Yzermandius19 Posted February 1, 2019 Report Posted February 1, 2019 1 minute ago, Dougie93 said: That's what we do, locally we are the House of Windsor, globally we are free subjects of, interacting with the free markets, doing unto others; by national and international law and the laws of armed conflict as a founding and permanent member of the United Nations Security Council. You can put your big boy pants on and join us any time. Don't need a one world government to put on your big boy pants, eyeball is just under the mistaken impression that you can't put on your big boy pants without them. /shrugs
eyeball Posted February 1, 2019 Report Posted February 1, 2019 1 minute ago, Yzermandius19 said: They already monitor the very top, They? Whose they? Quote problem is, you can't make honesty and virtue inescapable at the very top of government and it's a fools errand to attempt to achieve such a utopia, that's not how politics work, and it never will work that way, wishful thinking plain and simple. Problem is you haven't even tried. They said activities on the deck of commercial fishing vessel couldn't be made accountable too. Tell that to the people that come retrieve my data logger and audit/validate the digital and paper records of my activities. Tell it to the human observers that I have to take out to sea if I try to game the system. You shouldn't say it can't be done to someone whose doing it. I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
eyeball Posted February 1, 2019 Report Posted February 1, 2019 5 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said: Wanting politicians to be honest and virtuous is just going to lead to crushed expectations and faulty political analysis, Not wanting, forcing, like fishermen are forced. I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
Yzermandius19 Posted February 1, 2019 Report Posted February 1, 2019 (edited) 13 minutes ago, eyeball said: Problem is you haven't even tried. Wrong, humans have been trying to get politicians to act virtuously and honestly since politicians first existed, it has just failed every time, and you are deluded enough to think that if it's just tried in a One World Government this time around, the billionth time will be the charm. Politicians are going to act like politicians, no matter what political system they are under, that's reality, there is no alternative, One World Government isn't going to change that. You might as well ask to live in a crime free world, or a poverty free world, and then suggest that world government is the best way to achieve it, the only reason we don't live in a crime/poverty free world, is we haven't tried World Government yet. Makes as much sense as your current line of reasoning, expecting humans to be saints instead of humans, is a poor basis to design a government around. Edited February 1, 2019 by Yzermandius19
Dougie93 Posted February 1, 2019 Report Posted February 1, 2019 3 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said: Don't need a one world government to put on your big boy pants, eyeball is just under the mistaken impression that you can't put on your big boy pants without them. /shrugs Indeed, there's plenty enough governance, we are large and in charge, the kings of the world living like the Kings of Virginia, the Chicoms can pound sand, I'm not flying to them, because they have no quality. Mind you, arbitrage plays are still in effect, if you want to own Tencent you can buy Naspers because they are holding $175 billion of Tencents $561 billion, but they hold it from Joburg not Beijing.
eyeball Posted February 1, 2019 Report Posted February 1, 2019 5 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said: Wrong, humans have been trying to get politicians to act virtuously and honestly since politicians first existed, it has just failed every time, and you are deluded enough to think that if it's just tried in a One World Government this time around, the billionth time will be the charm. You've simply surrendered is all. I'm willing to bet just outlawing in-camera lobbying of governments we have would be enough. Used to be a time when politicians believed God was monitoring them and keeping them honest so I'm not really suggesting some new concept here, just a real means of executing it. Like I said the technology to do this has been on the shelf for years now. I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
Yzermandius19 Posted February 1, 2019 Report Posted February 1, 2019 (edited) 5 minutes ago, eyeball said: You've simply surrendered is all. I'm willing to bet just outlawing in-camera lobbying of governments we have would be enough. Used to be a time when politicians believed God was monitoring them and keeping them honest so I'm not really suggesting some new concept here, just a real means of executing it. Like I said the technology to do this has been on the shelf for years now. There was a time when no camera's existed, and there was no in-camera lobbying of governments. There was never a time when believing god was monitoring them kept politicians honest, history records no such instance where that was ever the case, before or after the invention of the camera. Getting rid of in-camera lobbying of governments is not a magical fix for that, history shows that quite definitively, you're dreaming. Edited February 1, 2019 by Yzermandius19
Dougie93 Posted February 1, 2019 Report Posted February 1, 2019 3 minutes ago, eyeball said: You've simply surrendered is all. I'm willing to bet just outlawing in-camera lobbying of governments we have would be enough. Used to be a time when politicians believed God was monitoring them and keeping them honest so I'm not really suggesting some new concept here, just a real means of executing it. Like I said the technology to do this has been on the shelf for years now. It's quite easy to see who is lobbying the government, I don't need a camera to see Jerry Diaz and Unifor trying to pull the strings of Butts and Telford. And their sockpuppet Zoolander. But who cares? The Information Age is sweeping Unifor into oblivion, the Dingbats can't save them, so big whoop.
