|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Liberals and conservatives think differently
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
My oldest is holding down two jobs and working on a masters degree. It doesn't have to be an either/or situation unless you want it to.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
ianjmatt
Shipmate
# 5683
|
Posted
I think this quote from Thatcher is interesting. Bearing in mind she was more a Liberal (in the classic J S Mill sense) than she was Conservative (in the traditional Tory mould) I think this explains her thinking well - not that people would necessary agree with it:
quote:
Some socialists seem to believe that people should be numbers in a state computer. We believe they should be individuals. We are all unequal. No one, thank heavens, is like anyone else, however much the socialists may pretend otherwise. We believe that everyone has the right to be unequal, but to us, every human being is equally important. A man's right to work as he will, to spend what he earns, to own property, to have the state as servant, and not as master - these are the British inheritance. They are the essence of a free economy. And on that freedom, all our other freedoms depend.
[ 30. April 2012, 19:07: Message edited by: ianjmatt ]
--------------------
You might want to visit my blog:
http://lostintheheartofsomewhere.blogspot.com
But maybe not
Posts: 676 | From: Shropshire | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
That's the data; draw your own conclusions...
I'm not sure it is *the* data, it's some data and probably spun at that.
But even if it wasn't I'm not sure that the conclusion is that it's a worthless activity. Or on a fundamentally mistaken footing. Or that if only the morons doing it would listen to x it would be better.
It reminds me of an onlooker watching someone trying to draw a drowning man out of the water, and advising that the effort is misguided on the basis that the drowning man is still taking in quite a lot of water despite all the effort expended trying to get them out.
All poverty alleviation programmes around the world in every shape and form fail. Because the poor are with us always. That doesn't mean we should stop trying.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
My oldest is holding down two jobs and working on a masters degree. It doesn't have to be an either/or situation unless you want it to.
True, though I wouldn't expect that to be the norm. Or at least it shouldn't have to be.
--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg
Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ianjmatt:
I think this quote from Thatcher is interesting. Bearing in mind she was more a Liberal (in the classic J S Mill sense) than she was Conservative (in the traditional Tory mould) I think this explains her thinking well - not that people would necessary agree with it:
quote:
Some socialists seem to believe that people should be numbers in a state computer. We believe they should be individuals. We are all unequal. No one, thank heavens, is like anyone else, however much the socialists may pretend otherwise. We believe that everyone has the right to be unequal, but to us, every human being is equally important. A man's right to work as he will, to spend what he earns, to own property, to have the state as servant, and not as master - these are the British inheritance. They are the essence of a free economy. And on that freedom, all our other freedoms depend.
I like it, but one issue is that there are worse masters than the state, and sometimes the state's responsibility is to protect people from these masters. Very, very few fortunate people can really say that they have no master.
--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg
Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
My oldest is holding down two jobs and working on a masters degree. It doesn't have to be an either/or situation unless you want it to.
Has it occurred to you that maybe not everyone is capable of that, nor should they be required to be?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
My oldest is holding down two jobs and working on a masters degree. It doesn't have to be an either/or situation unless you want it to.
Has it occurred to you that maybe not everyone is capable of that, nor should they be required to be?
This arguably ties in quite nicely with the thread on depression. One of the best articles I've ever seen on depression talked about people being different strength fuses, and observed that if you try to put, say, 15 amps through a 10 amp fuse, it will blow. Every time.
15 amp fuses exhorting 10 amp fuses to suck it up and take those extra amps is a useless exercise.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
My oldest is holding down two jobs and working on a masters degree. It doesn't have to be an either/or situation unless you want it to.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Has it occurred to you that maybe not everyone is capable of that, nor should they be required to be?
Or that the oldest in question might have made better and more rapid academic progress without the need to hold down two jobs.
And however gifted one is, a PhD is going to be a lengthy exercise if one is also working full time, and the time lost will limit career options on completion.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
one issue is that there are worse masters than the state
I'm not so sure. Corporations screw people over, but they're only doing it for the money and if you haven't got anything they want they'll lose interest in you. The State, on the other hand, will screw people over for idealogical reasons and it will never stop chasing you. Ever.
