up and shut up because the costs of doing otherwise override the benefits from those things in the rule set he does agree with.

 

2. Work to convince others to implement change through established methods.

 

3. Ignore the rules and face the consequences which will rightly involve at the very least the disapprobation of other people.

 

Now, why should there be border controls.

 

For a variety of reasons starting with that the investment people have made into their society in terms of “benefit” systems based on contributions made to support those people within their society.

 

Then add the infrastructure that is now in place that has been built over many years by contributions made by people from that society in the past.

 

That alone justifies an immigrant tax to come some way to paying for what we and our antecedents have paid for in years past.

 

Society? How about the need to protect our society for ourselves, to keep criminals out of our society, and to keep our society one in which there is at least the equality of race if not the equality of class.

 

Then employment. Why should people in our society have to face competition for employment from people who come from crap holes and who are willing to live crap hole lifestyles and so bring down the standards of our society? And why should we be expected to share what we have accumulated in our society with others? We should not.

 

Borders are vital to a nation and to a people and should be rigorously enforced and anyone who illegally crosses a border or remains within a country illegally is just as much a burglar as the lowest scum who breaks into your house.

 

Or maybe LDV believes that there’s nothing wrong with burglary be it burglary of a house or a nation.

 

I believe otherwise.

[pongo]

Would you rather we lived in an anarchist state with no laws .. ?

 

By definition there would not longer be a state, if we were to achieve anarchy (or anarcho capitalism).

 

Anarcho - capitalist - libertarians would tend towards believing in the free movement of people - hand in hand with free trade and the free movement of capital and labour.

 

There are people close to the new UK govt who are not a million miles away from these sorts of ideas. As an idealism, at least. It's the new black.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Let’s start with the matter of legality and right and wrong. Legality or otherwise is determined by society deciding what it considers to be right and what it considers to be wrong and memorialising those things into rules and laws. If an individual with a society disagrees with those democratically agreed definitions of right and wrong he has three options.

You know I think that is a load of bullshit. It isn't the public who determine the laws at all but a separate class of individuals.

There is no democratic process of determining what the public wish to be law and no democratic process of amending or removing particular laws. A undesirable law could only be removed, for example, with massive campaigning which might at best simply raise a high degree of public support but still not have the power to put force on the government.

And then what of the role of government and media propaganda in shaping the mindsets of the public to accept and support specific laws?

 

 

Now, why should there be border controls.

 

For a variety of reasons starting with that the investment people have made into their society in terms of “benefit” systems based on contributions made to support those people within their society.

 

Then add the infrastructure that is now in place that has been built over many years by contributions made by people from that society in the past.

 

That alone justifies an immigrant tax to come some way to paying for what we and our antecedents have paid for in years past.

 

Society? How about the need to protect our society for ourselves, to keep criminals out of our society, and to keep our society one in which there is at least the equality of race if not the equality of class.

 

Then employment. Why should people in our society have to face competition for employment from people who come from crap holes and who are willing to live crap hole lifestyles and so bring down the standards of our society? And why should we be expected to share what we have accumulated in our society with others? We should not.

 

Borders are vital to a nation and to a people and should be rigorously enforced and anyone who illegally crosses a border or remains within a country illegally is just as much a burglar as the lowest scum who breaks into your house.

 

Or maybe LDV believes that there’s nothing wrong with burglary be it burglary of a house or a nation.

 

I believe otherwise.

You consider immigration to be a form of burglary? That would be seem strange when recognising that the same accusation of burglary could be levelled at Britain in its role to enforce 'free trade' with other western nations and then with the establishment of protectionist economic policies against these countries that are forced to. With the result that capital is transferred away poorer countries. And yet the people of these nations are prevented from following it.

Of course, the people of the western nations are not the one who orchestrate this system, control it, and benefit most from it. But it does well for those who are in control maintain the status quo by preventing the possibility of disruption from mass immigration. But it doesn't make this immigration wrong or a form of burglary. It is just the inevitable consequence of people reacting to the movement of capital.

The real issue would be to challenge how economic practices are conducted and to whom it benefits.

The social welfare infrastructure of Britain is pretty fragile, but that is because the working classes are paying for it out of the pot.

 

SomewhatDamaged -

Would you rather we lived in an anarchist state with no laws, with everyone doing whatever they "thought" was acceptable? Even if you don't like or agree with the law, you still have to stand by it. Although i seriously doubt you were making a statement you actually believed, rather one that would cause a bit of a stir. You're obviously very intelligent, which is why some of your more ludicrous posts make me wonder what kind of fantasy world you think we should live in

With respect, I don't think you know what you're talking about. There is no such thing as an anarchist state. And no laws does not mean everyone can do what they think is acceptable. We will always live in a society and one that has its own rules and norms. The preference would be to have one that is not established by a small powerful class whose interests are not the people's. It is not the removal of societal rules.

[Rog]

You know I think that is a load of bullshit. It isn't the public who determine the laws at all but a separate class of individuals.

 

Not a separate class, a separate sector that is made up by elected individuals from all classes.

 

There is no democratic process of determining what the public wish to be law and no democratic process of amending or removing particular laws.

 

Yes there is.

 

A undesirable law could only be removed, for example, with massive campaigning which might at best simply raise a high degree of public support but still not have the power to put force on the government.

 

Yes they do.

