News UK government plans emergency data retention law

Ergo: people get the government that they deserve.

Indeed. And if no country can go to war, no country can get invaded. Logical, no?

I think it was premised that they are not us.

They do, because they are what allows us to challenge the raising of the TAX rate, cutting public services, building new railway lines, or privatising public services.

I refer you back to: people get the government they deserve. If they won't take responsibility for, and control of those aspects of their lives that they can control, then why should government do so? If they don't think beyond their own personal interests, why would politicians?

 

Try sticking to the original point you were trying to make, the one when you originally said "A society that governs itself wisely does not need a government to do so"

That is as weak an argument as saying if everyone stopped using their phones for a week, or saying that anarchies can work. You seem to be under the impression that one person isn't going to kill his next door neighbor because he want what they have, or that a group of people have morals and wisdom.

Well that all depends on what group "they" belong to, one day the "us" group may find themselves in the "they" group, and visa versa.

So you agree that civil liberties don't have a direct effect on people, or is the "They do" statement indicating that you believe when i said "They don't effect people in the same way as raising, or lowering the TAX rate, cutting public services, building new railway lines, or privatising public services." That i was incorrect in saying they don't effect people in the same way

Not your original premiss (again), although this one probably makes more sense now you have refined it somewhat.

 

Just because it is unlikely to happen does not mean it wouldn't work. But if groups of people are unlikely to act morally or wise, why would you expect any better from a group of political leaders?

It is your civil rights that allow you to challenge government.

Actually it was; see above. You just couldn't hear me over the sound of your disagreeing with me.

 

I have a pot here with your name on it, or was it a kettle, i know i have it here somewhere.
Like i said you are contradicting yourself, you say "The people not only get the government that they deserve" And then you contradict that by saying "A society that governs itself wisely does not need a government to do so" So what is it ? Either they get the government they deserve, or they don't need one.

It is a bad argument, you may as well be saying if only we could travel through time, or any other ludicrous statement.

The reason you expect a group of political leaders to act morally or wisely is because they are meant to look after the best interests of the group, just as a parent does with a child, or a councilor does for his ward, or a tribal elder does for his tribe, or any of the other basic forms of governance.

And until you have something to challenge them over you don't use those civil rights, ergo: civil rights don't have a direct, or immediate effect on people.

Actually it wasn't; see here...

I'm not sure how you got from ^this^ to this...

As you can see two very different statements.

 

How are the two statements mutually exclusive?

No, because time travel is impossible. The other is just unlikely to happen.

In the same way I expect people to take adult responsibility for their lives and act in the interest of the community that they are part of, because its wellbeing is vital to their own. Doesn't happen either. Turns out people are not that rational (but thanks for illustrating why I used the term 'infantile').

How are they different?

 

Because the occurrence of one precludes the occurrence of the other.

Time travel is not impossible, it's just unlikely.

A single person deciding to take responsibility for their lives and act in the interest of the community is a personal decision, a community leader is chosen because because they have made it public knowledge that they will act in the best interests of the group, so some form of agreement between the group and its leader is made to reflect that.

Emphasis added to highlight what has changed, not that it's needed, as anyone can see the only similarity between the two is when you say "people get the government they deserve"

 

People who govern themselves get the government they deserve. QED.

I'm not even going there.

And people always do what they say, no? The bigger and better the promises...

The second statement is continuation of the first. I see no inconsistency.

 

The only governing a person can do is to govern themselves, as soon as you govern over more than one person you have established a government of one form or another. Like i said the occurrence of one precludes the occurrence of the other, either they get the government they deserve, or they don't need one.

Some people may not do what they say, but that is why MP's are addressed in the house of commons as right honorable, because like i said...

It wasn't always a case of politicians acting as a mirror to society, there used to be a time that our elected representatives would do what was in our best interests not what we thought was best for us.

There was a time when honor was more important that acting as a mirror to society.

While placing a load of caveats after your initial statement may make for a more refined statement, it doesn't change that the original statement had a very different premiss than the one with the caveats added.

 

@CORKY42......(That maybe true for the invading army, but that was not you original premiss.
Your original premiss was that no governments could go to war if its citizens simply refused to sign up and fight).
They would just actively develop an "INCIDENT" like 9/11 ( for example), and bolster the outcry of public opinion.

 

The Amish are a nice example of a community that governs itself: every adult in the community is part of its own government; in other words, its members consist of all the people it governs. People are governing themselves through the government that they are all part of.

There was never such a time. That's a nostalgic fantasy. And wishing for it is the manifestation of the infantile desire for a perfect parent to look after us (which we all have, but the adult in us should know better).

They are not caveats; they are an elaboration of the original statement. Still not hearing me over the sound of you disagreeing with me.

 

The proper conspiracy theorist ain't you

They govern them selves by adhering to the Ordnung, that is based on a book, that the local people decide upon. They still follow rules and laws laid down by their local Ordnung, so they are still being governed, they are still conduct the policy, actions, and affairs of (a state, organization, or people) with authority.