Guest Posted February 1, 2019 Report Posted February 1, 2019 1 minute ago, Yzermandius19 said: There was a time when no camera's existed, and there was no in-camera lobbying of governments. There was never a time when believing god was monitoring them kept politicians honest, history records no such instance where that was ever the case, before or after the invention of the camera. In camera has nothing to do with cameras. Not getting involved in the discussion. Just a public service announcement.
Yzermandius19 Posted February 1, 2019 Report Posted February 1, 2019 (edited) 1 minute ago, bcsapper said: In camera has nothing to do with cameras. Not getting involved in the discussion. Just a public service announcement. You missed the point. The point was, politicians behaving with virtue and honesty, that's a myth, and a One World Government isn't a game changer that will force politicians to act in the best interests of the people, rather than themselves. Edited February 1, 2019 by Yzermandius19
eyeball Posted February 1, 2019 Report Posted February 1, 2019 2 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said: getting rid of in-camera lobbying of governments is not a magical fix for that, you're dreaming. That's right its not a superstitious fix its a scientific technological fix. There's nothing wrong with dreaming. I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
Dougie93 Posted February 1, 2019 Report Posted February 1, 2019 (edited) 5 minutes ago, bcsapper said: In camera has nothing to do with cameras. Not getting involved in the discussion. Just a public service announcement. Lobbying is a completely necessary and perfectly reasoned component of representative democracy and in fact constitutionally protected speech. It is not only folly to expect negotiations to be conducted in public, it's actually essential not to do so, otherwise you couldn't get anything done ever, in the face of ceaseless partisan rabble rousing. Which is legislating from the streets, which is not compatible with representative democracy nor the British Crown which upholds it. GSTQ-TMLF /PSA Edited February 1, 2019 by Dougie93
Yzermandius19 Posted February 1, 2019 Report Posted February 1, 2019 (edited) 7 minutes ago, eyeball said: That's right its not a superstitious fix its a scientific technological fix. There's nothing wrong with dreaming. There is something wrong with government intervention, to attempt to achieve a dream, that will never be realized, and will have tons of negative consequences that makes the juice not worth the squeeze. Basing governance on unrealistic dreams that fly in the face of reality, that is not optimal, and that's my beef with your reasoning. The most sure fire way to end up in a dystopia, is believing that it's possible to achieve utopia, if the right politicians, government system or government policies are simply enacted, we simply haven't picked the right politicians/system/policies yet, be careful what you wish for. Edited February 1, 2019 by Yzermandius19
eyeball Posted February 1, 2019 Report Posted February 1, 2019 3 minutes ago, bcsapper said: In camera has nothing to do with cameras. It's a legal term that has to do with confidentiality...In the context of politics it has more to do with preventing secrecy in the public's domain where politicians work. I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
Dougie93 Posted February 1, 2019 Report Posted February 1, 2019 Just now, eyeball said: It's a legal term that has to do with confidentiality...In the context of politics it has more to do with preventing secrecy in the public's domain where politicians work. This is not a formal democracy, it is a Constitutional Monarchy, you're not actually entitled to prevent government secrecy, all you are entitled to do, is vote for a representative. If you don't like the results, you can vote for someone else. That's all you are entitled to, you won't get "in camera blah, blah, blah" from the judiciary.