The State has police (and an army) with which to force universal compliance to its will. Corporations have advertising with which to beg us to buy what they're selling. The State can lock us up for decades if we don't want to give it any money. Corporations can't even force us to enter their stores if we don't want to give them money. Corporations have to set their prices to a level at which people will still be able to buy from them, or else they'll go bust through lack of sales. The State can set the tax rate to whatever the fuck it wishes, and we just have to suck it up and pay whether or not we can afford to do so.
[ 01. May 2012, 09:31: Message edited by: Marvin the Martian ]
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
The only reason there are those limitations on the power of big business is because of the state.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
The only reason there are those limitations on the power of big business is because of the state.
Yes - the State acting as a servant of the people. But we need to be incredibly wary lest it ever becomes a far worse master than any corporation could ever dream of being. All this talk of "if you've got to have a master the State is a good one" is bunk, because the State would be a real evil bastard of a master, and one from which we would never be able to escape.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
one issue is that there are worse masters than the state
I'm not so sure. Corporations screw people over, but they're only doing it for the money and if you haven't got anything they want they'll lose interest in you. The State, on the other hand, will screw people over for idealogical reasons and it will never stop chasing you. Ever.
The State has police (and an army) with which to force universal compliance to its will. Corporations have advertising with which to beg us to buy what they're selling. The State can lock us up for decades if we don't want to give it any money. Corporations can't even force us to enter their stores if we don't want to give them money. Corporations have to set their prices to a level at which people will still be able to buy from them, or else they'll go bust through lack of sales. The State can set the tax rate to whatever the fuck it wishes, and we just have to suck it up and pay whether or not we can afford to do so.
Ah, corporations. The bigger of them have serious power, way beyond influence: why else would we have the Leveson enquiry? Surely Thatcher's idea of individual liberty and freedom didn't encompass that of a corporation both insulating a dominant individual from responsibility while giving them awesome political and economic power!
Astonishingly the state takes a more favourable attitude to corporations than it does to individuals; how that lines up with Mill or any of the other proponents of individual freedom, liberty or the rights of man is a mystery to me.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
All this talk of "if you've got to have a master the State is a good one" is bunk, because the State would be a real evil bastard of a master, and one from which we would never be able to escape.
Indeed, the state unfettered by democracy is pretty bad. As bad as big business unfettered by the state. But when people talk of needing either the state or business as the master, I think what they mean is the balance of power between state and business in a representative democracy.
Fortunately we have an option of the state fettered by democracy *and* business fettered by the state.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
The only reason there are those limitations on the power of big business is because of the state.
Yes - the State acting as a servant of the people. But we need to be incredibly wary lest it ever becomes a far worse master than any corporation could ever dream of being. All this talk of "if you've got to have a master the State is a good one" is bunk, because the State would be a real evil bastard of a master, and one from which we would never be able to escape.
I notice that your monolithic "The State" makes no distinction between the 3 different arms of government.
Which is rather the point, isn't it. You can't actually have a big, bad bogeyman State in countries where the idea that each of the 3 arms helps check the power of the other 2 is operating as it was intended to do.
Not that it's perfect, mind you. The High Court here got itself in quite a difficult exercise a few years back, grappling with the difference between mandatory detention (for people who arrive here without visas), and jail. Because only the judiciary can send you to jail, but the executive can keep you in detention when the legislature has demanded it...
...on the flipside, there's all the other bits of the executive getting in the way, like the Ombudsman. I've actually seen quite interesting arguments that offices like the Ombudsman potentially constitute a FOURTH arm of government.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Ah, corporations. The bigger of them have serious power, way beyond influence: why else would we have the Leveson enquiry?
Ah yes, the phone hacking scandal. Where an evil megacorporation used the unchecked ability to spy on people to further their nefarious aim of selling newspapers.
If the State had the unchecked ability to use phone hacking in such an indiscriminate manner, they'd use it to lock people the fuck up. Not to put juicy stories on newsstands in the hope that they might just persuade us to buy their paper. Sure, phone hacking is a bad thing - but which of those end results do you really fear the most?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
I fail to see where this logic is leading.
