General Politics IV - Without a Home Elsewhere

Guess I hit a nerve there!
Thank you for sharing about you being an anarchist...I wasn't aware, though it does explain some of your rhetoric.
It's good for me and other like minded orderly people (the overwhelming majority of the world population btw) that anarchy has no real pull in voting besides teenage wishful thinking.
Tell me, if you will, who does enforce law and order in an anarchy?
Or does that nightmarish utopia has no need for laws and police to deter others from attempting to mug you, beat you or worse?

Have you ever noticed that most laws don't need to be enforced? People will actually voluntarily comply with whatever is sensible or an established standard. Cops don't actually prevent theft. People just mostly even don't want to steal. (and where this is not true, there are real and awful reasons for it!)

Have you ever noticed some issues (drugs, immigration) get criminalized (instead of managed) and angry dudes demand that these laws are enforced? But actually it turns out they're not reasonably enforceable and enforcing has terrible consequences. But the angry dudes demand the creation of gestapos to enforce these laws that most people just kinda ignore.

I'm not an anarchist but realizing this stuff made me hugely more sympathetic to their beliefs.

Its now my opinion that when a law is widely voluntarily complied with minimal enforcement, it might be a good law. On the other hand, law that is both expensive and impossible to enforce, and which people largely disregard is certainly a bad one.
 
Last edited:
Have you ever noticed that most laws don't need to be enforced? People will actually voluntarily comply with whatever is sensible or an established standard. Cops don't actually prevent theft.
Man I love being a CIV player.
So first. let me cite this from when you reach Code of Laws in CIV VI:
"At his best, man is the noblest of all animals; separated from law and justice he is the worst."
– Aristotle

Second. Most laws don't need to be enforced against...and let me bold this... the majority of citizens!
And that's because
Third. We were already brought up unto this world on a system of rule of law and we have been taught what's wrong from right, religion also plays a part here and so does, ofc, innate conscience.

People just mostly even don't want to steal. (and where this is not true, there are real and awful reasons for it!)
I make a distinction when it comes to stealing.
Stealing food to eat, because you can't manage on your own, very forgivable "offence". If reported to authorities, I don't mind my taxes pay for the stolen food.
Stealing goods, like brand clothing, gadgets (smartphones and such), tv sets and such...not forgivable at all of an offence...I am kind of with the saudi's on this...without the physical maiming ofc, but immediate persecution. And I have seen a lot of videos on mass media, social media and so on displaying folks invading retail stores not looking for food.
So yeah, people want to steal, not all of us ofc, not the majority of us, but given the opportunity and lack of proper deterrent there will always be people that steal.

Have you ever noticed some issues (drugs, immigration) get criminalized (instead of managed) and angry dudes demand that these laws are enforced? But actually it turns out they're not reasonably enforceable and enforcing has terrible consequences. But the angry dudes demand the creation of gestapos to enforce these laws that most people just kinda ignore.
Well I really can't say much on drugs, US is a nightmare while little Portugal is closer to paradise. You will not face the law for handling a single dose, but if you are a trafficker then expect a visit from the police and rightly so. Prosecuting people just for being drug addicts is dumb they already have their life ruined!

Immigration is a very different issue, again not really comparable to the US, but the EU has many migrants that really don't give a damn about the native and are committing violent crimes and they should be immediately expelled to their country of origin. It's not asking much!

Its now my opinion that when a law is widely voluntarily complied with minimal enforcement, it might be a good law.
Then it's good that we have laws to prevent/punish muggings, beatings and so on, right?
 
Man I love being a CIV player.
So first. let me cite this from when you reach Code of Laws in CIV VI:
"At his best, man is the noblest of all animals; separated from law and justice he is the worst."
– Aristotle

Second. Most laws don't need to be enforced against...and let me bold this... the majority of citizens!
And that's because
Third. We were already brought up unto this world on a system of rule of law and we have been taught what's wrong from right, religion also plays a part here and so does, ofc, innate conscience.


I make a distinction when it comes to stealing.
Stealing food to eat, because you can't manage on your own, very forgivable "offence". If reported to authorities, I don't mind my taxes pay for the stolen food.
Stealing goods, like brand clothing, gadgets (smartphones and such), tv sets and such...not forgivable at all of an offence...I am kind of with the saudi's on this...without the physical maiming ofc, but immediate persecution. And I have seen a lot of videos on mass media, social media and so on displaying folks invading retail stores not looking for food.
So yeah, people want to steal, not all of us ofc, not the majority of us, but given the opportunity and lack of proper deterrent there will always be people that steal.


