NationStates

Salandriagado wrote:

Purgatio wrote:
What? How? What's left to own then? No shares in companies? No patents or copyrights? No land?

Somewhere to live, clothing, as much random shit as you want to buy. Just not the means of production.

And it really wasn't that long ago that we didn't have copyright law in the UK, in the grand scheme of things. Nor since banning buying shares was a serious possibility. In neither case did we stop having private property.

You do realise that patent law was responsible for the industrial revolution and most progress,right ?

Purgatio wrote:

Ostroeuropa wrote:
Right, stuff like a toothbrush. You know. Personal property.

If the incentives on offer don't incentivize you that isn't a major problem. The only thing that matters is incentivizing the most people. You can sit in the corner instead if you want and humanity will still progress further and faster than under the current system.

Dude, the point of building up wealth is to have some financial security and safety net for you and the family you care about, if all you can own are depreciating things like toothbrushes or handbags you can't build up anything secure or long-lasting for yourself and your future. Private autonomy and private ordering and individual self-determination is impossible in this world, hence why I call it an authoritarian dystopia.

Sure you can. Your house, the contents of your bank account, etc.

Purgatio wrote:

Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States wrote:Yes, it is society's business, since in a vacuum, no-one would have such extraordinary amounts of wealth. In order to even garner a moderate amount of wealth, you need:

1. Enforceable property rights
2. A monetary system enforced by the State
3. Contract law enforced by State courts
4. A system of transferable rights allowed for by some sort of civil code or system
5. A banking system and banking laws
6. A concept of legal personality seperate from natural personality
7. Tort law
8. Infrastructure built and cared for by a State.

No-one who earns money does that entirely on their own. And if the system mentioned above creates a result that is detrimental to vast amounts of people while only benefiting a select few, then the system we have built has failed. That system is not natural, it was created and is maintained by us, and we can change it if necessary. When making a balance between rights, something human rights lawyers must do all the time, the right to property is far less important than the right to life of others.

The law sometimes steps in to enforce and vindicate a person's fundamental rights, but that does not mean those rights don't exist in the moral plane absenting the State's involvement. I believe all people have a right to life and bodily integrity, but in the absence of the State and laws against murder, assault, and battery, coupled with torts like wrongful death lawsuits and trespass to the person, those rights would be pretty useless and unenforceable. That does not mean those rights aren't inalienable and central to human dignity and personhood, nor does it support an overbroad conclusion that therefore society can amend the terms of one's 'right to life' or 'right to bodily integrity' however it likes just because those rights would be hard to enforce in its absence.

So yes, you do benefit from the state, and therefore you're participating in a perfectly fair transaction when you pay taxes to the state in return for said benefits.

Purgatio wrote:

Ostroeuropa wrote:
Try and follow because this is a moment where you're almost on point.

Right?

Right.

The point of a socialist society is to build up a security for you and your family that is more sustainable than a privatized version of that security because it prevents a run of bad luck fucking your descendants over entirely, including if you're rich.

Workers cooperatives are a form of ownership of means of production i'm okay with.

Thats not individual security, you are totally dependent on an external actor, the State, deciding in its discretion to keep you fed and well-clothed, you are entitled to nothing, own nothing by right, your very existence from one day to the next is at the State's grace and mercy, deciding in its magnanimity to allow you to have this so-called 'security' at its discretion. I will have no part in this.

Investments are equally totally dependent on an external actor.

The Alma Mater wrote:

Salandriagado wrote:
Somewhere to live, clothing, as much random shit as you want to buy. Just not the means of production.

And it really wasn't that long ago that we didn't have copyright law in the UK, in the grand scheme of things. Nor since banning buying shares was a serious possibility. In neither case did we stop having private property.

You do realise that patent law was responsible for the industrial revolution and most progress,right ?

You do realise that has absolutely nothing to do with my point, right?

I've had this thought for a while now, and I think in light of recent politics it needs to be looked into.

Should the UK become a Federal Union? If so, how should it be federalised?

Scotland Wales and Northern Ireland have their own Parliaments and Assemblies, with London being the only Region of England to have it's on legislature.
But should England have it's own Parliament akin to Scotland, or should each Region of England have it's own Parliament akin to London?

If it's regional, how far should those regional legislatures go? Should Yorkshire have it's own Parliament for example, or part of a Northern Parliament/Parliament of Northumbira?

I do think at least England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland can no longer be similar in terms of politics. Scotland used to be a Labour heartland, but now the SNP have risen to the forefront.