It seems to me that the state needs democracy to hold it in check, and big business needs legislation from the state to hold it in check.
The state would get worse in the absence of democracy, and big business would be worse in the absence of a legislature.
What's the choice that we need to make?
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Corporations can't even force us to enter their stores if we don't want to give them money.
True. But we'd starve (in most urban societies anyway) if we didn't use supermarkets. And since they are increasingly monopolistic (nearly every food store that's bigger than a basic corner shop within 3 miles of here is owned by Tesco) that's getting quite near to 'forcing'.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
Corporations are not only producers of goods, but also employers of people. I was thinking more of employee-employer power than producer-consumer power when I made that post. Though as has been said, producers in a monopolistic environment do carry a good deal of weight.
And what's been said about business is especially true in smaller municipalities where there isn't enough business to foster real competition.
I'm not saying the State is always wonderful, but I think that Thatcher's idea that a weak state means everyone is freer doesn't make sense. Some people, I think, benefit from a stronger state and would prefer it even at the cost of some freedom.
--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg
Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Ah, corporations. The bigger of them have serious power, way beyond influence: why else would we have the Leveson enquiry?
Ah yes, the phone hacking scandal. Where an evil megacorporation used the unchecked ability to spy on people to further their nefarious aim of selling newspapers.
If the State had the unchecked ability to use phone hacking in such an indiscriminate manner, they'd use it to lock people the fuck up. Not to put juicy stories on newsstands in the hope that they might just persuade us to buy their paper. Sure, phone hacking is a bad thing - but which of those end results do you really fear the most?
Hmm. JUST to sell newspapers?
Also to ruin lives/careers while doing it. Possibly in some cases to simply not care whether or not lives/careers are ruined, but in some instances there's an air of agenda as to who the newspaper has decided to 'get'.
Owning a newspaper, or media, is not simply about the numbers, it's also about what you're going to tell those numbers when you have their loyalty and attention. Many media outlets have a clear political agenda.
[ 01. May 2012, 22:36: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Niteowl
Hopeless Insomniac
# 15841
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Ah, corporations. The bigger of them have serious power, way beyond influence: why else would we have the Leveson enquiry?
Ah yes, the phone hacking scandal. Where an evil megacorporation used the unchecked ability to spy on people to further their nefarious aim of selling newspapers.
If the State had the unchecked ability to use phone hacking in such an indiscriminate manner, they'd use it to lock people the fuck up. Not to put juicy stories on newsstands in the hope that they might just persuade us to buy their paper. Sure, phone hacking is a bad thing - but which of those end results do you really fear the most?
Hmm. JUST to sell newspapers?
Also to ruin lives/careers while doing it. Possibly in some cases to simply not care whether or not lives/careers are ruined, but in some instances there's an air of agenda as to who the newspaper has decided to 'get'.
Owning a newspaper, or media, is not simply about the numbers, it's also about what you're going to tell those numbers when you have their loyalty and attention. Many media outlets have a clear political agenda.
Martin also leaves out the obscenity of violating the parents of a murdered child, "just to sell newspapers". He minimizes the act that was obscene for the violation of those whose phones were hacked.
--------------------
"love all, trust few, do wrong to no one"
Wm. Shakespeare
Posts: 2437 | From: U.S. | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
If the end is banal, does that excuse any crime, however heinous? I guess as long as the criminal is a conservative, it's okay. Yes, apparently liberals and conservatives DO think differently, Virginia.
[ 02. May 2012, 01:43: Message edited by: mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Yeah, see, I think banality makes it worse. If a criminal is doing something visionary, I can at least give them some kind of grudging admiration.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
QLib
Bad Example
# 43
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
If the State had the unchecked ability to use phone hacking in such an indiscriminate manner, they'd use it to lock people the fuck up. Not to put juicy stories on newsstands in the hope that they might just persuade us to buy their paper. Sure, phone hacking is a bad thing - but which of those end results do you really fear the most?
