HOME | DD
jollyjack β Brexit 2020
Published: 2020-01-26 10:35:00 +0000 UTC; Views: 31465; Favourites: 680; Downloads: 111
Redirect to original
Related content
Comments: 480
π: 1 β©: 0
π: 1 β©: 1
π: 9 β©: 0
Do you even know the meaning of democracy?
π: 2 β©: 2
π: 1 β©: 0
π: 5 β©: 1
π: 0 β©: 0
Yep, this pretty much describes the political cluster fuck that is Brexit.
π: 1 β©: 0
Less taxes and less regulation also puts more freedom and capital into companies to invest in themselves for production, jobs, research and efficiency, so where do you draw the line? 0% is lazez faire (with everyone working like slaves, 100% regulation is fascism (with 1/3 the population dead of starvation and the rest working as slaves) and 100% taxation is communism (with 1/3 the population dead of starvation and the rest working as slaves)?
π: 0 β©: 2
Why does the Guildist element always get left out of equation? There are not many, unfortunately, and we SHOULD be experimenting more with those in more areas, BUT give credit where it is due. The Firefighters βUnionβ is ACTUALLY a classic guild, neither capitalist, socialist or fascist in nature, and it HAS to be. I think the Capitalist/socialist western economic duopoly paradigm have been tag teaming for 100 years at suppressing any resurgence of the Guilds in the modern world, EXCEPT for firefighting. Thatβs because whenever firefighting as a business was allowed to experiment with either the capitalist or democratic socialist model, they ended in DISASTER. For the capitalist version, just watch βThe Gangs of New Yorkβ, as competitors who got to a fire in disputed territory at the same time would rather let that clientβs house burn than concede ground, as they were paid by the job.
The Other extreme of moderate socialism and unions, would get bogged down in strikes and bureaucracy often enough that many houses were allowed to burn. Under full communism, Stalin compensated for this through terrorizing the fighters, essentially turning them into slaves of the state, and that environment is not conducive to cultivating very competent men who want the job.
No, most countries have realized that Firefighting, as a business, HAS to be a guild, no matter what its called officially, βUnionβ or βfraternityβ, whatever. That allowance aside, they do try HARD to keep the idea out of every other system of business and governance, and we need MORE of it in those areas. The idea is that a business and/or a local government should be run like a big family, their customers as dear friends, through the bonds of honor and love. Both capitalism and socialism discourage that.
π: 0 β©: 0
Where's the economic collapse? There was supposed to be a Britain shattering economic collapse!
π: 3 β©: 2
One more fact not in the remain corner.
π: 0 β©: 0
We're still in the EU. All the new, wonderful trade deals (or lack of them) take effect at the end of the transition period.
π: 0 β©: 0
It is always interesting to see political cartoons of ones political opponents, but if ye think that someone like Jeremy Corbin is a man who would put out a metaphorical fire, than clearly ye have never heard him speak.
Also please explain how less taxes, less regulations and more accountability is a bad thing.
π: 2 β©: 2
Less taxes means less money into the public infrastructure and regulation is part of accountability so having less regulation is holding corporations less accountableΒ
π: 0 β©: 1
I see thou art from America, I saw this interesting video some times ago: www.youtube.com/watch?v=RY-mlcβ¦
But of course that is just a note reference, don't get distracted by it, the point is that it is easy to get too much regulation, and America have such an excess that all the infrastructure gets multiple times as expensive as it should be, and as it is in less regulated countries like France. And France is not known for its small bureaucracy (in fact they invented the term)
But France do not have redundant and mutually contradictory layers of regulation.
Thou art correct, we can have such a thing as too little, but it is like a girl with too small a waistline or too perky breast, it is not really something we get to complain about in real life.
In real life, over-taxation and overregulation is the constant scourge of society.
I am from Denmark and am trying to study up on Danish tax law right now. I have always found our law compendium interesting. It is 750 pages of tax law. A hundred some years ago when the statetax law was first introduced, that was the only law regulating taxation and that is only two pages, all the rest is just needless complication.
Simple laws are better than complex laws, because we don't need the state to make the world more complex than it already is.
There are things that are naturally evil like rape, theft and murder and we can have simple prescriptive laws against that, and there are things that governments need to regulate for, but a simple well understood standard is far better, than a byzantine mess of complications that someone have to have studied for years to even have a chance of understanding.