I don't think the nations of Great Britain are much different as people say, and unity is far better than diversity, but Scotland and Wales being superseded by England has become a problem in the recent political situations.

Perhaps then, England should have it's own Parliament, with further federalisation for each English Region.
A Chancellor for England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland should be established and govern together similarly to the Swiss Council, with the position of High Chancellor of Great Britain rotating between each one.
Defence, Treasury, Foreign, Policing, and Supreme Court should be maintained by a British Executive council, with oversight ministries for education, health, welfare etc, with each country mainly having authority of their own government departments.
A united Legislative Assembly would be necessary to ensure England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have a true equal say in the governance of a Federal Union of Britannia/Commonwealth of Britannia/Royal Federation of Britannia/Britannic Commonwealth.

Cerinda wrote:Apparently Labour now has a Nazbol Wing, who wants the party to return to its "Conservative Socialist Traditions", whatever that means.

We truly live in the darkest timeline.

centrist labour people in the north: we don't want mass immigration

momentum: nazbols

your post basically highlights why labour lost the north totally tbh

Celritannia wrote:I've had this thought for a while now, and I think in light of recent politics it needs to be looked into.

Should the UK become a Federal Union? If so, how should it be federalised?

Scotland Wales and Northern Ireland have their own Parliaments and Assemblies, with London being the only Region of England to have it's on legislature.

London does not have its own legislature, it is a metropolitan authority. It has the same power as Manchester City Council.

Celritannia wrote:But should England have it's own Parliament akin to Scotland, or should each Region of England have it's own Parliament akin to London?

Scotland should be given a second referendum with two choices: staying inside a more centralised UK with an abolished Scottish Assembly, or independence. And the Shetlands should join the UK / England if they keep voting against Scotland at every turn, whether it is independence or devolution. Bonus point that Scotland then loses all claims to oil fields in the North Sea.

Celritannia wrote:I don't think the nations of Great Britain are much different as people say, and unity is far better than diversity, but Scotland and Wales being superseded by England has become a problem in the recent political situations.

Wales votes like England.

Definitely Not Trumptonium wrote:

Celritannia wrote:I've had this thought for a while now, and I think in light of recent politics it needs to be looked into.

Should the UK become a Federal Union? If so, how should it be federalised?

Scotland Wales and Northern Ireland have their own Parliaments and Assemblies, with London being the only Region of England to have it's on legislature.

London does not have its own legislature, it is a metropolitan authority. It has the same power as Manchester City Council.

Celritannia wrote:But should England have it's own Parliament akin to Scotland, or should each Region of England have it's own Parliament akin to London?

Scotland should be given a second referendum with two choices: staying inside a more centralised UK with an abolished Scottish Assembly, or independence.

Celritannia wrote:I don't think the nations of Great Britain are much different as people say, and unity is far better than diversity, but Scotland and Wales being superseded by England has become a problem in the recent political situations.

Wales votes like England.

1. The Manchester City Council was established after the London Assembly. And the London Assembly has more authority than any other area of England.
It is really devolved in all but name. IT functions rather similarly to the Welsh Assembly.

2. No, Scotland should have it's own Parliament.

3. Not really. Labour won Wales.

Celritannia wrote:

Definitely Not Trumptonium wrote:
London does not have its own legislature, it is a metropolitan authority. It has the same power as Manchester City Council.




Scotland should be given a second referendum with two choices: staying inside a more centralised UK with an abolished Scottish Assembly, or independence.



Wales votes like England.

1. The Manchester City Council was established after the London Assembly. And the London Assembly has more authority than any other area of England.
It is really devolved in all but name.

It doesn't have any more authority than MCC.

Celritannia wrote:2. No, Scotland should have it's own Parliament.

Well, okay, that's just your opinion, as mine is mine.

Celritannia wrote:3. Not really. Labour won Wales.

Labour also won Brighton and Liverpool. They're not a different country.

If anything, Liverpool has a greater claim to devolution than Wales does. They vote for Labour at 60%+, while Wales had Labour at 40% and Tories at 36%.

Definitely Not Trumptonium wrote:

Cerinda wrote:Apparently Labour now has a Nazbol Wing, who wants the party to return to its "Conservative Socialist Traditions", whatever that means.

We truly live in the darkest timeline.

centrist labour people in the north: we don't want mass immigration

momentum: nazbols

your post basically highlights why labour lost the north totally tbh

Wanting "A socialism which is economically radical and culturally conservative" and saying "women need is faithful men. Not equality, not a decent wage at work, not the same opportunities as men - but a faithful man." Does sound like something a Nazbol would say.