Well, if people are locked up after an appropriate legal process, then the answer is to fear the newspaper use more - because it is an abuse of power and because they are not just doing it to sell newspapers. Even when they aren't smearing politicians, they are directly or indirectly fuelling the political agendas of their proprietors.
--------------------
Tradition is the handing down of the flame, not the worship of the ashes Gustav Mahler.
Posts: 8913 | From: Page 28 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
What's the choice that we need to make?
It's in response to Bullfrog's post which essentially states "you've got to have a master, so the State is the best one to choose". To which I'm responding "bollocks, I fear being a vassal of the State far more than I fear being a vassal of corporations".
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Many media outlets have a clear political agenda.
And the State doesn't?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
He minimizes the act that was obscene for the violation of those whose phones were hacked.
I clearly said that it was bad. It's just that, given that those in power are going to do bad - even obscene - things whoever they are, which end result would you prefer them to be aiming for?
Corporations just want to make as much money as they can. The State wants to control every aspect of our lives. Both need to be reined in if possible, but if we can only stop one then I know which one I'd choose.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Yeah, see, I think banality makes it worse. If a criminal is doing something visionary, I can at least give them some kind of grudging admiration.
This story provides a possible example of a justified crime in this area. We seem to have two cases: one where a conviction occurred as a result, the other where an innocent person had their privacy invaded to no effect. The first case seems to be justified by the result - by such a post facto justification is... problematic. The second appears to be justified by the witch hunting which the media indulges in with respect to convicted paedophiles; a 6 figure payout to the victim - perhaps payable to the paedophile's victim rather than the rehabilitated criminal - would appear to be appropriate. Let the media gamble - and if they lose, pay out big.
Of course at the heart of this issue is the reality that there is no 'due process' clause in British jurisprudence: illegally obtained evidence can often be presented in criminal cases. The result is some guilty people get convicted - but an ethos of private investigations is enabled which the American system rejects.
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Niteowl
Hopeless Insomniac
# 15841
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
He minimizes the act that was obscene for the violation of those whose phones were hacked.
I clearly said that it was bad. It's just that, given that those in power are going to do bad - even obscene - things whoever they are, which end result would you prefer them to be aiming for?
Corporations just want to make as much money as they can. The State wants to control every aspect of our lives. Both need to be reined in if possible, but if we can only stop one then I know which one I'd choose.
Either state or corporation doing it is obscene, but the fact that one does it just for money strikes me as worse. The well being of their customers goes cheap these days.
Here in the U.S. corporations have too much power as our Supreme Court ruled they have as much rights as individuals. We used to be a country by the people and for the people, now we are a country for the Corporation with corporate money buying Congress and the Presidency. And far too many of them employ more people out of the country than in it. We need to have jobs to buy their cheap crap is what they fail to realize. We used to have good products that were a source of pride and worth the money. I personally will spend a little more to get a well made American product rather than Chinese crap that breaks at first opportunity. I find I end up spending less in the long run when I can find them.
--------------------
"love all, trust few, do wrong to no one"
Wm. Shakespeare
Posts: 2437 | From: U.S. | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Corporations just want to make as much money as they can. The State wants to control every aspect of our lives. Both need to be reined in if possible, but if we can only stop one then I know which one I'd choose.
Either state or corporation doing it is obscene, but the fact that one does it just for money strikes me as worse.
Really?
the difference as I see it is the corporation, which is only after your cash, will leave you alone once it becomes damn clear that you're not going to (or can't) give them any. Whereas the State, which is after control, will never leave you alone. No corporation is going to persecute people if it ends up losing them money, but the State will spend millions just to keep us under its thumb, even if it never sees a penny of that money again.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
A non-elected totalitarian state no doubt would. But we're not talking about that. Surely regular elections provide the necessary checks and balances?
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
A non-elected totalitarian state no doubt would. But we're not talking about that. Surely regular elections provide the necessary checks and balances?
Up to a point. Elected representatives look at things in that optimistic way but I've spent enough time on the inside to know that some senior unelected officials (in certain departments of state more than in others) crave that form of power that comes through control of citizen's lives. Do you really think the ID card scheme was dreamt up by ministers?
