Police State?

[Bruce Wayne]

That's an enormous assumption to make. It seems the State is in the enviable position of being right regardless of circumstances.

Diversity of opinion is just as important a facet of markets as diversity of choice as it fosters innovation. Where does innovation come from amidst the political classes when nearly all politicians today are career politicians?

I tend to approach political philosophy not so much from that angle as from the world of complexity. It seems everyone gets bogged down with looking solely at the political environment when that environment provides no evidence of any alternative ever having been tried. If you look elsewhere however the evidence for systems with a bottom up culture flourishing whereas those with a top down methodology floundering is overwhelming.

 

[Slight_Return]

Bit narked at policing?

So you should be.

The police asked families that if they suspected a family member was involved in terrorism, to grass them up.

Yet how often do police arrest other police for wrong doing? Never!

Unfortunately, a police uniform is a layer of immunity too often abused by thugs, hooligans and criminals. No deterrent in terms of criminals in society also means no deterrent for criminal police.

This country invited its problems upon itself, revolving door prisons and the elite protecting their enforcers has seen Great Britain take great steps towards a society ruled by fear and pain. How long before we are burning books?

 

[neonleon]

judging by mercers girlfriends comments, if we are not burning books we are certainly not reading them either.

Lot of anti-thatcher sentiment on this thread.

Did anyone see mock the week when Frankie Boyle the Scottish comedian was talking about a proposed 50 million pound cost of Thatcher's anticipated state funeral. (can't we bury her now?)

He said something like, "50 million? For 50 million you could buy a shovel for every man, women and child in Scotland and we'd dig a hole so deep we could hand her corpse over to Satan himself."

 

[CanadaToffee]

I went there to do a job for my employer at the time and was appalled at it and have to agree as bad as ours is (and it is bad I was assaulted by police for assisting a injured miner during the struggle years ago)We were told where we could drink as you know bars were segregated and as I had mates of different skin tones and nationalities I felt I had betrayed them going.I saw a black guy kicked to death outside a shop in Jo-burg and people just walked past as if it was someone getting a parking ticket.I was told as a guest in the country to mind my own business we finished our job that week and I refused to ever go back as the company wanted us(3man team)to return later neither of the guys with me went either.

Sadly, that experience of yours only lightly scratches the surface of Apartheid-era South Africa. By the mid-eighties, the police and "security forces" were effectively running amok, unlimited and unfettered powers.

To Bruce's point about the nanny state and government's inefficiency in running things like health care and education, I agree in principle that the private sector can provide way higher quality on both counts, but what you omitted was the key qualifier: "...to those who can afford it."

Canada's universal health care system is inefficient, tons of (financial) waste and unnecessary bureaucracy in the system, but to paraphrase a famous British Prime Minister, our government-regulated and funded health care system is the worst, except for all the others.

 

[Nebbiolo]

That's an enormous assumption to make. It seems the State is in the enviable position of being right regardless of circumstances.

Diversity of opinion is just as important a facet of markets as diversity of choice as it fosters innovation. Where does innovation come from amidst the political classes when nearly all politicians today are career politicians?

I tend to approach political philosophy not so much from that angle as from the world of complexity. It seems everyone gets bogged down with looking solely at the political environment when that environment provides no evidence of any alternative ever having been tried. If you look elsewhere however the evidence for systems with a bottom up culture flourishing whereas those with a top down methodology floundering is overwhelming.

Plenty of alternatives could be tied, the obvious one being proper anarchy, which is doomed to failure in my view. We need leaders and we can hardly ask everyone's opinion on every trivial aspect of running an economy or justice system.

I realise the political environment is far from perfect, and the state can be guilty of many bad things. I'm just saying that the principle of a large state is a good one. And this model does work generally very well in Europe, America and other countries across the world. If things are being done that are bad by the government, we can change things via the vote or by lobbying MPs. But what we don't want to do is tear down the system in favour of an unworkable dream.

And yes, I do think we have some type of duty to maintaining the state as an entity, and hopefully in improving how it operates. We live in a representative democracy, so we have every right to involve ourselves. But I think all of this requires much more in the way of state regulation and the like. I guess you'll disagree with that, though.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Plenty of alternatives could be tied, the obvious one being proper anarchy, which is doomed to failure in my view. We need leaders and we can hardly ask everyone's opinion on every trivial aspect of running an economy or justice system.