So when MP's refer to each other as the Rt Hon that's just for fun ? Nothing to do with honor (honesty, fairness, or integrity in one's beliefs and actions)

Placing IF after your original statement is adding caveats, as IF implies a warning or proviso of specific stipulations, conditions, or limitations.

 

Where they get their rules from is immaterial. They are still imposing them on themselves.

What people call themselves and how they actually behave are two different things.

"Emergency exits need to be kept clear. If we need to suddenly evacuate, we need a quick way out".

Elaboration of the first statement, involving the word IF. Isn't language wonderful it its diverse and varied application?


(Pro tip: stop digging when you hit China)

 

No. They are being governed, they are conduct the policy, actions, and affairs of (a state, organization, or people) with authority.

Yet with a name, or title comes some form of meaning.
In this case Rt Hon used to mean MP's acted honorably, to claim they never have is straw man argument.

That isn't a caveat, it's an expound, an elaboration.

The only one digging here is you, I'm merely going along with prevaricatory statements.

 

Repeating yourself does not make you less wrong.

No, it's the central argument. You said that in the good ol' days politicians used to act in the interest of the people, with honesty and integrity. I refute that. Your counterargument is that they refer to each other as 'Rt Honourable'. That's a straw man argument.

You really need to read up on history, dude. Here is a convenient starting point.

Gosh yes, isn't it?

Sorry, but I'm done taking part in the Special Olympics now.

 

Pretty much... It's one of the many quirks of parliament, like it being illegal to die, the red lines to prevent sword fights and not being able to call your opponent a liar or [iirc] a hypocrite... also MPs don't refer to each other as 'Right Honourable', except for certain higher-ups in the commons and other parts of the government... MPs can and often do refer to each other as 'The Honourable...', but there's no outright obligation to do so...

 

Who is it that can't hear over the sound of his own disagreement ? Projecting much.
Even after you have been proved wrong on most of your statements, you still want to argue with the dictionary meaning of the word "govern", even after someone does you the courtesy of repeating it for you, and placing an emphasis on the part you can't understand.

Instead you prefer to ignore the meaning of a word, and point out how wrong someone else is. Who is it that can't hear over the sound of their own disagreement, with the dictionary no less, you may as well be standing in the corner shouting at a book.

No. what is though is to say here and here that there has never been a time that politicians have acted in our best interests, even though throughout history there has been millions of them, and apparently according to you, none of them have acted in our best interests. Speaking statistically that is an impossibility.

And AFAIK the central argument isn't if politicians have ever acted in the best interest of the people they serve, it's that the are rushing though and emergency law on data retention but it seems you are more invested in proving you are right and i am wrong to actually bother discussing that.

Wasn't it you who said, "You know, I've found that the best way to persuade people is to insult them." Ohh wait, yes it was, right here...

 

Straw man argument. The meaning of the word is not under debate. Whether a group of people can be said to govern themselves is. A group can have authority over itself (pro tip: look up the definition for: self-governing).

Another straw man argument. You said that there used to be a time when politicians acted in our best interest, unlike politicians now. As you did not specify "some", "most" or "all" this was a general statement (moreover a comparative one). I said that generally speaking, they did not (and certainly not more than current politicians), and refer you to historical fact.

Changing the subject. If it is not central to your argument, why do you keep harping on about it --until you are proved wrong?

If that's how you want to interpret it, be my guest. At least it gives you an out, no?

 

Definition of self-governing in English: Exercising control over one’s own affairs, in particular.
Emphasis added, just to point out that self-governing means, as if the word self doesn't give you enough of a clue, that self-governing mean to exercise control over yourself.

And because i know you like argue the point of every little thing just so you can feel content in the belief you are always right, the Definition of govern in English: Conduct the policy, actions, and affairs of (a state, organization, or people) with authority.

As you seem to like giving pro tips, here is one for you.
Pro tip: Politician means a single MP, politicians means many, some, most, or all MP's. As you say, Isn't language wonderful it its diverse and varied application?

How is trying to steer you back towards the OT changing the subject. If, to put in your words you want to keep harping on about vegetables, rose gardens, nanny states, teenage rebellion, sink estates, wars, neighbourhood watch, Hitler, or any other unrelated subject, just so you can prove how you are right, and everyone else is wrong then feel free.

So please do elaborate on what you meant when you said "Sorry, but I'm done taking part in the Special Olympics now." Was that not you seeking an out ? Was that not your veiled attempt at an insult ?

 

"Arguing on the internet is like taking part in the Special Olympics: even if you win you're still a retard."

As you can see, it was a reference to myself. At some point it's better to be sensible and walk away than to persist in pointless and undignified bickering.

 

It does not appear to be pointless, undignified bickering if it has succeeded in outing somebody's true face.
Some people inherently assume that power and influence are what makes a man stand tall, they are wrong!

Deeds will always outdo the talking.
You appear to offer sound and informative responses but i cannot help thinking that you would be up for the job of sending the troops out of the trenches into certain hell, while staying back in the bunker drinking tea and talking cricket, impatiently waiting for the phone to ring again.