So I'm with Marvin, for once.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
It's in response to Bullfrog's post which essentially states "you've got to have a master, so the State is the best one to choose". To which I'm responding "bollocks, I fear being a vassal of the State far more than I fear being a vassal of corporations".
Well as covered above I don't think he meant it in quite as stark terms as that. In either case seems better to me to argue how state should be regulated and how business should be regulated on their own merits, rather than set up a false dichotomy over it.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Many media outlets have a clear political agenda.
And the State doesn't?
The State ADMITS it.
Wait. There you go again with your monolith.
The Executive does, and admits it.
The Legislature is designed precisely for the purpose of arguing about politics.
The judiciary? In my experience, in sane countries where judges don't run for office, doesn't.
[ 02. May 2012, 12:27: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Yeah, see, I think banality makes it worse. If a criminal is doing something visionary, I can at least give them some kind of grudging admiration.
This story provides a possible example of a justified crime in this area. We seem to have two cases: one where a conviction occurred as a result, the other where an innocent person had their privacy invaded to no effect. The first case seems to be justified by the result - by such a post facto justification is... problematic. The second appears to be justified by the witch hunting which the media indulges in with respect to convicted paedophiles; a 6 figure payout to the victim - perhaps payable to the paedophile's victim rather than the rehabilitated criminal - would appear to be appropriate. Let the media gamble - and if they lose, pay out big.
Of course at the heart of this issue is the reality that there is no 'due process' clause in British jurisprudence: illegally obtained evidence can often be presented in criminal cases. The result is some guilty people get convicted - but an ethos of private investigations is enabled which the American system rejects.
Ah, the public interest. One of my favourite phrases. Because it's almost never used by the media in the way it's supposed to be used, as a matter of law.
Since when is it a reporter's job to put holes in a defence case? Funny, I could have sworn there WERE people whose job it is. They're called the prosecution. They get given specific powers to, oh, I don't know, do things like intercept phone calls and e-mails - WITH LEGAL CONTROLS AS TO HOW AND WHEN.
Bugger that, thinks the reporter, I can cut through all that unnecessary red tape of legal authorisation and get the truth 'in the public interest'.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
As someone who writes laws for a living, I've got no sympathy at all. I spend half my bloody working life asking questions about "who can do this, what circumstances, what conditions or restrictions", and a reporter jumps up, cries out "who the f*** cares" and does what he likes? Not on my watch.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
A non-elected totalitarian state no doubt would. But we're not talking about that. Surely regular elections provide the necessary checks and balances?
Up to a point. Elected representatives look at things in that optimistic way but I've spent enough time on the inside to know that some senior unelected officials (in certain departments of state more than in others) crave that form of power that comes through control of citizen's lives. Do you really think the ID card scheme was dreamt up by ministers?
So I'm with Marvin, for once.
But this is precisely why the executive is accountable to the legislature.
Again speaking from my own experience, nothing quite scares an unelected official with wobbly ideas about what they can do through delegated legislation than "the Senate Scrutiny Committee won't like it". Because, in our system, if the Senate Scrutiny Committee doesn't like it, they'll write to the Minister, and the Minister will then ask the unelected official 'what the hell was that thing you got me to sign?'. And yea, verily, unelected officials do NOT like being faced with that question without a good answer.
The prospect of telling a Minister 'the drafting office told us it was a bad idea and that the Senate would ask questions' is frankly THE single most effective device I and my colleagues have for heading off the excesses of the executive in our little corner of the rule of law.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Niteowl
Hopeless Insomniac
# 15841
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Corporations just want to make as much money as they can. The State wants to control every aspect of our lives. Both need to be reined in if possible, but if we can only stop one then I know which one I'd choose.
Either state or corporation doing it is obscene, but the fact that one does it just for money strikes me as worse.
Really?
the difference as I see it is the corporation, which is only after your cash, will leave you alone once it becomes damn clear that you're not going to (or can't) give them any. Whereas the State, which is after control, will never leave you alone. No corporation is going to persecute people if it ends up losing them money, but the State will spend millions just to keep us under its thumb, even if it never sees a penny of that money again.