But hey, I guess in the US, those would be considered "centrists."

.

Definitely Not Trumptonium wrote:

Celritannia wrote:
1. The Manchester City Council was established after the London Assembly. And the London Assembly has more authority than any other area of England.
It is really devolved in all but name.

It doesn't have any more authority than MCC.

Celritannia wrote:2. No, Scotland should have it's own Parliament.

Well, okay, that's just your opinion, as mine is mine.

Celritannia wrote:3. Not really. Labour won Wales.

Labour also won Brighton and Liverpool. They're not a different country.

1.

The Greater London Authority (GLA), also known as City Hall, is the devolved regional governance body of London, with jurisdiction over both counties of Greater London and the City of London.

It is a devolved Government.

2. Why shouldn't it? The people wanted a devolved government, so they should be respected.

3. Wales also has it's own language and it's own assembly.

Cerinda wrote:

Definitely Not Trumptonium wrote:
centrist labour people in the north: we don't want mass immigration

momentum: nazbols

your post basically highlights why labour lost the north totally tbh

Wanting "A socialism which is economically radical and culturally conservative" and saying "women need is faithful men. Not equality, not a decent wage at work, not the same opportunities as men - but a faithful man." Does sound like something a Nazbol would say.

But hey, I guess in the US, those would be considered "centrists."

Where is the evidence that is what Blue Labour said? It's just Diane Abbott speaking. She doesn't know the number three from seven.

People like Caroline Flint are Blue Labour. I highly doubt they are "socialist" in any sense of the word. They're closer to Blair's Labour than Corbyn.

No, they wouldn't be considered centrist in the US. Maybe to 1990s Democrats, Bill Clinton types. Nowadays no. What has the US got to do with it though?

They are certainly more centrist than the far-left Corbyn and Momentum, whom the electorate rejected resoundingly.

Also, in regards to Manchester:

The Greater Manchester Combined Authority (GMCA) is the combined authority of Greater Manchester, England. It was established on 1 April 2011 and consists of eleven indirectly elected members, each a directly elected councillor from one of the ten metropolitan boroughs that comprise Greater Manchester together with the Mayor of Greater Manchester.

Not devolved.

Definitely Not Trumptonium wrote:

Cerinda wrote:Apparently Labour now has a Nazbol Wing, who wants the party to return to its "Conservative Socialist Traditions", whatever that means.

We truly live in the darkest timeline.

centrist labour people in the north: we don't want mass immigration

momentum: nazbols

your post basically highlights why labour lost the north totally tbh

Which is basically the brexit argument all over again - we need mass immigration if we want to maintain current standards of living but it's not popular, and it seems people would rather see standards of living decline to stop mass immigration.

Angela Rayner should be the next leader of the Labour party.

The Notorious Mad Jack wrote:

Definitely Not Trumptonium wrote:
centrist labour people in the north: we don't want mass immigration

momentum: nazbols

your post basically highlights why labour lost the north totally tbh

Which is basically the brexit argument all over again - we need mass immigration if we want to maintain current standards of living but it's not popular, and it seems people would rather see standards of living decline to stop mass immigration.

Banning birth control and having more children could work.

Celritannia wrote:

Definitely Not Trumptonium wrote:
It doesn't have any more authority than MCC.



Well, okay, that's just your opinion, as mine is mine.


Labour also won Brighton and Liverpool. They're not a different country.

1.

The Greater London Authority (GLA), also known as City Hall, is the devolved regional governance body of London, with jurisdiction over both counties of Greater London and the City of London.

It is a devolved Government.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_M ... _Authority

so is this

Celritannia wrote:2. Why shouldn't it? The people wanted a devolved government, so they should be respected.

they can have a devolved government via independence

scotland's devolved government is nothing than a thorn in the ass squealing for referendums every few years, give them a final one where they can abolish the thing and stay, or go.

Celritannia wrote:3. Wales also has it's own language and it's own assembly.

so does cornwall

Definitely Not Trumptonium wrote:
Where is the evidence that is what Blue Labour said? It's just Diane Abbott speaking. She doesn't know the number three from seven.

She's repeating what Blue Labour has said, and your opinion of her is irrelevant.

People like Caroline Flint are Blue Labour. I highly doubt they are "socialist" in any sense of the word. They're closer to Blair's Labour than Corbyn.

Even if that's true, centrists who are socially conservative is still fucking cancer and is not the step Labour needs to take.

No, they wouldn't be considered centrist in the US. Maybe to 1990s Democrats, Bill Clinton types. Nowadays no. What has the US got to do with it though?