I agree, anarchy wouldn't work. The best systems have simple rules within which people can work and then leave the components of that system to their own devices. We have laws of the land that thus provide those rules. What we don't have is the state leaving us to our own devices.

I don't see that we need leaders, certainly not to the extent that we currently have them. I don't need to know how Terry Leahy does his job, but if Tesco don't provide a service I want then I want the opportunity to shop at Asda (or whoever). I think this is an essential point because our current political system demands a huge involvement from people if they want to both understand things, and more importantly if they want to change things. The reality is that most people don't have the time or the inclination to worry about the inner workings of politics (or commerce). What they do care about is the service they get, and if they don't like the service they can change to one they do like there and then. Commerce offers that ability, politics doesn't.

I realise the political environment is far from perfect, and the state can be guilty of many bad things. I'm just saying that the principle of a large state is a good one, and one that works generally very well in Europe, America and other countries across the world. If things are being done that are bad by the government, we can change things via the vote or by lobbying MPs. But what we don't want to do is tear down the system in favour of an unworkable dream.

Who says the principle is a good one? Russia thought an all embracing state was a good thing. Where is the line drawn? Who says how big the state has to be to be good and how big it is before it becomes a communist nightmare?

The concept of achieving change by vote or by lobbying is one that doesn't work, either in principle or in action. Voter turnout is shockingly low in Britain and our politicians came last in a survey of the least trusted professions recently. It seems clear that people don't like our politicians or indeed our political system but aren't aware of any alternative.

And yes, I do think we have some type of duty to maintaining the state as an entity, and hopefully in improving how it operates. We live in a representative democracy, so we have every right to involve ourselves. But I think all of this requires much more in the way of state regulation and the like since the primary duty of the state is a moral one. I guess you'll disagree with that, though.

More government to manage the government? And who manages the managers of the managers? Even overlooking the poor voter turnout, in the last election more people voted Conservative than Labour in England, yet Labour won with a landslide. Go figure that one out.

 

[neonleon]

I agree, anarchy wouldn't work. The best systems have simple rules within which people can work and then leave the components of that system to their own devices. We have laws of the land that thus provide those rules. What we don't have is the state leaving us to our own devices.

I don't see that we need leaders, certainly not to the extent that we currently have them. I don't need to know how Terry Leahy does his job, but if Tesco don't provide a service I want then I want the opportunity to shop at Asda (or whoever). I think this is an essential point because our current political system demands a huge involvement from people if they want to both understand things, and more importantly if they want to change things. The reality is that most people don't have the time or the inclination to worry about the inner workings of politics (or commerce). What they do care about is the service they get, and if they don't like the service they can change to one they do like there and then. Commerce offers that ability, politics doesn't.



Who says the principle is a good one? Russia thought an all embracing state was a good thing. Where is the line drawn? Who says how big the state has to be to be good and how big it is before it becomes a communist nightmare?

The concept of achieving change by vote or by lobbying is one that doesn't work, either in principle or in action. Voter turnout is shockingly low in Britain and our politicians came last in a survey of the least trusted professions recently. It seems clear that people don't like our politicians or indeed our political system but aren't aware of any alternative.



More government to manage the government? And who manages the managers of the managers? Even overlooking the poor voter turnout, in the last election more people voted Conservative than Labour in England, yet Labour won with a landslide. Go figure that one out.

problems of allowing a massive state, can result in a system alike the former soviet union - as you quite rightly point out.

However, allowing the private sector full reign results in an equal amount of abberations - haliburton in Iraq, Walmart and the rise of massive corporations that have no concept of humanity at all - slave labour, exploitation etc.

There is a book called corporation, one of the stories is how big business evaluate changes, not on a human level but a fiscal one. This is how organically they've evolved to deal with their primary goals - i.e to make money. (note not e.g, i.e! there is no other reason for a corporation to exist other than to satisfy shareholders investments).

The story I refer to is about the Ford Pinto in the US. Apparently they had a rear petrol tank that would regularly combust when they were rear ended, resulting in common fatalities and horrific injuries. However they worked out how much the lawsuits and compensation to bereaved families and doctors bills, funeral costs etc would be and compared it to the cost of recalling every single car of that type they had made and making the changes; factoring in of course publicity and the scale of impact that negative publicity would have on their sales if they did nothing. In the end the recall was too expensive, so they just left it as it was - knowing full well that many more people would eventually die - but that was OK as it made financial sense to the corporation.

