World Affairs

[AkemiAzula 280]

I have always felt that whether or not one is allowed to carry a gun one should have the right to defend oneself if attacked, and by any means necessary.

I also believe some criminals are too dangerous to be allowed to live, and I believe in hanging for serious crimes.

I think home burglary if anything should be, should be a scenario where one can use force to prevent theft. I think defending ones possessions should be as much a right as defending oneself.

 

[LexusInfernus 908]

18 hours ago, A Nonny Moose said:

A lot of utter garbage has come out of the European Parliament in the guise of "rights".  In any case, human rights must never include any kind of approval for criminal behaviour.

Actually it hasn't since the European Parliament cannot draft laws itself, that is the job of the Commission. And the Commission doesn't draft laws that look like 'human rights' as such laws lie waaaaay outside of the competences of the EU. 

The European Convention on Human Rights was an international treaty created by the Council of Europe, which is not actually part of the EU or its predecessors. I know, very confusing, having the Council of Europe (not part of the EU) and the European Council (definitely part of the EU). I guess Europeans aren't all that imaginative when it comes to naming our intergovernmental organizations. 

Finally, the 'garbage' you are probably referring to comes from the European Court of Human Rights, through their rulings and case law, which have in some ways expanded the understanding of what human rights are. Not sure if I would call their rulings 'garbage' though. Its their job to look out for the protection of people's rights, not those of the government. And as much as I dislike criminals, they are still humans, and that means they have rights too.  

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Generally speaking criminal perpetrators forfeit many "rights" on commission of a crime.  Certainly if one attacks another, the other's right of self-defence overrides any personal rights on the part of the perpetrator.  At that point the use of force becomes moot.

[LexusInfernus 908]

4 hours ago, A Nonny Moose said:

Generally speaking criminal perpetrators forfeit many "rights" on commission of a crime.  Certainly if one attacks another, the other's right of self-defence overrides any personal rights on the part of the perpetrator.  At that point the use of force becomes moot.

Yes, they forfeit certain rights, rights granted to you by the state. Human rights are different, they are granted to you because you are human. Committing a crime does not end your humanity, you remain a member of our species. As such, these rights cannot be taken away from you, and governments that try would be violating your human rights. 

And while self defense means someone is allowed to use force, even lethal force, to protect themselves, it again, does not mean the human rights of another person just cease to exist at that point, nor are they 'overriden'. Frankly, there just isn't a human right that says you can't be hurt under any circumstances. Force and lethal force are not automatically breaching someones human rights. 

That said, self defense also does not give you a carte blanche to do what you want with whoever is attacking you, and that is what the court clarified/affirmed. Each case would need to be investigated and possibly go to trial to see if the violence was proportionate. This means that self defense force needs to be proportionate to the danger you are in. Defend your house when burgled? Sure, punch the guy or hold the guy down. Does it mean tie him up and hook electric cables to his body? No, that would probably be disproportionate force. That would probably go to court and the court would probably say that this was not okay and you can not rely on the self protection law and can be send to trial for torture.  

[MintberryCrunch 83]

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/22/americas/saskatchewan-la-loche-school-shooting-canada/

School shooting in Canada today. Can happen anywhere. 

[Dreadnought 8,226]

Yes -- anywhere.

And the truly sad thing -- I'm not sure there is any way to stop them.

I first learned about -- "them" -- on 22d November, 1963.  A mental case with a gun can cause so much harm -- because you don't know he's coming.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Posted for comment in Canadian (non-political) events.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Syria: UN report condemns both sides for crimes against humanity.

Is it any wonder the people are fleeing both sides?  Somewhere, some when, an accounting needs to be made.  These people look at the value of life differently from the West.

[Dreadnought 8,226]

9 minutes ago, A Nonny Moose said:

Syria: UN report condemns both sides for crimes against humanity.

Is it any wonder the people are fleeing both sides?  Somewhere, some when, an accounting needs to be made.  These people look at the value of life differently from the West.

Not likely to happen, Nonny.

No one is willing to accept blame.

What blame ?? !!

Each one is helping his "own" side -- which, of course, is the "right" thing to do.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Actually, I was thinking of something like dissolving the CIA (Central Inept Agency).  They have covered the United States of America in more blood than the Civil War.

[Dreadnought 8,226]

1 minute ago, A Nonny Moose said:

Actually, I was thinking of something like dissolving the CIA (Central Inept Agency).  They have covered the United States of America in more blood than the Civil War.