Don't kid yourself - companies LOVE to harass citizens in any number of ways. They seem to spend a lot of time these days googling any reference to themselves on social networking and even board sites like this one and threaten and even sue individuals for merely stating their opinion of products or services purchased and/or provided. Corporations can be every bit as dictatorial and hell making as the State - and it's all in the pursuit of money. They follow and harass anyone with the slightest bit of fame or public exposure and some make up dirt on others in the pursuit of profit. Occasionally they are sued, but it's all "the cost of doing business. Add that to the other crap I mentioned and the current job climate that has encouraged abuse of employees and it gets quite ugly. All in the name of making money.
--------------------
"love all, trust few, do wrong to no one"
Wm. Shakespeare
Posts: 2437 | From: U.S. | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
And a reporter jumps up, cries out "who the f*** cares" and does what he likes? Not on my watch.
Actually I think public interest is sometimes a legitimate defence, and amidst all the deserved kicking that News Int. is currently getting we should remember that journalists acting illegally have broken scandals like the MPs expenses fiasco in the UK.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
And a reporter jumps up, cries out "who the f*** cares" and does what he likes? Not on my watch.
Actually I think public interest is sometimes a legitimate defence, and amidst all the deserved kicking that News Int. is currently getting we should remember that journalists acting illegally have broken scandals like the MPs expenses fiasco in the UK.
Did they act illegally in that instance? I hadn't heard that suggested, but I didn't follow the story that closely.
But yes, your example illustrates what public interest is actually about - exposing corruption in the public sphere. It's a lot more questionable what public interest there is in helping with the prosecution of a private citizen when that citizen is already charged and up for a trial.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
I think they obtained the accounts illegally.
There might sometimes be legitimate public interest in a journalist unearthing key information about someone charged with a crime, particularly if there is suspicion that the police are incompetent.
I think it is case by case. To say that journalists must always obey the law and never use illegal methods is going too far in my opinion.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Niteowl
Hopeless Insomniac
# 15841
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
And a reporter jumps up, cries out "who the f*** cares" and does what he likes? Not on my watch.
Actually I think public interest is sometimes a legitimate defence, and amidst all the deserved kicking that News Int. is currently getting we should remember that journalists acting illegally have broken scandals like the MPs expenses fiasco in the UK.
A free press has always been another check on government, but to suggest that going to illegal means to obtain information on private citizens on the chance they may uncover a crime goes a bit too far. Even law enforcement must obtain warrants with probable cause evidence to obtain a wiretap, search private property or even place GPS trackers on vehicles for the purpose of following people.
In the case of being a check on government abuse, I'm not sure if the Washington Post reporters who exposed Watergate here broke any laws, though people who supplied them with the facts for the story did prior to meeting with them. Fortunately, most politicians are arrogantly stupid and think that either they are above the law or that no one will catch them when they do stupid and illegal things, so it doesn't involve doing something illegal to catch them and there's always someone around with a camera phone or a microphone handily nearby, or the politician exposes themselves through doing something stupid in public and anything on a computer is never completely deleted.
--------------------
"love all, trust few, do wrong to no one"
Wm. Shakespeare
Posts: 2437 | From: U.S. | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I think they obtained the accounts illegally.
There might sometimes be legitimate public interest in a journalist unearthing key information about someone charged with a crime, particularly if there is suspicion that the police are incompetent.
I think it is case by case. To say that journalists must always obey the law and never use illegal methods is going too far in my opinion.
I went looking for a bit more background. Found this in a BBC FAQ that was around at the time of the scandal:
quote:
Police were asked to investigate the leak but chose not to - having concluded that a public interest defence would be a "significant hurdle" to any successful prosecution.
I think the point being that it isn't actually illegal if a public interest test can be legitimately raised.
I suppose now I'd have to look up more detail on exactly what the law requires in terms of a public interest defence. It's certainly a darn sight narrower than just "interesting to the public", which is frequently what journalists mean when they trot the phrase out. On the other hand, the MP expenses matter is right in the dead centre of what public interest is all about.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
to suggest that going to illegal means to obtain information on private citizens on the chance they may uncover a crime goes a bit too far.