Any future vision of society or government must endeavour to put humanity and human rights at the forefront or risk creating a new monster to add to the list of fascism, communism, national socialism etc.

and you may as well add corporatism (which may be my own word but it should exist), which is the inevitable result of unfettered capitalism.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

I have mixed views about the rise of companies like Walmart as it seems similar in many ways to the oft had debate here in Britain about supermarkets supposedely trampling over small shops. Such arguments usually involve lots of people concerned about the welfare of these small traders and on securing the diversity of the high street etc. Of course when asked where they shop, 90% of them say Tesco. The truth is that if more people shopped at the smaller indy shops then they'd stay open. Consumers have free choice and make their choice when they walk through the door of the supermarket.

So on one hand I'm sceptical. Of course on the other we have numerous laws in place to provide an employment framework with things like the minimum wage to the EU working time directive. I can't say I'm really in favour of either but they are there.

I think there's a distinct change in the corporate environment in recent years. I've read the likes of No Logo, Captive State, The Silent Takeover and the Corporation and whilst they will no doubt have a point in some instances there is an undoubted shift in the way corporations are run.

From an employee point of view, we are living in a service economy whereby the brains of employees are the principle asset. So the best companies (I'll happily admit not all) treat their workers as just that and have a progressive approach to human resources management.

Likewise I know from my work on The Environment Site that an awful lot of companies are doing good work in the CSR field. Again, there are of course bad apples and Exxon were fined just this week for pollution, but I think on the whole companies are very much moving in the direction of being better 'citizens', because in our digital age where bad news can travel exceptionally fast they realise that being good members of the community is a good marketing ploy as much as anything else.

This is kinda the crux of much of my posts in this thread. The flow of information is speeding up now as never before. In the past information wasn't widespread so it made sense to make centralised decisions because those at the top were the only ones privvy to the important information needed to make those decisions. That simply isn't the case now, indeed its been flipped on its head and those at the bottom generally have better information than those at the top.

 

[atrottel]

The flow of information is speeding up now as never before.

While I agree with the thrust of your previous post (although I admit I am far more sceptical about the abilities of most commercial companies to harness the assets of their employees) the above quote gives me pause.

The flow of information is surely increasing. People's ability, or even willingness, to process it is however declining.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Whilst I have certainly been known to share that point of view and can certainly despair at the stupidity of some people at times. But. I think also that a fantastic part of the learning process is to make your own mistakes and be forced to learn from them. I know that's certainly been the case with myself, and its a major element of knowledge management to be candid with both good and bad news and subsequently force employees (and therefore the company) to learn from them.

It reminds me of a blog I made a week or so ago that was based on the thoughts of Spanish philosopher Jose Ortega y Gasset. He suggested back in the 30's that society was largely split into two camps. On one hand you have those that make great demands on themselves, piling up difficulties and duties. On the other hand you have those that demand nothing of themselves, making no effort towards perfection, mere buoys that float on the waves.

It seems clear to me that the former is more desirable than the latter, so how do we foster a society that encourages that type of person? It seems counterintuitive for the government to mop up our every mistake in life because it will almost inevitably stifle the learning process.

I'm studying Toyota a lot at the moment, in particular their lean manufacturing system and the philosophy that infuses the company. They have 14 philosophies that congregate around the 4 P's: Long Term Philosophy; Process; People and Partners; Problem Solving. The one that strikes me at the moment is the long term philosophy. To quote them:

Base your management decisions on a long-term philosophy, even at the expense of short-term financial goals

Now undoubtably in the current climate you can justly say that many in corporate life aren't following this dictum. My concern is that the entire political system is based around the opposite of this philosophy. It's incredibly rare for a government to look beyond their term of office. As I mentioned in an earlier post, even if governments do change they are always left with the system the previous government has given them, so it's very hard to forge a long term strategy because each party chops and changes based upon short-term philosophies.

You can see this writ large at the moment, with governments around the world trying to dig us out of this mess, caused by people borrowing too much and not saving for a rainy day, by trying desperately to get banks to lend yet more to people and cutting VAT to encourage us to spend more money. Short-term answer to a long-term problem.