I always thought "central intelligence" was an "oxy-moron" to start with -- beyond that, I make no comment.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Oxymoron doesn't need quotes not a hyphen.  Those idiots were better off when they were called the Office of Strategic Services, but they have now become nothing but a bunch of meddling, bloated bureaucrabs.  I hope the POTUS takes this into account in his daily security briefings.  I don't think anything from them is trustworthy.

[Dreadnought 8,226]

16 minutes ago, A Nonny Moose said:

Oxymoron doesn't need quotes not a hyphen.  Those idiots were better off when they were called the Office of Strategic Services, but they have now become nothing but a bunch of meddling, bloated bureaucrabs.  I hope the POTUS takes this into account in his daily security briefings.  I don't think anything from them is trustworthy.

Thanks for the grammar lesson.

Like I said -- no comment.  I'm through discussing things with people that think we've got it all wrong. 

I think we've got it right for the moment -- and I'm going to wait and see how the Russkies make out.  The news has been pretty much as I predicted, so far.

You can probably find some other folks that like poking at the CIA.

[LexusInfernus 908]

What has the CIA got to do with the mess in Syria? Look, I got no love for American foreign policy, but its silly to blame one government agency for everything that has gone wrong with American foreign policy. Sure, they made mistakes, but then again their job is basically to predict what other people are thinking, which is really difficult, and even more difficult if the people whose behavior you are trying to predict are thousands of miles away in a completely different culture than your own.

Besides, even if they get it wrong, its congress and the White House that either use or ignore these CIA reports. They are the ones that are ultimately responsible for the actual policy. You think those little coups they have staged happened without someone in the legislative and executive branch knowing about it? And yeah, they armed what later would turn out to be Al Qaeda, but who do you think authorized the budgets for that? 

Also, be glad its a bureaucracy, because bureaucracy means just one thing and thats accountability. You know what would be a real problem? Some intelligence outfit that operates in the dark, on its own, beholden to no one. I'm sure they would be very effective without any red tape ever slowing them down, but they would be effective at furthering their own agenda, and they would be the ones who set that agenda without any of us having a say in it. So when the CIA screws up, at leas they are accountable. 

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Not to beat a dead horse, but the people on the Farm did a lot to support the rebels in Syria, and got the ball rolling over there.

[LexusInfernus 908]

5 hours ago, A Nonny Moose said:

Not to beat a dead horse, but the people on the Farm did a lot to support the rebels in Syria, and got the ball rolling over there.

There is no such thing as 'the rebels' in Syria. 'The rebels' implies that this is a conflict between two clearly distinguishable sides, one side rebels and the other side the government of Assad. This is an extreme oversimplification of the situation and could not be further from the truth. 'The rebels' don't exist. There are dozens of independent rebel forces fighting, some operate only on a local level, others are more widespread, some of them cooperate with each other, others like IS fight everyone. Even the government side is fractured. Yes, there is the official Syrian army, which is backed by the Russians, by the Iranians, by Hezbollah and by local militias that support Assad.

And the CIA hasn't given the rebels a lot of support. They have given some (minor) factions within the overall rebel movement some support. Not even a lot of support, just some. They trained a few guys, gave them a little bit of cash (and I really mean a little bit) and thats about it. And that was AFTER the whole thing had turned violent already, so to say that they got the ball rolling just isn't true. Most of the Western aid has gone to the Kurds and their Peshmerga. Seriously, the CIA is not to blame for the mess in Syria, I wouldn't even bother blaming them for making a bad situation worse because I highly doubt that their efforts had that type of impact. 

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Of course it is a simplification.  I don't believe that anyone can track the number of invaders.  Call them what you will, insurgents, rebels, anti-government Syrians, etc.  Most of them are simply opportunistic bandits.

Mind you, Assad & Co. have shown them selves unworthy to rule a chicken coop, let alone a country that may be emerging towards some state of freedom, not necessarily any model of Western democracy.  When a people have been ruled by a satrap for a long time, the impact of freedom of any kind may be more than they can easily absorb.  Look what happened to Libya.  The Arab Spring was a spring board to chaos.  Perhaps some kind of enlightened rule by a junta, but we all know how easily this kind of thing can turn into a dictatorship, so what then?  Can anyone offer a workable solution?

[LexusInfernus 908]

There is no workable solution, thats the problem. 

