UK Politics Thread VII: Wake me DUP inside [can't wake UUP]

[Ifreann]

Microwave trick?

Short shot of vodka in a glass. Microwave it for 10 seconds. Open the door and then stick your head in and inhale. Instant drunk but only for a few minutes.

...
Poland be crazy.

[Fartsniffage]

Short shot of vodka in a glass. Microwave it for 10 seconds. Open the door and then stick your head in and inhale. Instant drunk but only for a few minutes.

...
Poland be crazy.

Well he only had one arm. But he also had diplomatic immunity. And it works.

[Ifreann]

...
Poland be crazy.

Well he only had one arm. But he also had diplomatic immunity. And it works.

I would be very suspicious of any microwaved vodka recipe given to me by someone with only one arm.

[HMS Queen Elizabeth]

Properly understood, imperialism and anarcho-capitalism logically imply one another.

We have lost so much knowledge in these past centuries. But much is regained.

Well I'll try, but I'm not sure I have enough vodka in the house....

Anarcho-Capitalism is the most efficient and pro-social system of political organisation, so a single absolute sovereign is incentivised to adopt it, and in competition between states the most anarcho-capitalist states will survive and flourish.

This is why I say it is a "state of being" and not an ideology as such. There may be necessary reasons for deviating from anarcho-capitalism, but under an absolute sovereign following his incentives or in a condition of competition between states they will be minimised.

This is effectively what happened between the 16th and 19th centuries in Europe, in which the most anarcho-capitalist state, Great Britain, emerged as the most powerful and prestigious of multiple competing sovereigns. In 1870, Britain was extremely close to anarcho-capitalism, the only real infringements being things like the Test Acts which excluded political opponents of anarcho-capitalism from positions of social influence.

You'll notice that the slide away from anarcho-capitalism coincided with the rise of the United States, a state with fragmented sovereignty and no external competition. Socialism is the elite fighting each other to loot society for private gain, which runs away crazy in such conditions.

[Hydesland]

Explain how mercantilism is anarchic.

[Liberated Territories]

HMS, you are the worst ancap ever. You remind me to much of the picardia parodies.

"In which the most anarchist state Great Britain" lolwut

[Philjia]

Well I'll try, but I'm not sure I have enough vodka in the house....

Anarcho-Capitalism is the most efficient and pro-social system of political organisation, so a single absolute sovereign is incentivised to adopt it, and in competition between states the most anarcho-capitalist states will survive and flourish.

This is why I say it is a "state of being" and not an ideology as such. There may be necessary reasons for deviating from anarcho-capitalism, but under an absolute sovereign following his incentives or in a condition of competition between states they will be minimised.

This is effectively what happened between the 16th and 19th centuries in Europe, in which the most anarcho-capitalist state, Great Britain, emerged as the most powerful and prestigious of multiple competing sovereigns. In 1870, Britain was extremely close to anarcho-capitalism, the only real infringements being things like the Test Acts which excluded political opponents of anarcho-capitalism from positions of social influence.

You'll notice that the slide away from anarcho-capitalism coincided with the rise of the United States, a state with fragmented sovereignty and no external competition. Socialism is the elite fighting each other to loot society for private gain, which runs away crazy in such conditions.

The Whigs were surprisingly pro free market for the time period, but the state was still a predominant force who only behaved like a private company because it was the only way to get enough cash to pay for the numerous and expensive wars Britain was almost constantly engaged in.

[HMS Queen Elizabeth]

Explain how mercantilism is anarchic.

It isn't.

[HMS Queen Elizabeth]

Anarcho-Capitalism is the most efficient and pro-social system of political organisation, so a single absolute sovereign is incentivised to adopt it, and in competition between states the most anarcho-capitalist states will survive and flourish.

This is why I say it is a "state of being" and not an ideology as such. There may be necessary reasons for deviating from anarcho-capitalism, but under an absolute sovereign following his incentives or in a condition of competition between states they will be minimised.