Well I really can't say much on drugs, US is a nightmare while little Portugal is closer to paradise. You will not face the law for handling a single dose, but if you are a trafficker then expect a visit from the police and rightly so. Prosecuting people just for being drug addicts is dumb they already have their life ruined!

Immigration is a very different issue, again not really comparable to the US, but the EU has many migrants that really don't give a damn about the native and are committing violent crimes and they should be immediately expelled to their country of origin. It's not asking much!


Then it's good that we have laws to prevent/punish muggings, beatings and so on, right?

Ok let me just give you the point of the post you were quoting as shortly as possible.

The good bits of present society that work well already somewhat resemble an anarchic society because they function on voluntary compliance by consent without compulsion. Deterrent and punitive enforcement don't have much to do with it.

But I don't expect this to make sense to you as many of your posts are made while in the grip of terror because news/social media is telling you scary stories about people who are supposedly evil and out to get you.
 

5 premiers urge Carney to withdraw court submission on notwithstanding clause​

Premiers of Ontario, Quebec, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Nova Scotia call on federal government to reconsider

Five premiers say Ottawa must withdraw its recent call for limits on the notwithstanding clause because it amounts to a "complete disavowal" of the bargain that spawned the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Constitution's notwithstanding clause gives provincial legislatures or Parliament the ability to pass legislation that effectively overrides provisions of the Charter, though only for a five-year period.

In a filing submitted last month to the Supreme Court of Canada in a case on Quebec's secularism law, Ottawa argues the constitutional limits on the notwithstanding clause preclude using it to distort or wipe out the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Charter.

The federal submission says the "temporary character" of the notwithstanding clause confirms that it cannot be used to cause "an irreparable impairment" of Charter rights.

It adds that since any such use would "amount to indirectly amending the Constitution," it follows that the courts must retain jurisdiction to decide whether a legislature's use of the clause violates this limit.

In a letter sent Tuesday to Prime Minister Mark Carney, the premiers of Ontario, Quebec, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Nova Scotia call on the federal government to reconsider its approach "and withdraw its written legal argument immediately."

The letter says the federal arguments seek to advance novel limits on the ability of democratically elected legislatures to use the notwithstanding clause.

Ottawa's submission also "proposes an unclear and unworkable legal standard with no basis in the text of the Constitution," the letter says.

"Put simply, the federal government's arguments represent a complete disavowal of the constitutional bargain that brought the Charter into being," the letter says.

It argues these arguments threaten national unity by seeking to undermine the sovereignty of provincial legislatures — "a fact we will raise for the consideration of the full Council of the Federation given the fundamental implications for Canadian federalism."

"Indeed, the federal government's position amounts to a direct attack on the foundational constitutional principles of federalism and democracy," the letter adds.

The attorney general of Quebec is the respondent in the Supreme Court case in question, and the attorneys general of Canada, Ontario, Manitoba, British Columbia, Saskatchewan and Alberta are taking part as interveners.

In a Sept. 18 statement about the federal intervention, Justice Minister Sean Fraser, who is also attorney general, said the case is about more than the immediate issues before the court.

"The Supreme Court's decision will shape how both federal and provincial governments may use the notwithstanding clause for years to come," he said.

In its submission to the Supreme Court in the case, the Ontario government says the notwithstanding clause is "fundamentally important to Canada's constitutional democracy."

The clause preserves the ability of democratically elected representatives to decide that certain laws are sufficiently important to the public interest that they must operate notwithstanding certain Charter provisions for a limited period of time, the submission adds.

Ontario also says the notwithstanding clause is not "a defect to be corrected or mitigated by judicial reinterpretation."

Speaking to reporters last month, Ontario Premier Doug Ford singled out Fraser and Carney as he denounced the federal position.

Ford called it "the worst decision" Carney has ever made, adding it "will be an absolute disaster."

Ford, whose Progressive Conservative government has used the notwithstanding clause on more than one occasion, said legislatures are supreme, "not judges ruling on stuff that shouldn't even be in front of the courts."
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/premiers-carney-withdraw-court-submission-notwithstanding-1.7653648
 
news/social media is telling you scary real stories about people who are supposedly evil
Here, I've fixed it for you.
...
Don't expect me to be persuaded by your reasoning, when you deny reality.
 
Last year Ubisoft canceled a Reconstruction era Assassin's Creed game featuring a formerly enslaved black man fighting against the emerging Ku Klux Klan because of a combination of back lash against the black samurai Yusuke in Assassin's Creed Shadows and the growing tense US political climate.


I was going to post it in the Trump thread, but figured it would fit better here.
 
We've reached the point where negatively portraying the KKK and Nazis is verboten. Unsurprisingly spurred by the "free speech absolutist" crowd.
 