Guest Posted February 1, 2019 Report Posted February 1, 2019 Just now, eyeball said: It's a legal term that has to do with confidentiality...In the context of politics it has more to do with preventing secrecy in the public's domain where politicians work. Right. Out of the public eye, so to speak.
eyeball Posted February 1, 2019 Report Posted February 1, 2019 4 minutes ago, Dougie93 said: Lobbying is a completely necessary and perfectly reasoned component of representative democracy and in fact constitutionally protected speech. 100% correct. So is ensuring the public's domain remains public, especially when its hidden in some smoke-filled backroom. What's missing is a constitutionally protected space for the public to hear what's being spoken. I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
Dougie93 Posted February 1, 2019 Report Posted February 1, 2019 Just now, eyeball said: 100% correct. So is ensuring the public's domain remains public, especially when its hidden in some smoke-filled backroom. What's missing is a constitutionally protected space for the public to hear what's being spoken. There is no res publica in Canada. The public has no rights but what's in the Charter, public rule is not in there.
Guest Posted February 1, 2019 Report Posted February 1, 2019 10 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said: You missed the point. The point was, politicians behaving with virtue and honesty, that's a myth, and a One World Government isn't a game changer that will force politicians to act in the best interests of the people, rather than themselves. I wasn't talking about the point. I was under the impression you were perhaps mistaken about the term. I do know politicians aren't to be trusted.
Yzermandius19 Posted February 1, 2019 Report Posted February 1, 2019 (edited) 6 minutes ago, eyeball said: 100% correct. So is ensuring the public's domain remains public, especially when its hidden in some smoke-filled backroom. What's missing is a constitutionally protected space for the public to hear what's being spoken. That isn't missing at all, the free press discuss that shit all the time, under their constitutionally protected right to free speech. You're just mad that the electorate remains ignorant despite that being the case, because you falsely believe that if they just had access to the information, they would be as upset with the government, for the exact same reasons that you are, but that's not the way reality works. Edited February 1, 2019 by Yzermandius19
eyeball Posted February 1, 2019 Report Posted February 1, 2019 9 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said: There is something wrong with government intervention, to attempt to achieve a dream, that will never be realized, There's something wrong with your comprehension. This is about a more robust public intervention in it's governance. Yes politicians have been behaving poorly forever, but like rust that never sleeps, people keep dreaming. The real nightmare is how many people are willing to go into a coma to avoid dreaming. I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
Dougie93 Posted February 1, 2019 Report Posted February 1, 2019 3 minutes ago, eyeball said: There's something wrong with your comprehension. This is about a more robust public intervention in it's governance. Yes politicians have been behaving poorly forever, but like rust that never sleeps, people keep dreaming. The real nightmare is how many people are willing to go into a coma to avoid dreaming. There's something wrong with your comprehension, Canada is not a people's republic and never will be.
Yzermandius19 Posted February 1, 2019 Report Posted February 1, 2019 (edited) 19 minutes ago, eyeball said: There's something wrong with your comprehension. This is about a more robust public intervention in it's governance. Yes politicians have been behaving poorly forever, but like rust that never sleeps, people keep dreaming. The real nightmare is how many people are willing to go into a coma to avoid dreaming. Nah the real nightmare is that the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and those "dreamers" with good intentions often remain oblivious to that fact, and charge head long into dystopia thinking they are doing good, see the 20th century. Dreamers are nothing special, they are a dime a dozen, and good intentions doesn't always equal desirable outcomes, the world needs less dreamers oblivious to reality, and more realists who know how to actually address the issues that "dreamers" are so worried about, without the need to virtue signal. Virtue signaling is not more important than actual results, protip. Would rather live in a hypothetical world where people only have bad intentions and produce desirable results than a world where people only have good intentions and produce undesirable results, good intentions are hugely over-rated. Edited February 1, 2019 by Yzermandius19
Dougie93 Posted February 1, 2019 Report Posted February 1, 2019 21 minutes ago, bcsapper said: I wasn't talking about the point. I was under the impression you were perhaps mistaken about the term. I do know politicians aren't to be trusted. How so? I voted for Justin Trudeau and I got exactly what I voted for. I voted for Doug Ford and got exactly what I voted for.
Yzermandius19 Posted February 1, 2019 Report Posted February 1, 2019 (edited) As Dougie likes to say, a pox on all reformers. I wipe my a** with their "good intentions", I judge them on results, as any rational observer should. Edited February 1, 2019 by Yzermandius19
Recommended Posts