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Well, if there is no workable solution, what would you suggest?  Should this become a UN trust territory until something can be sorted out?  Note how well that worked with Palestine.

[LexusInfernus 908]

Actually, I quite like Canada's approach. Stop bombing and focus on humanitarian aid. We could try to set up safe zones, either in Syria or in countries willing to take in refugees. In Syria, let whoever is still fighting fight, all they will do is forever delegitimize themselves in the eyes of the world. And should one of them actually win, all they will have won is a pile of rubble.

In the meantime, helping the refugees with education, food, a safe place to stay and jobs will hopefully reduce the attraction of radicalism and restore their faith in a plural society consisting of multiple ethnic groups living together. Also, should the situation in Syria normalize and people move back, they will have hopefully learned the skills necessary to rebuild the country. 

[krbe 193]

17 hours ago, A Nonny Moose said:

Perhaps some kind of enlightened rule by a junta, but we all know how easily this kind of thing can turn into a dictatorship, so what then?  Can anyone offer a workable solution?

Why would a dictatorship necessarily be a bad idea? Democracy is far from ideal, and advocating it as an endgoal in such a violence-ridden area is irresponsible.

Besides, junta dictatorships have become a lot more fashionable after Thailand and Egypt switched. The model of Myanmar shows us it only takes 20-30 years to get rid of it. Approximately the same time they'd spend on infighting if they choose democracy.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

It is well known the "democracy" in the Ancient Greek sense doesn't exist anywhere in the world today.  Democracy is really becoming a dirty word, and with the word democratic embedded in the name of a country, one is usually looking at a dictatorship.

A people can only develop freedom from within, when they are ready.  Meanwhile these people need to be governed else live in chaos.  And speaking of chaos, has anyone looked at the makeup of the Knesset lately?

[LexusInfernus 908]

3 hours ago, krbe said:

Why would a dictatorship necessarily be a bad idea? Democracy is far from ideal, and advocating it as an endgoal in such a violence-ridden area is irresponsible.

Besides, junta dictatorships have become a lot more fashionable after Thailand and Egypt switched. The model of Myanmar shows us it only takes 20-30 years to get rid of it. Approximately the same time they'd spend on infighting if they choose democracy.

Egypt switched from one Junta to the next. And just look at countries that ruled by dictators. Are they doing a good job? Not really. 

The problem with dictators is that they encourage corruption and a bureaucratic system that is paralyzed by fear and incompetence. The result is weak economic performance often based around a limited number of economic sectors. As long as those sectors do well, they are able to keep the peace, mostly, but once those sectors tank, and the rest of economy goes down with it, economic instability results in political instability. And in order to compensate for all of these short comings, dictators invest heavily in the security apparatus, relying on repression to keep everything in place. This further fuels the cycle of corruption, weak economic performance and opposition to the government, until at some point the security apparatus can't handle it anymore and the place erupts into chaos. This is basically what happened during the Arab spring. 

Another problem with dictatorships is the transfer of power. In a limited number of cases a dictator manages to stay in power long enough that he needs to transfer power. This is a risk as this is usually the right moment for all kinds of people to make their move and see if they can get a hold on power themselves. End result is civil war, or the power is transferred successfully but ends up in the position of someone who's position isn't exactly established yet, like what some of the reports suggest is happening in North Korea. This too is a potential for chaos. Finally, after a successful transfer of power, there is the chance that the next dictator has radically different ideas about a number of things, including economic policy, thus making it much riskier to invest in such places. 

Democracy as a system works so well not just because it makes ordinary people happy that they have a say, but because its one of the most successful systems when it comes to safely and peacefully transfer power from one 'ruler' to the next. This in turn is also what makes a functioning democracy much more attractive to invest in, while there is some build in instability in terms of long term policy directions, it is far less likely that a country plunges into absolute chaos every time power is transferred. And even the build in instability is minimal as governments change, it seldom happens that they radically break from their predecessors. 

So yeah. Dictatorships are most definitely a very bad idea, especially if you want peace and stability. 

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

There are currently two forms of "democratic" government in the west at the moment:  The republican model of the U.S.A. and the Westminster model of the U.K. and many members of the British Commonwealth.  Neither one is any great wonder, but they seem to be the best that have been tried so far.

