On 8 Feb, 13:43, Lee <[email protected]> wrote: > Ohh I don't know. An Anarchistic state would I guess somewhat > 'police' itself wouldn't it? >
I think you'll find the term 'anarchist state' to be a contradiction of terms. > On 8 Feb, 13:25, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On 6 Feb, 23:24, Vamadevananda <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > " ... we allow the rich to get off with all sorts." > > > > Nobody allows them anything, Neil ! For one, they are more > > > resourceful, more driven, more smart than the bureaucrats, to be found > > > out or to be found guilty enough to be penalised ... remember, ' I am > > > with the law. It has nothing to do with justice.' Secondly, they are > > > quite liberal to those who'd look the other way or choose to be with > > > them. Why ? Because, they can. > > > In other words, power corrupts. So, how do we take the power and re- > > distribute it? And, more importantly, do we even have a 'right' TO > > take the power and re-distribute it if we could? If we all did that > > which we could simply because we could, that would be, by definition, > > anarchy. That's not exactly law-abiding, is it? > > > > On Feb 4, 8:41 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Go all the way with you on the reasoning Francis and then some. > > > > Wouldn't stop me doing a deal (did one with a Shankhill butcher once - > > > > you know what I mean). For me the moral questions lie in why we allow > > > > the rich to get off with all sorts. I see this as an undecidable one > > > > can only do one's best with. We probably don't disagree much. In > > > > practice with informants you have to make sure you ain't being ripped > > > > off (the norm) and that you aren't just making space for them to take > > > > over. We might also wonder why we don't ever seem to get our law > > > > right. If we did we'd not fall into moral reasoning need so much. > > > > I've been looking a cop blogs of late. They are a surprising > > > > indication of how despicable our politics have become. I've started > > > > my own at wordpress (allcoppedout). A publisher is interested if I > > > > can write a book quickly enough - Monday books. Did wonder if you > > > > might want to tell your own tale 'from the dark side'. > > > > > On 3 Feb, 17:42, frantheman <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > On 3 Feb., 03:10, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > No morals involved Francis. We do people for pennies in benefit > > > > > > fraud > > > > > > on the basis of information from much slimier sources. > > > > > > This, of course, is the deeper point, Neil. I often think we want to > > > > > have it both ways in the western "democracies." (i) We want to > > > > > believe, at least at some level, that government is (however > > > > > imperfectly) the result of our collective approval, the implementation > > > > > of some kind of social contract renewed through regular exercise of > > > > > the electoral franchise - "in the name of the people." (ii) We also > > > > > generally agree that morality is important and even - in certain areas > > > > > at any rate - demand morality from our elected representatives. (iii) > > > > > At higher collective levels, however, we seem to have no problem in > > > > > accepting a totally pragmatic, realpolitikal view of communal > > > > > activity, which, ultimately, reaches its peak in the Clausewitzian > > > > > definition of war as a continuation of politics by other means > > > > > [actually a misinterpretation of Clausewitz's thinking, but that's > > > > > beside the point]. This is a kind of schizophrenia, or at least deep > > > > > inconsistency, in our attitude towards the "res publica". > > > > > > I'm not in the least suggesting that I myself am free of this > > > > > attitude! Personally, as a salaried, PAYE employee, whose tax is > > > > > deducted at source from his wage packet, I have absolutely no sympathy > > > > > for fat-cats, who get caught trying to cheat the system. I'm not sure, > > > > > however, that I'm comfortable about the idea of rewarding criminals to > > > > > shop other criminals. It implies a sort of double-standard which can > > > > > often be the thin end of a very dangerous wedge. Maybe the best we can > > > > > hope for is that, having weighed-up costs and benefits, we do approve > > > > > of this kind of action by our elected governments but continue to have > > > > > a collective bad conscience about it, that we do not simply regard it > > > > > as ok and go on with business-as-usual, even using such arguments to > > > > > justify persecution of the weak little guys, often hounded in our > > > > > welfare systems (because, basically, they're much easier to blame and > > > > > nail than the powerful, well-regarded, big-bucks, white-collar > > > > > criminals). > > > > > > In this sense, perhaps we DO get the governments we deserve. > > > > > > Francis- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en.