 

And then what of the role of government and media propaganda in shaping the mindsets of the public to accept and support specific laws?

 

That of moral guidance and in order to present a reasoned argument when a pressure group try to make a change that is desirable by that group but would have a detrimental effect on the nation. It works well with decent governments and politicians, it doesn’t when you have crap such as NuLabour in office.

 

Don’t really understand the British democratic system do you? It’s in need of change now there’s more than two main parties but up to that point it has worked and worked rather well.

 

You consider immigration to be a form of burglary?

 

No, I consider illegal immigration to be burglary. And not a form of burglary, burglary.

 

That would be seem strange when recognising that the same accusation of burglary could be levelled at Britain in its role to enforce 'free trade' with other western nations and then with the establishment of protectionist economic policies against these countries that are forced to.

 

Nonsense.

 

With the result that capital is transferred away poorer countries.

 

So what? That’s life. It’s also Market Forces being used by entrepreneurial people in places that they would otherwise never have the opportunity to use to the fullest extent.

 

Market forces work to the eventual advantage of all. Messing with them will eventually lead to problems, that’s one reason why socialism is pants and why the Welfare State should be reduced to only providing the very bare essentials of life.

 

Nothing like an empty belly to get people into work.

 

And yet the people of these nations are prevented from following it.

 

Rubbish.

 

Of course, the people of the western nations are not the one who orchestrate this system, control it, and benefit most from it. But it does well for those who are in control maintain the status quo by preventing the possibility of disruption from mass immigration.

 

Immigration needs to first and foremost be for the benefit of a host nation, NOT those who want to be parasitic on a host nation.

 

Immigrants should be viewed as a resource. A potentially very expensive resource, and one that ideally would be utilised in the form of a Gastarbeiter program rather than for the creation of new citizens.

 

But it doesn't make this immigration wrong or a form of burglary. It is just the inevitable consequence of people reacting to the movement of capital.

 

Burglary is also people reacting to the movement of capital.

 

The real issue would be to challenge how economic practices are conducted and to whom it benefits.

The social welfare infrastructure of Britain is pretty fragile, but that is because the working classes are paying for it out of the pot. people reacting to the movement of capital people reacting to the movement of capital

 

Oh FFS, LDV, it’s fragile because (especially) the last government have been using the hopelessly outmoded “Welfare” state for political ends. It’s also because in order for them to do so it was essential to increase the population of the UK. In any case, WHAT “pot” are you on about?

 

Look, it’s time to restore sanity, to reduce the living standards of (especially) the British public to the level they can afford based on their earning capacity, not on employing usury and make those not in work EARN their handouts by Workfare.

 

And know what? It’s going to happen.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Not a separate class, a separate sector that is made up by elected individuals from all classes.

What definition are you using for class? I don't think it is the same as mine. But I see it as that those who enter government as politicians become a separate class, the political class.

 

As to your comments on the ability to determine laws, as far I remember you only spoke about the process of voting and how this determines the laws we get. That's not a democratic method of establishing laws. Especially not when determined by a liberal democratic in a capitalist society that has so many other heavy influences and interference from such powers as the business community.

 

Don’t really understand the British democratic system do you? It’s in need of change now there’s more than two main parties but up to that point it has worked and worked rather well.

I understand the British system to a good enough degree to recognise that democracy is absent from it except in the process of electing people. It's a far cry that anything that could really deem itself to be called democracy when the people really have the opportunity to have say in the laws they wished to live under. And when public have their perspectives and views largely shaped to accept many laws that have been established through the control of information.

 

So what? That’s life. It’s also Market Forces being used by entrepreneurial people in places that they would otherwise never have the opportunity to use to the fullest extent.

Because it results in the exploitation of others. Doesn't particularly bother me if market practices aren't used to their fullest extent.

 

Market forces work to the eventual advantage of all. Messing with them will eventually lead to problems, that’s one reason why socialism is pants and why the Welfare State should be reduced to only providing the very bare essentials of life.

Even the existence of a minimal welfare state is socialist and would be an interference in market practices.

If it wasn't for State interference in particular aspects of society I think it would be plainly obvious that society would go tits up. What would happen to the unemployed? How would the finance sectors perform without external regulation? Do we want to return to a society that has the workhouse or have thousands on the strees begging/starving? And do we want another financial crisis, that resulted from a lack of regulation?

 

It might take an empty belly to get into work. But when there is no work available, what happens then?

And what sort of society is one that dumps the worker on their arse for them to have to accept to even shitter work and one that means they have to struggle even harder to make ends meet? What about their purpose and worth in life? You seem to lack any recognition that people's lives should not simply revolve around their work and their simple need to survive.

 

And again, I don't consider it burglary because each nation ought not to be its own 'home' or enclosed territory in some aspects and not in others. And I don't see it as defensible to allow capital and resources to be shifted from one area to another and yet not allow people to have the freedom to move as well. If current trading systems and the processes of globalisation were not as they were then there could be some justifiable argument along what you have been saying. But at present Britain is getting what it deserves and what these immigrants deserve.

(I recognise that I haven't touched upon immigration from other european nations)

 

The 'pot' I was referring to was the monies used by the working classes by fund government social spending.

[Rog]

LDV, if you ever find the world that you like my advice is don't go there. For one thing it won't be inhabited by humans, for another you would hate it.