IMHO the U.S. model is too cumbersome.  Electing the king every four years is very expensive and wasteful of time and money.  The cabinet does not have seats in Congress and are virtually inaccessible in this tripartite situation.  The president is both head of government and ceremonial head of state.  This is too much burden for any individual no matter how good he is at delegation nor how well advised.  The office of POTUS puts such a load on the incumbent that you can see him age visibly from year to year.  Cruel and unusual punishment?  All he really wanted to do was lead the parade.  Further, there is no avenue for the electorate to recall the government should they discover they have made a mistake.  Impeaching the president is a horrible, laborious process and doesn't result in going back to the people.

The Westminster model on the other hand puts the Prime Minister and the full cabinet in the House of Commons any day it meets with a few occasional exceptions when cabinet members may be in the Senate.  The Crown, in the person of the Queen in the U.K. and the governors general in the other countries provide continuity that is unparalleled, and is totally non-political.  The ceremonial burden is taken on by the Crown, which also acts as the formal head of armed forces, etc. etc.  Takes a considerable load off the de facto head of state (The Prime Minister) while providing a backstop with the final authority over Parliament (hardly ever exercised except on request).  I think the one great advantage of this model is that the government can actually fall.  This means that the Crown can either call on another party to form a new government, or failing that, a general election with a campaign which normally lasts about 40 days.  It really doesn't take much to defeat a Westminster style government.  Defeat on the budget or any other money bill, or an actual vote of no confidence that passes the House of Commons does the trick.

[Dreadnought 8,226]

GOD  SAVE  THE QUEEN !!!

[AkemiAzula 280]

Well imho the problems of dictatorship are purely challenges not obstacles, but certainly democracy works in a rough mongrelly way, never really achieving any particular vision for a nation but keeping the basic things flowing.

However the UK is no wonderful angelic incorruptible land. Last night's Daily Mail had a piece on corruption in the civil service. Dictatorships may have yet to demonstrate economic success but what is the price we pay for economic success?

Maybe Google and Apple and company are economically healthy but few would say our country is performing brilliantly.

In a world economy with international finance nations lose their sovereignty. If a foreign land ceases supplying oil that affects our motorists. If a foreign trade deal collapses that affects our business.

So the vitality provided by capitalist democracy is only effective when our trading partners shars these ideals.

But once again just because some highly abstract figure like the gross domestic product is doing nicely does not indicate prosperity or happiness for the citizenry.

I think a meritocracy or technocracy is better in this modern age. Give every idiot and bricklayer a vote and they'll vote to cheapen beer, shorten working hours and maintain the status quo with all its ugliness.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Which is why we have "representative democracy" rather than the real thing.  Remember, in the cradle of democracy only the demes (land owners) has the franchise.  Neither the ordinary people (merchant class) nor the helots (slaves) had any say whatever in the government.  So every Tom, Dick, and Harriet gets to vote for a member of the lower house of the legislative body, and in an excess of zeal in the U.S. also get to vote for the upper house, the executive (president), and the dog catcher.  A true waste of the franchise.

The U.K.'s hereditary House of Lords carries a serious risk of having hereditary idiots sitting in it, while the Canadian Senate has devolved into a pork barrel for the sitting Prime Minister, which we are now in the throes of fixing.  I've not been keeping track of the events in the legislatures of other Commonwealth members, but I am sure everyone has some vicissitudes.  The course of true government never runs smooth.

A dictatorship, even an "enlightened" one just simply puts too much power in one place.  Look at the evolution of the English monarchy from absolute power of the Crown to no power and simply an advisory role with continuity.  It has even survived one poor man who had a terrible debilitating disease (George III) at a time when things were pretty decadent, and now has one of the greatest persons in place who has ever lived IMHO.  I fear for her successor, who is not a shining example.  But then Kings of England named Charles have not done well in the past, eh?

[LexusInfernus 908]

15 hours ago, A Nonny Moose said:

There are currently two forms of "democratic" government in the west at the moment:  The republican model of the U.S.A. and the Westminster model of the U.K. and many members of the British Commonwealth.  Neither one is any great wonder, but they seem to be the best that have been tried so far.

Eh, no, there are definitely more than two Democratic models in the world. France is a Republic that has both a Prime Minister and a President, Germany is a Federal Republic, except that their President is just head of state and fulfill a mostly ceremonious role and their politics isn't dominated by just two parties nor do they waste billions of euros on constant elections. The Netherlands is a constitutional monarchy with the King as head of state but with a parliamentary system that does everything. And the Dutch parliament is nothing like the British parliamentary system. 

