Karl

Even better. Print your house out of aircrete

Front bench politicians are all about pragmatism. You are going to be terribly disappointed if you think anything else and if you actually got a principled politician I suspect you might wish something else. Become an An- Cap Nikolai, there is zero chance of disappointment and you can watch the show with as pure entertainment-without attachment :-)

I don't think you are getting this at all. "A politician is a creature that sits on the fence and has both ears on the ground" If he doesn't wish to make labour electable and just act as pure opposition then-if the party and its supporters want it-they can go that way. There is no reason for him to attend the cenotaph, or become a member of the privy council-but Cameron will simply select someone else from labour to serve in his stead and you can bet your bottom dollar there are a host of Labour MPs that are hoping Corbyn doesn't become a member. He can try and take his party, supporters and the electorate any way he wants to, this his choice, but in the end, doing that kind of thing I would say isn't Corbyn. There are always members of his party, the press, the Government, the electorate ready to depose him. He is supposed to offer a credible alternative that holds the Governments feet to the fire. It's his own party that will decide when they don't want to go with his ideology. Long before the electorate throw labour away, his party will have thrown him away.

Being the opposition leader means he has already accepted all those things. I'm not really arguing with you I'm just stating the facts without personal opinion. If Corbyn wants to wear a blue poppy, see the queen dressed in a track suit, or sing 'won't get fooled again' in church it really doesn't matter. He is acting like a petulant child that thinks that refusing to eat his dinner with a knife and fork is an act of revolution. The entire parliament/black rod/no clapping/right honourable/division lobby thing is entirely about pomp and circumstance. It's theatre for the masses and part of the historical legacy of the civil war, Oliver Cromwells tyrannical reign over a short lived Republic and a balance of power. If he wanted to stand firm and announce his intentions then who can object, but when the economy, defence, health, poverty etc are the things he is supposed to be serious about, what small matter is it to go along with the theatre ?

Because he is representing something greater than the act itself. It's pointless to make these effete little protests. He isn't even supposed to be pushing for a republic and said so in his campaign. 80% of Britain is pro royal and he is representing the people of the country not his own particular views.

Im saying that's the role. It makes no difference what I think he should or shouldn't do, that is what he will have to do.

That's the role.

Cameron is a member of the establishment. The entire thing is the exact kind of pomp and ceremony that has been in his life since he was born. Rumour has it that someone in the palace recommended him for the Conservative party. Cameron doesn't really govern the country, he is simply the spokesman for his clan.

She represents the establishment. Even amongst those who don't support the Royal family there is a grudging respect for the position the Queen holds. The worry is that getting rid of her might result in a more politicised style of president who becomes more active. At present she is a neutral person.

You don't know Britain that well then. The Queen is loved by all the little people. It's a bit like your flag. It's nationalism. Those that voted UKIP and Conservatives are traditionalists. Anti-royalists are in the minority. The Royal family has done a great job of neutrality and that particularly applies to the Queen.

Ive had this discussion on another forum. We don't have a republic and the political system is clear. It is predicated on the maintenance of the establishment and it's elite classes. Joining a political party-even voting- is directly supporting that system. Revolutionaries often talk of changing the system from the inside, but that will never happen. I remember Kurt Cobain saying that about the music Industry not many years before committing suicide. Change always comes from outside and usually from some totally unexpected place. Corbyn knew what he was getting into when he went from back bencher to candidate for leadership. This half way house behaviour is pretty pathetic. He is opposition leader and as such he needs to get singing along with the national anthem, kneeling before the queen and wearing a red poppy. That's the role he is expected to play. If he doesn't want to do any of that then he needs to stand down and say that he no longer supports this type of system and will continue to fight for its collapse. He won't of course, he isn't authentic or brave.

An asteroid travelling at high speed towards us would be very difficult to see. Even if we could see it I'm not sure we could hit it in the time we would have left. Then, nudging it might well nudge it into a collision even if the physics allowed it. Something travelling at such a high velocity I would imagine it would require an immense amount of energy to turn it. I would imagine it would be like using firecrackers to turn an oil tanker. It would be very imprecise.