Also, and that is actually where thou art most fundamentally wrong, these complicated regulations are an advantage to the self same large corporations that thou obviously disapprove of, because only these have the resources to hire the army of lawyers and accountants needed to comply with all the regulations.
A small business owner have no chance.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFsAkxβ¦
And that is why America more so than most other countries are dominated by few very large corporations.
No one (in the USA) can compete with Walmart thanks to the regulations from Washington, but thou wont see that chain in other countries because there it don't have the home advantage.
π: 0 β©: 1
The world is a complicated place, hence why laws are needed to be complicated. Thinking otherwise means youβve got a pretty simplistic view of the world.
And PragerU is a conservative think toilet so itβs a very biased take.
And large companies work and pour funds to reduce regulations for their own sake, such at the fossil fuel companies do with the conservatives to hollow out the EPA
π: 0 β©: 1
yes the world is indeed complicated, so there is no need to complicate matters further.
The basic most essential purpose of states are to protect our natural rights, such as life, liberty and property.
Putting up laws meant to help consumers often end up hurting them instead as it makes life a lot more difficult for the small business owners who are the backbone of any economy.
An example of a virtues regulation is one that mandates honesty and clarity for products, excessive regulations is of course a balance, but it have most certainly crossed a line, but it have most certainly crossed the line if the businesses needs to spend more resources on compliance than on actually doing something useful.
I linked to these two Prager U videos because they are informative. I don't agree completely with them, for instance the first video I linked to, they blame labour unions and environmentalist for the problems with American infrastructure, but we most certainly have these in Europe to. The real problem is excessive and redundant regulations.
When the Folketing in Denmark for instance have decided where a new Motorway should go, than it is final. The video mentioned the Keystone pipeline as an example I do not know the details, but it is ridiculous not only the opposition to it, but also your inability to actually make a final decision.
As I said, in France although them not being light on regulation, when Paris decides to do something, like say making the high speed TGV trains, it gets done, after the debate is finished in the national assembly it is finished.
So why defend a system that are that inefficient.
I am not saying we shouldn't have standards, only that the standards ought to be simple.
Also certain things are simple. Rape, theft and murder are examples of acts that are naturally evil. They aren't wrong simply because a state or other governmental organisation declared them to be so, they are inherently wrong, inherently EVIL, laws simply just reflect that fact, and are meant to protect us against it.
That is why we have and need a police force afterall.
π: 0 β©: 2
First of all, I think thou mean immoral not amoral, it is a common
mistake but accuracy is important. Amoral refers to a lack of moral
value rather than simply bad ones, an example for that could be a beech
tree growing up and overshadowing local birch trees so they die. It is
amoral because trees have no will so they can't be malicious.
Second,
notice how I said degrees, one can make rulers simpler without getting
rid of them all together, America as I said have redundant layers of
bureaucracy who seems to make it impossible to make a decision.
I
mentioned the keystone pipeline because I know that pipelines in
general are the best most efficient economically as well as the most
environmentally friendly way to transport oil and gas. Locally we have
the Nordstream 2 pipeline which I know is a pure positive.
Americans hate it only because they hate competition from Russia, which just happen to provide the cheapest gas.
Third,
I think we all know that murder is the unlawful killing of another
human being with malice of forethought. Yes we need a court system to
determine if a murder have taken place, and a stateΒ can also murder
people, due to the very old principle of: Lex iniustia non est lex (an
unjust law is not a law). Simply put, all laws needs to correspond to
the natural law, to the eternal principles of justice. It requires of
course a degree of interpretation, but it is not impossible to figure
out, especially in simple, clear cut cases.
Forth
and finally. Morality is not complicated, laws are meant to reflect
that. I mentioned tax law earlier as these are often some of the most
complicated things out there, and that is due to very insidious reasons.
So that the state can at the same time take from people and than reward
them by giving some of their money back for complying with certain
rules.
A simple undiscriminatig tax law where everyone pays
the same would be better, again because it would limit waste. Today
corporations spend a fortune of laywers and accountants in order to
limit the taxes they have to pay instead of doing something useful like
producing stuff for consumers.
Tax laws are
filled with loopholes, exceptions, extensions and ad hoc solutions to be
used in very specific circumstances in order to give certain cases an
advantage over others. What we are talking about here, what we are
really talking about, is reducing waste.