15 hours ago, A Nonny Moose said:

IMHO the U.S. model is too cumbersome.  Electing the king every four years is very expensive and wasteful of time and money.  The cabinet does not have seats in Congress and are virtually inaccessible in this tripartite situation.

Inaccessible how? Hard to reach? For who? Because they are not hard to reach. If congress wants to talk to them, they can. 

15 hours ago, A Nonny Moose said:

 The president is both head of government and ceremonial head of state.  This is too much burden for any individual no matter how good he is at delegation nor how well advised.  The office of POTUS puts such a load on the incumbent that you can see him age visibly from year to year.  Cruel and unusual punishment?  All he really wanted to do was lead the parade. 

Or maybe that is because he is leader of one of the most powerful nations on earth, running one of the largest single economies on the planet and commanding the most powerful military on the planet. And as a consequence, pretty much everything everywhere is something that he should be concerned with. Its a stressful job, and that is exactly why people run for president of the US, not because they just wanted to lead the parade. You know what youre getting into if you put yourself up for election. It has however, nothing to do with being the head of government and the ceremonial head of state. 

15 hours ago, A Nonny Moose said:

Further, there is no avenue for the electorate to recall the government should they discover they have made a mistake.  Impeaching the president is a horrible, laborious process and doesn't result in going back to the people.

A lot of countries don't allow you to recall the entire national government before their term is up. And yeah, impeaching the president is a difficult process. The thing is that it should be difficult, less we get a bunch of angry congress people throwing a fit because they don't like the current president. Imagine what a disaster it would have been if the current Republicans could have easily impeached a president. They would have overthrown a democratically elected president over doing something he promised to do when he ran for election. 

15 hours ago, A Nonny Moose said:

The Westminster model on the other hand puts the Prime Minister and the full cabinet in the House of Commons any day it meets with a few occasional exceptions when cabinet members may be in the Senate.  The Crown, in the person of the Queen in the U.K. and the governors general in the other countries provide continuity that is unparalleled, and is totally non-political.

Hardly, they provide a ceremonial continuity, but little more. Their role is mostly ceremonial, their powers minimal, their political influence minimal. The real people in power, the real providers of actual continuity work in the bureaucracy and they provide the continuity by curbing their political masters worst excesses and watering down every action through sheer inertia. This btw, is the case in every advanced state with a functioning bureaucracy, not just the UK. 

15 hours ago, A Nonny Moose said:

 I think the one great advantage of this model is that the government can actually fall.  This means that the Crown can either call on another party to form a new government, or failing that, a general election with a campaign which normally lasts about 40 days.  It really doesn't take much to defeat a Westminster style government.  Defeat on the budget or any other money bill, or an actual vote of no confidence that passes the House of Commons does the trick.

Yes, except that in the UK that lovely 2 party system essentially ensures that governments never fall because the party in charge also has the parliamentary majority and party discipline ensures that on such critical votes a vote of no confidence never passes. 

[Dreadnought 8,226]

28 minutes ago, A Nonny Moose said:

I fear for her successor, who is not a shining example.  But then Kings of England named Charles have not done well in the past, eh?

Charles I and Charles II -- one was beheaded, the other was the "Merry Monarch".  I call that 50/50!  Hardly a reason to say they've done badly. 

The House of Windsor came close to making a terrible mistake (Edward VIII) -- but also produced Elizabeth II -- a glittering example.

IMHO -- Charles III will surprise everyone -- much like his esteemed Great-Great Grandfather.

[krbe 193]

7 hours ago, Mark_Kochan said:

So the vitality provided by capitalist democracy is only effective when our trading partners shars these ideals.

It seems that will -- not the pronounced 'We're gonna do this because we must', but the sum of actions, from the bottom to the top -- seems far more important than the mere system of government. I would argue that national development is a more important goal than the empowerment of everyone all the time; a goal that requires both ruthlessness and exceptional tolerance at the right times. Now this might sound like something akin to the 'Asian Values' of the nineties, but there you have it: pronounced will and not will in action.

So there capitalist/'social' democratic societies tend to develop because the will of the many trumps the will of the few, and the will of the many favours to some degree transparency over corruption. A peaceful, abundant society can very well do without strong leadership; a shattered society with a desire to get ahead would need it. Generally, democracy fits the bill, usually.

But then again, it can produce spectacular failures, such as the Weimar Republics. And authoritarian societies can do really well -- such as Singapore.