Once again, the markets work by forcing bad companies out and encouraging good companies to flourish. By bailing out banks, and it seems also car companies, it's yet another example of short-term focus rather than long-term. Thatcher has come in for a lot of stick on this thread but I firmly believe that what she did was best for the long-term health of this country. A politician of such conviction and courage is rare.

 

[atrottel]

Once again, the markets work by forcing bad companies out and encouraging good companies to flourish.

But again, they patently don't, do they (unless you take the long run view in which case we are all dead)? Take your financier over in New York. People knew he was probably up to something dodgy yet they still invested with him because they could not afford to be left out of the short term profiteering. Likewise with the retail banks. They set up trading arms dealing in areas that they were poorly qualified to monitor because of market (shareholder/broker) pressure for short term returns.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

They're not really getting a chance to work because governments are bailing out the rubbish companies. I don't think they should.

 

[coyney]

Spot on.
We have much to learn from the past and no, we shouldnt allow our freedoms to become eroded by intervention from Government but surely it's not just about the police, or the free market?

'One man's freedom is another man's shackels'

One man's 'freedom' to make vast sums of money through commerce could well mean supporting child labour in a far off place which, who cares, they're grateful for the chance to earn a few pennies anyway....(that's not ME saying that)

One man's freedom to convince young people that it's okay to steal and kill, is another families misery.

Freedom is a relative concept.

I too can remember the Thatcher years, the hours I spent in the miners soup kitchens - never a bit of lamb or veg from the farmers by the way, which is why I still spit when I see 'support British farmers' stickers or posters. They [Poor language removed] well never helped British workers in their hours of need, driving around in their Subarus and Hondas. Now they're all moaning about the lack of subsidies - shame - get on your bikes and find another job just like Uncle Norman told the rest of us to do. [Poor language removed] parasites.

Sorry about the language chaps but we have to stop for a minute and cast our minds back to those truely awful days of the early 80's when millions of manufacturing jobs just disappeared and went overseas and the futures of our children disappeared with them.

Generations of lads from around here worked in the steel industry or down the pit - gone, virtually everything has gone. At least then they had something to aim for, what exactly is on offer these days?
Please don't say that if they want a job they'll find one, yes some will but there just arent enough to go around and quite frankly, some of the young people are already 'lost' but that's for another thread.
Airbus is still here but that too will be hit with the global recession on the way.

All of those young people who perhaps couldnt make it in an academic profession at least had an apprentiship to aim for or at the very least a job of some sorts before that bloody woman came to power. She took away the working man's dignity, she broke the working class and made us feel like the scum of the earth.
She made people ashamed of who they were and where they came from.
If anyone wants an answer to why Liverpool has the reputation it has, the Thatcher years play a big part.

I don't deny that some change was needed but the speed at which it was introduced gave no one any chance to manage it mentally or financially or any other way.

I dodged the bullet of redundancy and am blessed with having worked all my adult life.
I really am fortunate, a good education, a career, a roof over my head and food on the table as well as loving parents and loyal friends. Some hard times along the way but never the abject misery that I saw around me in those years, the despair and the hopelessness of it all.

Quite simply - that is and has always been my freedom.



I make no apologies for my show of vitriol towards that woman and I won't apologise if it offends, ban me if you wish.
I hate her with every ounce of my being for what she did to us and will dance on her grave.
Those of you who are too young to remember those years should sit for a moment with someone who lived through it in Merseyside, perhaps they will back up what I have said.

Rant over

Blue lass as a trade unionist we used to go to branch meetings asking for donations to be sent to assist the miner arguing that they had a just case and also if Thatcher won it would be the beginning of the end for all unions.You would be shocked at some of the responses we got.although when it come to the vote we nearly always got something.a lot of people believed the press lies and instead of looking at facts chose to make it a Scargill or Thatcher contest.

 

[Jamo Martinez]

John during the miners strike I went to some of the places to help out with getting the aide and although there never joined in with the violence but in Yorkshire I was hit with a batton for dragging a injured miner away from the mayhem the policeman that did it knew I was not part of it as I had spoke to him before it started.they were taunting the miners with remarks like thanks to you my family are getting a nice holiday this year and others were singing were in the money this in the end caused a lot of the miners to react which was what the police wanted and no mention of this reached the papers so was there censorship?as reporters witnessed the same as I did.

The worst kind of censorship. Self-censorship