I thought you were American? My apologies if you aren't.

They are certainly more centrist than the far-left Corbyn and Momentum, whom the electorate rejected resoundingly.

Corbyn and Momentum aren't really that far-left, they're left-leaning socdems if not demsocs at the most.

Definitely Not Trumptonium wrote:

Celritannia wrote:
1.
It is a devolved Government.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_M ... _Authority

so is this

Celritannia wrote:2. Why shouldn't it? The people wanted a devolved government, so they should be respected.

they can have a devolved government via independence

scotland's devolved government is nothing than a thorn in the ass squealing for referendums every few years, give them a final one where they can abolish the thing and stay, or go.

Celritannia wrote:3. Wales also has it's own language and it's own assembly.

so does cornwall

1. Where does it say Greater Manchester is devolved? Because I posted a quote that states it is not.

2. No, thy have a right for a devolved Parliament, as they wanted in the 90s.

3. Yes, it does, however, the people of Cornwall are not hugely in favour of a devolved assembly.
Wales did.
Perhaps you should see this:
assembly.wales/en/abthome/role-of-assembly-how-it-works/Pages/history-welsh-devolution.aspx

Cerinda wrote:

Definitely Not Trumptonium wrote:
centrist labour people in the north: we don't want mass immigration

momentum: nazbols

your post basically highlights why labour lost the north totally tbh

Wanting "A socialism which is economically radical and culturally conservative" and saying "women need is faithful men. Not equality, not a decent wage at work, not the same opportunities as men - but a faithful man." Does sound like something a Nazbol would say.

But hey, I guess in the US, those would be considered "centrists."

If more woman stayed home wages would go up in theory as the supply of labor would go down. Not saying it is good or bad thing values wise but it would work economically.

Cerinda wrote:

Definitely Not Trumptonium wrote:
Where is the evidence that is what Blue Labour said? It's just Diane Abbott speaking. She doesn't know the number three from seven.

She's repeating what Blue Labour has said, and your opinion of her is irrelevant.

Forgive me for not taking what Abbott says as automatically true.

Cerinda wrote:

People like Caroline Flint are Blue Labour. I highly doubt they are "socialist" in any sense of the word. They're closer to Blair's Labour than Corbyn.

Even if that's true, centrists who are socially conservative is still fucking cancer and is not the step Labour needs to take.

If Labour wants to win, it probably is. It's fine if it doesn't - that's good for the rest of us - but then it's just a protest movement not a party.

Cerinda wrote:

No, they wouldn't be considered centrist in the US. Maybe to 1990s Democrats, Bill Clinton types. Nowadays no. What has the US got to do with it though?

I thought you were American? My apologies if you aren't.

No, a tory voter.

Cerinda wrote:

They are certainly more centrist than the far-left Corbyn and Momentum, whom the electorate rejected resoundingly.

Corbyn and Momentum aren't really that far-left, they're left-leaning socdems if not demsocs at the most.

well, the most left that labour has been since 1945, anyway.

Definitely Not Trumptonium wrote:

Cerinda wrote:Apparently Labour now has a Nazbol Wing, who wants the party to return to its "Conservative Socialist Traditions", whatever that means.

We truly live in the darkest timeline.

centrist labour people in the north: we don't want mass immigration

momentum: nazbols

your post basically highlights why labour lost the north totally tbh

So what are "culturally conservative positions" and what makes them a good thing?

Celritannia wrote:

Definitely Not Trumptonium wrote:
so is this



they can have a devolved government via independence

scotland's devolved government is nothing than a thorn in the ass squealing for referendums every few years, give them a final one where they can abolish the thing and stay, or go.



so does cornwall

1. Where does it say Greater Manchester is devolved? Because I posted a quote that states it is not.

The Greater Manchester Combined Authority (GMCA) is the devolved combined authority body of Greater Manchester, England.

Celritannia wrote:2. No, thy have a right for a devolved Parliament, as they wanted in the 90s.

it's not a right, it's a privilege. scotland has no more "right" to a devolved Parliament than the city of Norwich.

Celritannia wrote:3. Yes, it does, however, the people of Cornwall are not hugely in favour of a devolved assembly.

Is there evidence for this?

Celritannia wrote:Wales did.

The Welsh Assembly was created on the back of a 1997 referendum which produced a 50.3% Yes vote and a 49.7% No vote. The first time, in 1979, it was rejected by 80% to 20%.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1997_Wels ... referendum

Not sure I would call that "hugely in favour"