This is effectively what happened between the 16th and 19th centuries in Europe, in which the most anarcho-capitalist state, Great Britain, emerged as the most powerful and prestigious of multiple competing sovereigns. In 1870, Britain was extremely close to anarcho-capitalism, the only real infringements being things like the Test Acts which excluded political opponents of anarcho-capitalism from positions of social influence.

You'll notice that the slide away from anarcho-capitalism coincided with the rise of the United States, a state with fragmented sovereignty and no external competition. Socialism is the elite fighting each other to loot society for private gain, which runs away crazy in such conditions.

The Whigs were surprisingly pro free market for the time period, but the state was still a predominant force who only behaved like a private company because it was the only way to get enough cash to pay for the numerous and expensive wars Britain was almost constantly engaged in.

It's meaningless to say the state is a major or minor force, ever. The state is the victorious fighting men who set social conditions; it's always predominant by definition. What distinguishes the British state of 1870 from the British state of 2017 is that the British state of 1870 enforced more or less anarcho-capitalist laws while the British state of 2017 is more or less communist.

[The of Japan]

The Whigs were surprisingly pro free market for the time period, but the state was still a predominant force who only behaved like a private company because it was the only way to get enough cash to pay for the numerous and expensive wars Britain was almost constantly engaged in.

It's meaningless to say the state is a major or minor force, ever. The state is the victorious fighting men who set social conditions; it's always predominant by definition. What distinguishes the British state of 1870 from the British state of 2017 is that the British state of 1870 enforced more or less anarcho-capitalist laws while the British state of 2017 is more or less communist.

communist? you just see commies everywhere don't you?

[HMS Queen Elizabeth]

It's meaningless to say the state is a major or minor force, ever. The state is the victorious fighting men who set social conditions; it's always predominant by definition. What distinguishes the British state of 1870 from the British state of 2017 is that the British state of 1870 enforced more or less anarcho-capitalist laws while the British state of 2017 is more or less communist.

communist? you just see commies everywhere don't you?

No, our current situation is historically extremely unusual.

[Hydesland]

Explain how mercantilism is anarchic.

It isn't.

You said "This is effectively what happened between the 16th and 19th centuries in Europe, in which the most anarcho-capitalist state, Great Britain, emerged as the most powerful and prestigious of multiple competing sovereigns."

For most of that period, Britain was mercantilist.

[UCE Watchdog of the Puppets]

The Whigs were surprisingly pro free market for the time period, but the state was still a predominant force who only behaved like a private company because it was the only way to get enough cash to pay for the numerous and expensive wars Britain was almost constantly engaged in.

It's meaningless to say the state is a major or minor force, ever. The state is the victorious fighting men who set social conditions; it's always predominant by definition. What distinguishes the British state of 1870 from the British state of 2017 is that the British state of 1870 enforced more or less anarcho-capitalist laws while the British state of 2017 is more or less communist.

That only makes sense when you purport to be the inverse of communism. The UK is a fucking capitalist country, to say anything otherwise is ideologically contortionist bullshit.

[Lauchenoiria]

The Whigs were surprisingly pro free market for the time period, but the state was still a predominant force who only behaved like a private company because it was the only way to get enough cash to pay for the numerous and expensive wars Britain was almost constantly engaged in.

It's meaningless to say the state is a major or minor force, ever. The state is the victorious fighting men who set social conditions; it's always predominant by definition. What distinguishes the British state of 1870 from the British state of 2017 is that the British state of 1870 enforced more or less anarcho-capitalist laws while the British state of 2017 is more or less communist.

2017 Britain is certainly not communist, it's laughable that you could ever say it is. You must have a very poor understanding of communism if you think present day Britain is anywhere near a communist state.

[UCE Watchdog of the Puppets]

It's meaningless to say the state is a major or minor force, ever. The state is the victorious fighting men who set social conditions; it's always predominant by definition. What distinguishes the British state of 1870 from the British state of 2017 is that the British state of 1870 enforced more or less anarcho-capitalist laws while the British state of 2017 is more or less communist.