Last year Ubisoft canceled a Reconstruction era Assassin's Creed game featuring a formerly enslaved black man fighting against the emerging Ku Klux Klan because of a combination of back lash against the black samurai Yusuke in Assassin's Creed Shadows and the growing tense US political climate.


I was going to post it in the Trump thread, but figured it would fit better here.
Just the kind of game the new audiences crave!
It's shame Ubisoft didn't devote resources to it's development!
 
Come to think about Pete Hegseth does look a bit like the original Doomguy :

doomguy_face_sprite.png


“Too political in a country too unstable, to make it short,”
 

This one ?

503867272_4073542402881765_1299034507237009803_n.jpg


 
Is that your pick?

Fun fact: Troy Donahue was one of the names that inspired the Simpsons character Troy McClure. The other was Doug McClure, who found the character funny.
 
Christmas has come early for Argentina and Javier Milei.

Trump is bailing them out.


The Trump administration moved forward on Thursday with its bailout of Argentina, making a direct purchase of pesos and finalizing terms of a $20 billion lifeline, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said.

The terms and conditions of the economic support package were not announced, but Mr. Bessent said the funds would come in the form of a currency swap with Argentina’s central bank. Big global investors have been anxiously awaiting the details of the bailout, which critics have said will benefit wealthy fund managers at a time when American farmers are struggling and the U.S. government is shut down.

Things were getting a bit wobbly even a few days ago.

 
We have a winner :


Ms Machado has been a key, unifying figure in a political opposition that was once deeply divided – an opposition that found common ground in the demand for free elections and representative government. This is precisely what lies at the heart of democracy: our shared willingness to defend the principles of popular rule, even though we disagree. At a time when democracy is under threat, it is more important than ever to defend this common ground.

Venezuela has evolved from a relatively democratic and prosperous country to a brutal, authoritarian state that is now suffering a humanitarian and economic crisis. Most Venezuelans live in deep poverty, even as the few at the top enrich themselves. The violent machinery of the state is directed against the country’s own citizens. Nearly 8 million people have left the country. The opposition has been systematically suppressed by means of election rigging, legal prosecution and imprisonment.
When authoritarians seize power, it is crucial to recognise courageous defenders of freedom who rise and resist. Democracy depends on people who refuse to stay silent, who dare to step forward despite grave risk, and who remind us that freedom must never be taken for granted, but must always be defended – with words, with courage and with determination.
Stick this in your pipe and smoke it - DJT :D
 
Last edited:
I'm gonna be honest all this American nonsense belongs in the maga/Trump thread, it's the same stuff at any level of govt.
 
Last edited:
I really should start a Canadian Politics Thread, but i can never find a good first article.
 

Texas city requires Israel pledge for hurricane relief​

A Texas city has required residents who are seeking government disaster relief funds in the wake of Hurricane Harvey to pledge not to boycott Israel.

The city of Dickinson, about 30 miles (48km) south of Houston, posted grant applications for anyone seeking money for repairs after the category 4 storm.

Local officials say the pro-Israel clause is required under a Texas state law enacted earlier this year.

The application has drawn a strong rebuke from free-speech activists.

In the four-page, recovery aid application posted on the city's website, a section reads: "By executing this Agreement below, the Applicant verifies that the Applicant: (1) does not boycott Israel; and (2) will not boycott Israel during the term of this Agreement."

The provision stems from a law barring the state from entering a contract with any business unless it "does not boycott Israel".

Boycotting Israel includes any action intended to "to penalise, inflict economic harm on, or limit commercial relations specifically with Israel", according to the law.

The law, known as the Anti-BDS (Boycott, Divestments, and Sanctions) bill, was signed by Republican Governor Greg Abbott in May.
"Anti-Israel policies are anti-Texas policies, and we will not tolerate such actions against an important ally," the governor said in a statement earlier this year.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) criticised the city for the requirement, saying it was "an egregious violation" of free speech rights under the First Amendment.

"The First Amendment protects Americans' right to boycott, and the government cannot condition hurricane relief or any other public benefit on a commitment to refrain from protected political expression," said Andre Segura, the legal director of ACLU's Texas chapter.

Texas is not the only state to require this provision. The ACLU is suing on behalf of a public school teacher in Kansas over a similar anti-BDS law.

Hurricane Harvey made landfall on 25 August and was the first in a series of hurricanes to hit the Gulf of Mexico region.

The storm has been blamed for 47 deaths and Governor Abbott has warned that clean-up efforts could cost up to $180bn (£136bn).
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41688999
 
Back
Top Bottom