The saying "byzantine
laws" refer to an overly complicated law codex that is impossible to
figure out and comply with, which is named after the "empire" that
lasted over a thousand years, it ended up dying under these rules, while
the Sultan of the Ottoman empire could simply act, being a young empire
full of vitality in these days.
The best way to think of laws are like scar tissue.
I am writing this here because I too late found out that this person (Void-Wolf), had so little character and conviction that he blocked me, thus forfeiting the discussion.
π: 0 β©: 0
Except the rules reflect the complicated nature of the world and of the people that run in it. Simplistic rules are dubious in how amoral individuals can and will exploit loopholes for their own end. Legal departments are well-fundd to find these and thinking "simplifying" the rules help is absurd. It's like saying "people cheat around the rules, so let's get rid of them." The Keystone Pipeline is frankly a bad idea, but part of the logic behind defending them is the infamous Sunk Cost Fallacy.
And standards aren't simple. Is killing in someone in self-defense murder? Is stealing something back that once belonged to you murder? Who or what defines property in terms of owning it to what. Who defines "efficiency?" Because it is to what ends???
It seems that you believe the world should be simple, but it's not and that bothers the hell out of you though given what you posted...
π: 0 β©: 0
if you think your getting that good luck! XD
π: 0 β©: 1
Never expect anything good from governments, that is a healthy attitude, entirely unlike what we normally hear from the left.
The point is, the EU is an extra, unnecessary layer of government, and one who is completely unaccountable.
Westminister is plenty corrupt as it is, and a big tent alliance against corruption and for better representation would be wholly appreciated.
π: 0 β©: 1
Remainers are whiney mongoloids. It's hilarious, at this point.
π: 1 β©: 1
The foreign companies that went to the UK just to access the European One Market and are now leaving disagree.
π: 1 β©: 0
The American version: The boat has two sides, Republicans and Democrats. Donald Trump is sawing the boat in half while blaming the Democrats for dividing the country.
π: 0 β©: 1
π: 0 β©: 1
Why did the Dems keep failing to take that boorish man down?
Why can't they win?
π: 0 β©: 1
Gonna be a rude awakening when all that Brexit propaganda turns out to be lies.Β I mean... isn't Britain a bit warmer version of Iceland now?Β You all know the empire is gone right?Β What happens when you cut ties with the one group that made you strong economically???Β At least all we got stuck with was a sociopathic liar for president when our gullibles drank the cool aid.Β Obviously I am commenting on the detractors here.Β As always, spot on JJ!
π: 0 β©: 1
>"one group that made you strong economically"Β
ignoring the fact we are one of the top contributors to the EU budget - which means we get next to naff all back after we pay all the money into it - hpow about the fact that theyre now struggling to plug the gap we made when we left? this isnt just hyperbole this is fact. the news is reporting that the EU are struggling to get the multiple nations within it to agree to a budget since theyre trying to see who has the money to pay into the system that we were paying, but whoever does end up paying it will have to increase taxes to do so and lose out on any money they would have gotten out of the system, depending on who pays. how is them taking all of our money and giving practically nothing back to us making us economically strong?Β
π: 0 β©: 1
From my point of view if you had such a great economic position then you should have negotiated a better place for yourselves.
If Britain was supporting the EU then you have a valid point but I don't see where all this wealth is coming from once you are out.Β The banks that made you the finance capital of the EU are pulling out to Paris from what I have read.Β Here is to hoping that it turns out ok.Β I fear it won't but lessons learned the hard way are still lessons learned.
π: 0 β©: 1
well we shall never know how it would have turned out since this virus is messing with everything. we will never learn where the economic depressions of brexit begin and where the economic depressions of the coronavirus begin. since businesses have had to close because of the virus theres no way of telling if the economic pressures theyll face post-december are because of the brexit, the coronavirus lockdown, or both. now im not saying that it IS the virus, as no doubt there will be people out there saying it is, my point is theres now no way of telling whats because of brexit and whats because of coronavirus. i dont know where you read about all the finance capital pulling out to paris so if you have sources please do deliver them. i also hope it turns out ok, but at the same time it doesnt seem like the EU will emerge clean from this and again itll be hard to tell whats because of brexit and what will be because of the coronavirus. what is a fact however is that the EU budget is still undecided and theyve had two separate meetings, one thats 8 hours long and another thats 16 hours long, and they still couldnt decide who gets how much.Β
π: 0 β©: 1
The article on the bank pull outs is lost to me.Β It was from long ago I am afraid, thought it was from the BBC but could be mistaken.Β Could be they didn't go through with those plans.Β I hope they did not.