@ Lerner The opening few paragraphs of this book will explain what has happened to the fishing industry since the banking boom/crash http://www.hayek.sk/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/deep_freeze.pdf Sent from my iPad

ITQ. It's not a privatised, but it's closer. Still a state controlled 'command and control' system. The next step should be to privatise the sea as quota systems aren't ideal, but have restored fish stocks.

I've never had such a laugh. It's right up there with the 'danger' of having deflation, ZIRP is normal and QE is good. The problem with Iceland is exactly the same problem as elsewhere. Profligate banks supported by Government cronyism. The result in Iceland was to turn fishermen into investment bankers. This is a different thing from the ITQ. Icelands main exports went from fish to banking. It's a frankly amazing claim to suggest that it was the fishing industry that caused the banking industry to crash. That can only be written by 'friends of bankers'.

Free markets can exist with Government as long as they don't intervene. I say it's the Government itself that is directly interfering with expansion of consciousness. Isn't the idea of 'control' the very thing that is abhorred by all spiritual practised that are intended to expand consciousness. If people are ruled by tyrants and oppressed physically, in the case of poorer States, and psychologically in the West then it is the state that is spoiling the party. Neither Christianity or The Muslim faith are 'fundamentalism'. There are people who use it as an excuse for violence, just as they use the idea of democracy to promote violence. We should end government fundamentalism which is a far more dangerous type of fundamentalism than any traditional religious faith.

"Ask?" How will you ask if you are not reasoning ? It doesn't matter if you call it heart, a watermelon or dusty bin, the act of asking and awaiting a decision is reasoning.

If it was the case that the elite wanted free markets they would have them. They don't. The reason is that they fear free markets and will engage in any kind of subterfuge to prevent them operating. The problem now is that most of the general population are dependent on cronyism for their living and therefore they don't want to support it. They are also believe the same thing you do-that it benefits the elite. Therefore we have an ever decreasing amount of free market and an ever increasing amount of war, corruption, falling living standards and poor use of resources that cause unnecessary damage to it. Adding maths models and chaos therory to economics doesn't work. It's a social science not physics. Your solution appears to be to do nothing at all, or add yet more government which is the cause of the damage in the first place. Calling it free market 'fundamentalism' is just an appeal to emotion. The free market just means that people trade with whoever they like on a voluntary basis. It's totally natural and therefore Tao. Indeed I came to the free market approach through spiritual practice. Before that I was of the same mind as you. The problem for you will come if your own government turns on you, or creates a war that destroys your way of life, or blows the economy up like Greece. Then your maths and theories collapse.

So you don't think at all prior to an action of kindness manitou ? How would you judge it an act of kindness or know what you should do fir the best effect. You have to reason. It is choice, free will and reason which makes the moral judgement work. Unless of course you are sleep walking or being remote controlled :-)

If they can already dump then those owning the private sea will make that far more difficult. Those sailing through their ocean with dangerous cargoes could be prevented from going anywhere. They wouldn't be buying, they would have to homesteaded. Buying a big chunk of ocean which you don't utilise wouldn't work. It would be a huge financial risk. There are all sorts of land deals that investors won't touch, never mind the raw ocean. Fish farming on private property would produce exactly the same kind of productive wealth that private ownership of farms achieved. Wealth is always in production. The more production the greater the wealth. It's a simple formula. Some might ask for tolls, but they would be in competition with other patches of sea lanes just as it was with the opening of the sea canals created competition for sea ports. The free market would operate to ensure a balance.

Brilliant and simple. Why the free market trumps government control.

