Maria
3/25/2009 4:43:00 PM
PeterSaxton wrote:
> On 25 Mar, 15:44, Oppressed Subject <swilbu...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> On Mar 25, 3:36 pm, PeterSaxton <pe...@petersaxton.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 25 Mar, 15:22, Oppressed Subject <swilbu...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Mar 25, 2:52 pm, PeterSaxton <pe...@petersaxton.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> On 25 Mar, 14:46, Oppressed Subject <swilbu...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Mar 25, 2:38 pm, Mel Rowing <mel.row...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mar 25, 2:29 pm, Oppressed Subject <swilbu...@googlemail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Mar 25, 2:20 pm, PeterSaxton <pe...@petersaxton.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 25 Mar, 14:12, Oppressed Subject <swilbu...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 25, 1:46 pm, Mel Rowing <mel.row...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 25, 1:41 pm, Oppressed Subject <swilbu...@googlemail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 25, 1:27 pm, Mel Rowing <mel.row...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 25, 1:16 pm, Oppressed Subject <swilbu...@googlemail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Abolish the police, laws and taxes. Minimise government. Arm everyone.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let people self-police.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank God you're oppressed!
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You deserve to be oppressed. You are too stupid to have freedom and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wouldn't know what to do with it.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Oh dear, someone on Usenet thinks I am stupid.
>>>>>>>>>>> He's not on his own I'm sure!
>>>>>>>>>> No doubt my proposals to minimise government and legalism, as well as
>>>>>>>>>> maximise freedoms of the people would run afoul of the following
>>>>>>>>>> groups (just to name a few):
>>>>>>>>>> 1) Tax collectors and dispensers
>>>>>>>>>> 2) Police
>>>>>>>>>> 3) Politicians
>>>>>>>>>> 4) Bureaucrats & mandarins
>>>>>>>>>> 5) Parasites
>>>>>>>>>> 6) Idiots
>>>>>>>>>> 7) Criminals
>>>>>>>>>> 8) The "security" industry, e.g. CCTV installers and database admins.
>>>>>>>>>> The question is which one you fall under. My hunch is that as you have
>>>>>>>>>> done nothing but undertake character assassinations without putting
>>>>>>>>>> any reasoned rebuttals into your posts, you clearly fall into the
>>>>>>>>>> territory of #5 & #6. I also note that as it is typical of this
>>>>>>>>>> government's apparatchiks to do character assassination, chances are
>>>>>>>>>> you're #4 too.
>>>>>>>>> Every time people point out problems in your ludicrous "ideas" you
>>>>>>>>> resort to insults.
>>>>>>>> I suggest you look at the thread history and see who resorted to
>>>>>>>> insults first. I am simply being true to my word and applying
>>>>>>>> monolegalism to my little friend Mel.
>>>>>>>>> Won't the judiciary be wasted if there's no laws?
>>>>>>>> There must be peer review to ensure that justice was served where
>>>>>>>> appropriate and in proportion.
>>>>>>>> I do not condone inappropriate justice (effectively injustice) or
>>>>>>>> (unjustifiably) disproportionate justice.
>>>>>>> But note he does condone people taking it upon themselves to smash up
>>>>>>> other peoples property.
>>>>>>> Why not condone lynching and have done with it
>>>>>> A drop in the ocean compared to the unjustly acquired wealth of "Sir"
>>>>>> Fred Goodwin and the untold misery he has been a major contributor
>>>>>> of.
>>>>>> I do agree though that his punishment so far has proven to be
>>>>>> disproportionate. :)
>>>>> But wouldn't you have allowed banks free rein to do what they wanted?- Hide quoted text -
>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>> Yes they would have free rein. It would be entirely unregulated.
>>>> Limited companies would not exist as I think limited companies have a
>>>> tendency to disassociate people from taking full responsibility for
>>>> cock-ups. What I want to see is people taking full responsibility for
>>>> their actions.
>>>> Also bear in mind that the board are more likely to exercise an
>>>> abundance of caution if they knew that they were all fully & jointly
>>>> liable for any debt sprees their company undertakes. All employees of
>>>> every company, also being liable for their company's excesses, would
>>>> effectively be the new whistleblowing regulators as it is in their
>>>> interests that the company not overstretch itself lest they too become
>>>> liable.
>>>> Such a system of self-policing is by far cheaper, more omnipresent,
>>>> more informed and more effective than external tax-funded regulation.
>>> Could the board just take the money and disappear to another country?
>> Which they could also do in our present system.
>>
>>> There wouldn't be any way of getting them to return.
>> Grudges have a way of following people around.
>
> Presently there is a system of law and international cooperation.
>
> Your system appears to think that it's down to the individual to mete
> out justice.
>
It used to be down to the community, which would whatever was in it's
best interest, and that community was in the best position to know what
was in it's best interest. Justice and policing has been centralised and
IMHO, to our detriment.