I am assuming all economic woes now are due to COVID 19.Β The problem I see is a lack of faith from both sides going forward.Β It was a cowardly act of the politicians of your parliament to just say "this is so important, lets shirk our duty and make the people decide!"Β The only people with a clear view of the issue decided to throw the ball to the people who voted them in for just this purpose; to make big decisions.Β Not a very trust inspiring ploy.Β And of course the EU wanted Britain to really feel it for leaving didn't they?Β I can't say their tone during negotiations was encouraging of future good will but you never know. Perhaps the Virus will pull folk together and you can all forgive and move on.
π: 0 β©: 1
i dont mean to sound like a bum when i say this so please be assured theres no malice behind these words; since you cant find a source its entirely likely they never went through with it so thats why theres no widespread news about it which is why im gonna say its not really relevant. again, dont mean to be mean when i say that, im just saying that i cant find it either so it was either false, speculation, or just something they discussed but never did.Β
i agree that about 75-80% of woes are gonna be virus related or affected, especially since a lor of areas where brexit would have been hit hard i.e. small businesses maybe, are being hit by the virus just as hard if not moreso hard. so itll be hard for even the most hardcore remainers to say its entirely brexit. whilst i agree there was a lack of faith, i disagree somewhat that the politicians were cowardly to toss it to the people (whether that be the referendum itself or the general election in 2019). the referendum itself is actually a law thing IIRC since the procedure can only be triggered by a countrywide vote, and even if it isnt it makes sense to ask the people in the country what they think is best for the country. otherwise they could use the logic of "they put us here so they trust us unconditionally" to make themselves unelectable tyrants who would never give up power and pass it down to their next of kin when they die. i mean lets say that people voted to leave, but then they remain. that in my opinion is less trustworthy and actually undemocratic since the country wants to do something opposite to the minority of people want to do. and if you were referring to the general election, that was a necessity too, since the government of the time in october was a minority government since all the pro-EU MPs were ganging up on the PM to stronghouse the government into doing what they wanted to have happen, and essentially it was the inmates running the asylum. by calling an election it not only let the people redecide who should be in power whilst negotiating brexit but gave them another shot at cancelling it if they really wanted, since the parties would have to make their stances clear. and the country all but unanimously voted for the pro-brexit party with them taking more seats than ever before, dating back to thatcher days.
yes the EU wanted us to feel it when we left, but does that make it right? punishing us for wanting out of a system we dont want to be in anymore? thats like if you make them feel unwelcome in your house - and i say "make them feel unwelcome" since this anti-EU sentiment cant exist on its own, no smoke without fire and all, meaning there has to be something causing people to doubt the EU - and when they try to leave you demand an extortion out of them for wanting to leave. whilst i do think we brits are playing a bit too hardball at times, when iΒ see the EU strategy it isnt much different from our own so its a two way street. macron cant demand that the UK give the french and EU access to fishing waters for the next 25 years without something in exchange, and he wasnt offering anything in exchange. speaking of the french, they took 130,000 masks intended for us at the border - here is the source: www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articβ¦ - and thus far we havent seen them give back what they stole, despite claiming the US are "pirates" for doing it to them. now yes the US are pirates for doing it to them, but that doesnt make them innocent. so whilst i do hope we can forgive and move on, i doubt itll be an easy thing.Β
π: 0 β©: 0
Since you still suffer from delusions, here have this survival guide in that wasteland of your imagination
www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkPkebβ¦
π: 1 β©: 1
''You're wrong. Let's me show you I'm right.''
-The Internet is strong within you, young Padawan.
π: 1 β©: 1
"Oh, evidence for my opinion being wrong? Let me just ignore it"
π: 1 β©: 1
Some people have ''proofs'' that the Earth is flat too... ... ...Humanity is a mad thing.
π: 1 β©: 1
Nice argument, dude. That showed him(!)
π: 1 β©: 1
| Next =>