Slaves are only applicable with a virtually captive market and where labour faces no challenges from automation. They are costly to look after as they represent a capital investment. The early settlers in the U.S. Preferred indentured workers who would volunteer to work in order to pay off their passage, debts, fines etc. We never really had feudal style systems until recently. In th UK it was manorial-but don't quote me on that-workers rented there own plots something like a franchise. 150 years ago there wasn't any sign of anything but growing wealth. Conditions in factories were worse than they are today of course but that has to viewed in context. Rand wasn't anarchic though. She didn't want rid of the state at all. She was right though. Free market capitalism is the answer, now what's the question ? :-) We need rid of the state because it's dangerous, corrupt and too costly for us all. I came to that conclusion as the only option. The answer for me was to become an opponent of the state at every turn and in every piece of writing. Someone has to oppose it. Those that simply sit in the middle and compromise, hasten the growth of the state and then we all have to go through the pain that is the result.

Not at all. There could be all kinds of setups, from big business to cooperatives. At the end of the day someone has to work the sea and people will have to paid to do it. The result will be more fish, more production, more opportunity for businesses and cheaper fish for us all. How can it be a polluters dream ? At present companies can just dump chemicals, rubbish, destroy ocean beds, over fishing, have oil spills. All that would be reduced by private ownership. Having deep pockets is irrelevant. Wether someone has very little, or a lot, there capital represents the amount they have decided is important to them, they don't arbitrarily invest without a good return on risk.

Well you are in the U.S. Which is marginally different. Our unions pretty much wrecked the country. If you look back in your own history you will find the government collusion during the new deal era which was part of the reason the depression to continue far longer than it should have. What we really have is restrictive working practices. Why should businesses, labour and customers be restricted to a specific, set number of hours ? It makes no sense at all. The improvement in working conditions is a gradual change and the result of competition for labour. If a business does not offer better wages then it must substitute with better conditions. This is why a lot of females don't work in dirty, dangerous heavy industry. They prefer office work which pays less but is clean and safe- apart from those paper cuts. Companies also don't like accidents because the law is involved as well as their business being closed. Paradoxically unions are not the enemy of businessman but really a go between. They should be pointing out areas which could cause accidents so business can avoid the losses from accidents. Insurance companies are often the ones who will demand safe working practices to avoid paying out. In the long run an injured employee results in losses from that reduced labour force, payouts, stoppages, reputation as damage. Again, there are bad actors in all walks of life, but employers aren't monsters, they are human. The middle classes in the U.S. Are a result of a long history of laissez faire which is now coming to an end. The middle classes are being hollowed out and the jobs they did have vanished without replacement. That is a direct result of the state stifling competing, over regulating, welfarism, warfare, central control of monetary and fiscal policy, high taxation, minimum wages, subsidies and all the rest of the boondoggles that go with big expensive government. I expect that what's left of your economy will hit a brick wall sometime in the coming months. Then perhaps there will be a movement to end the state as it is. I'm happy to live where I currently live without the state. I have no wish to move anyway to realise a life without the state. This is what Ayn Rand proposed in Galts Gulch, but it's not really a workable solution. In a larger population the advantage is the sheer number of people and the diversity of options. Some people might want communism in a small group whilst others having complete anarchy. Just like the free market, groups will compete for people to join their specific communities. Those that do well will attract the majority, those that offer alternative lifestyles might not be as wealthy, but would offer a different type of bonus.

It's a thorny subject. You shouldn't really meet anyone with an empty mind as that is naive and dangerous. I want my tactical defences on full alert and then judge the other persons actions over a period of time. I also see no sign of selflessness, it's an oxymoron. Everyone is selfish, but actions can still benefit other people. Take a trade transaction: I have bread and you have fish. I want fish and so I selfishly trade the bread that I don't value as highly, for the fish that you don't value as highly as my bread. Now we have both gained by the transaction. If you equate wealth as the personal subjective value we place on things, then it's clear that both of us are richer as a result of a totally selfish trade. That can be applied to everything else and it doesn't mean it has to be a material transaction. We could swap information, or even something charitable where in one of us values the thing we give less than the satisfaction we feel by giving it.