That's a very particular way of phrasing it. I would suggest that "obtaining information on citizens (i.e. not normally private ones) where there is good reason to believe that a matter of public interest is at stake" is not too far for journalists to go.
Watergate would be a good example, had illegal methods been necessary.
I think these instances should be very exceptional rather than the norm, should all be discussed with editors, and the journalists should be prepared to go to face the consequences of the law if their justification doesn't stack up afterwards.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I think the point being that it isn't actually illegal if a public interest test can be legitimately raised.
I'm no expert*. But I wonder if that is a reference to precedent and shared understandings rather than something explicitly codified in law.
* meaning I have not the faintest idea.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I think the point being that it isn't actually illegal if a public interest test can be legitimately raised.
I'm no expert*. But I wonder if that is a reference to precedent and shared understandings rather than something explicitly codified in law.
* meaning I have not the faintest idea.
Yes to precedent, in that I expect it is something from the 'common law' (which is basically precedent) rather than something that is written down in a statute somewhere.
I would not be at all surprised to find that there are 1 or 2 cases from high-level courts that are seen as the classic statement of a public interest test, including no doubt a statement that legislation can only rule out a public interest defence expressly and not by implication (similar to a number of other common law principles, eg the right against self-incrimination - Parliament can override them, but it must show in every case that it explicitly decided to do so, or it will be presumed by the courts that Parliament meant to leave those basic fundamental principles alone).
I just can't be minded the cases/the statements of the principle right now. I would probably be able to do it more readily at work with the resources available there. But to be honest I don't know that I'm THAT keen to find the precise boundaries. All I know for certain is that (1) there exists a concept of a public interest defence, but (2) it's a darn sight narrower than many journalists seem to claim, because most of the cases I can ever remember seeing that refer to public interest have involved judges saying that it doesn't just mean interesting to the public.
[ 02. May 2012, 14:55: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
All I know for certain is that (1) there exists a concept of a public interest defence, and (2) it's a darn sight narrower than many journalists seem to claim.
That's pretty much enough for me too.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
minded to find the cases. Right, that's it, off to bed for me. Too tired.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
I've a suspicion that the courts have never ruled on the definition of 'public interest'. Certainly it's an element in prosecution decisions: the director can rule that a prosecution is not 'in the public interest'. Beyond that, I suspect it is going to be juries that dismiss cases despite overwhelming evidence that act to ensure it has a role in the system.
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Niteowl
Hopeless Insomniac
# 15841
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
to suggest that going to illegal means to obtain information on private citizens on the chance they may uncover a crime goes a bit too far.
That's a very particular way of phrasing it. I would suggest that "obtaining information on citizens (i.e. not normally private ones) where there is good reason to believe that a matter of public interest is at stake" is not too far for journalists to go.
Watergate would be a good example, had illegal methods been necessary.
I think these instances should be very exceptional rather than the norm, should all be discussed with editors, and the journalists should be prepared to go to face the consequences of the law if their justification doesn't stack up afterwards.
Watergate was the press investigating the State not private citizens and there is a vast difference. I.stand by my assertions that the press has no right to violate the constitutional rights of citizens. That has a negativee impact on the public at large.
--------------------
"love all, trust few, do wrong to no one"
Wm. Shakespeare
Posts: 2437 | From: U.S. | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
I've a suspicion that the courts have never ruled on the definition of 'public interest'. Certainly it's an element in prosecution decisions: the director can rule that a prosecution is not 'in the public interest'. Beyond that, I suspect it is going to be juries that dismiss cases despite overwhelming evidence that act to ensure it has a role in the system.
First case I hit in a search says you're wrong about juries. Judges decide.
It does, however, indicate that judges have discussed public interest mostly in terms of examples.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/HCA/1996/47.html?stem=0&synonyms=0&query="public%20interest"
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
In our system judges are only supposed to make rulings about real examples, not hypothetical situations. So you do not know what the law is until it has been tried in court.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