2017 Britain is certainly not communist, it's laughable that you could ever say it is. You must have a very poor understanding of communism if you think present day Britain is anywhere near a communist state.

Ancaps think everyone who disagrees with them is a communist of some kind.

[The Huskar Social Union]

Oh boy are we having another HMS vs Like the rest of the thread thing again?

[The Huskar Social Union]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/same-sex-marriage-belfast-gay-pride-breakfast-leo-varadkar-a7878526.html

Taoiseach Leo Varadkar says gay marriage is only a matter of time in NI. Heres hoping, saw photos of a march today outside city hall a member of People Before Profit put up calling for equal marriage, didnt get around to attending myself though. And 40 uniformed officers of the PSNI took part in it too which is class.


And a recent study shows that Unionist parties are alienating younger protestants over issues such as Abortion and Gay marriage: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/aug/04/northern-irish-unionist-parties-alienating-young-protestants-study

With the Protestants i know from Uni and other interactions over the last few years i can definitely see that. Its definitely heading towards an openly recognisable age gap between protestants in terms of electoral voting, but many younger socially liberal votes from the protestant community are not voting at all because Unionist party positions.

[Anywhere Else But Here]

Oh boy are we having another HMS vs Like the rest of the thread thing again?

If it'll mix things up, I'll take his side:

You're all communists. That you're all in agreement proves that you lack individuality, and are therefore communists by definition*.

*using my own definition, obvs.

[The Huskar Social Union]

Oh boy are we having another HMS vs Like the rest of the thread thing again?

If it'll mix things up, I'll take his side:

You're all communists. That you're all in agreement proves that you lack individuality, and are therefore communists by definition*.

*using my own definition, obvs.

Why hello there comrade...

[Fartsniffage]

Oh boy are we having another HMS vs Like the rest of the thread thing again?

If it'll mix things up, I'll take his side:

You're all communists. That you're all in agreement proves that you lack individuality, and are therefore communists by definition*.

*using my own definition, obvs.

[Ostroeuropa]

I've settled on my prefered mechanism of sortition/direct democracy for the british isles in a way that will confuse the fuck out of everyone and be suitably lulz worthy.

Firstly, the entire country is to be knighted except members of the house of commons. (You can, since Tony Benn kicked up a fuss, abdicate your title and run for the commons.)

Secondly, a big speech about the necessity of a Reaction to Liberal politics and the loss of the privileges of nobility, which is clearly ruining society and has led to degeneracy, followed by ammending the rules to empower the house of lords and remove the ability of the commons to force through legislation (Also noting that there's too many lords but so long as some are there to temper the riffraff, clearly things are fine, so how about some sort of sortition system among the nobles to represent their interests.)

Then we just continue as normal and act like a reactionary aristocracy. Populist politics takes on the sneering tone and rhetoric of aristocrats just to take the piss.

It also serves as a means of universal basic income for everyone, except those who want to be politicians. (Though at 300 a day, there might just be a little bit of inflation.)

Forcing professional politicians to call everyone "My lord" or "My lady" might also remind them of their place. The abdication of the title also serves the role of ceremonially placing themselves in a lower social class and servant position if they want to run for office in the first house. (The second house serving as a chamber to approve or reject laws passed by professional politicians.)

I'm also hoping this massive appropriation and transformation of reactionary politics into satire will somewhat cripple those tendencies in our political culture, muted though they are at this point.

[Fartsniffage]

I've settled on my prefered mechanism of sortition/direct democracy for the british isles in a way that will confuse the fuck out of everyone and be suitably lulz worthy.

Firstly, the entire country is to be knighted except members of the house of commons. (You can, since Tony Benn kicked up a fuss, abdicate your title and run for the commons.)

Secondly, a big speech about the necessity of a Reaction to Liberal politics and the loss of the privileges of nobility, which is clearly ruining society and has led to degeneracy, followed by ammending the rules to empower the house of lords and remove the ability of the commons to force through legislation (Also noting that there's too many lords but so long as some are there to temper the riffraff, clearly things are fine, so how about some sort of sortition system among the nobles to represent their interests.)

Then we just continue as normal and act like a reactionary aristocracy. Populist politics takes on the sneering tone and rhetoric of aristocrats just to take the piss.

It also serves as a means of universal basic income for everyone, except those who want to be politicians. (Though at 300 a day, there might just be a little bit of inflation.)

Forcing professional politicians to call everyone "My lord" or "My lady" might also remind them of their place. The abdication of the title also serves the role of ceremonially placing themselves in a lower social class and servant position if they want to run for office in the first house. (The second house serving as a chamber to approve or reject laws passed by professional politicians.)

But I don't want to be a knight.....I don't like horses.

[Ostroeuropa]

I've settled on my prefered mechanism of sortition/direct democracy for the british isles in a way that will confuse the fuck out of everyone and be suitably lulz worthy.

Firstly, the entire country is to be knighted except members of the house of commons. (You can, since Tony Benn kicked up a fuss, abdicate your title and run for the commons.)

Secondly, a big speech about the necessity of a Reaction to Liberal politics and the loss of the privileges of nobility, which is clearly ruining society and has led to degeneracy, followed by ammending the rules to empower the house of lords and remove the ability of the commons to force through legislation (Also noting that there's too many lords but so long as some are there to temper the riffraff, clearly things are fine, so how about some sort of sortition system among the nobles to represent their interests.)

Then we just continue as normal and act like a reactionary aristocracy. Populist politics takes on the sneering tone and rhetoric of aristocrats just to take the piss.

It also serves as a means of universal basic income for everyone, except those who want to be politicians. (Though at 300 a day, there might just be a little bit of inflation.)

Forcing professional politicians to call everyone "My lord" or "My lady" might also remind them of their place. The abdication of the title also serves the role of ceremonially placing themselves in a lower social class and servant position if they want to run for office in the first house. (The second house serving as a chamber to approve or reject laws passed by professional politicians.)

But I don't want to be a knight.....I don't like horses.

You WHAT?
https://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/ml ... 1205073150

(Nah, but whatever. It's mostly just me musing that the PM can basically appoint as many lords as they like, so we just need one troll to completely fuck the entire system.)

[The Huskar Social Union]

I've settled on my prefered mechanism of sortition/direct democracy for the british isles in a way that will confuse the fuck out of everyone and be suitably lulz worthy.

Firstly, the entire country is to be knighted except members of the house of commons. (You can, since Tony Benn kicked up a fuss, abdicate your title and run for the commons.)

Secondly, a big speech about the necessity of a Reaction to Liberal politics and the loss of the privileges of nobility, which is clearly ruining society and has led to degeneracy, followed by ammending the rules to empower the house of lords and remove the ability of the commons to force through legislation (Also noting that there's too many lords but so long as some are there to temper the riffraff, clearly things are fine, so how about some sort of sortition system among the nobles to represent their interests.)

Then we just continue as normal and act like a reactionary aristocracy. Populist politics takes on the sneering tone and rhetoric of aristocrats just to take the piss.

It also serves as a means of universal basic income for everyone, except those who want to be politicians. (Though at 300 a day, there might just be a little bit of inflation.)

Forcing professional politicians to call everyone "My lord" or "My lady" might also remind them of their place. The abdication of the title also serves the role of ceremonially placing themselves in a lower social class and servant position if they want to run for office in the first house. (The second house serving as a chamber to approve or reject laws passed by professional politicians.)

But I don't want to be a knight.....I don't like horses.

You never asked for this, no more than i asked to be King. But we do not choose our destinies! Yet we must... we must do our duty no? Big or small, we must all do out duty

[Imperializt Russia]

I was gonna catch up from p60 of this thread but I've been working long hours lately and therefore ceebs. What did I miss?