Is it

[MarkSDMF]

Blame the torries, too many cuts too soon.

What happens when you put a frog in boiling water ?
What happens when you put a frog in mild water and heat the water to boiling point ?

[MarkSDMF]

Lee, ive had to use simmilar methods to have situations dealt with, but for christ sake mate, be carefull eh ?

[Soulmanure]

I hear you Mike but I think the 'free world' is an illusion. Living in the so called liberal democracies of our respective countries we, in many respects, have less rights and freedoms than many of the countries we readily vilify. After all in the UK/US you can be arrested without trial and locked up in secret prisons! Just recently the US has allowed the security services to fit tracking devices to US citizens without requiring a warrant.

Modern politics is a self-serving animal and a self for-filling prophecy.

All just MHO.

What specifically has happened to the botl's that has triggered your post this morning?

I agree with you that the idea of a 'free world' is an illusion, and I think that it might even be an undesirable one. I think that the point you are making, however, is that governments do a number of corrupt things that invade the basic freedoms of citizens in ways that are unnecessary and have everything to do with power.

I have two reactions to this. On the one hand, I think that my government has recently taken legal powers that it shouldn't, particularly with regard to these incredibly open designations of 'terrorists' who are beyond the law (interminable incarceration, extraordinary rendition, etc.). This, however and unfortunately, fits in with a long history of extra-legal actions (Vietnam, Iran/Contras, etc.).

On the other hand, I'd say that we still have many more freedoms than most other countries, and that those countries do the very same sorts of extra-legal things we do, and worse. So on a comparative scale, it is better (which, of course, does not mean best).

On the third hand (I live next to a nuclear power plant), I think that in a very important way we, and I speak for Americans here, are more interested in the possession of freedom, abstractly held, than in responsibility for that freedom. In other words, when I hear my fellow citizens complain about freedom and its loss, they seem to be upset about whatever it is that the government is making them do, but they never seem to want to get up and take action, to participate, to be a voice in that decision. More importantly, the decision is often made out of anger or a vague hope, rather than a studied interest in building a better mutual government. You can see these two phenomenon in the Obama campaign, in which many people suddenly felt like government was a positive thing, and the Tea Party, in which many people suddenly felt like the government was a negative thing; in both cases, and for different reasons, those people will stand up briefly, be disappointed by the realities of large governing bodies, and go back to their private lives.

It strikes me that when political decisions are made in the midst of reactionary anger or open-ended hope, rash decisions are made while long term consequences are not thought through.

So my sense of a truly free liberal democracy would be one in which people generally studies the issues, 50 percent voting numbers were not considered adequate, and responsibility for, not just of, government was the norm.

Alright, my two cents (that probably don't make much sense).

[eggopp]

I should be prime minister coz id make cigars tax free AND !! Id make cigars from all over the world available and no laws to stop buying from abroad.. Tax free cigars.. wow wouldnt that be cool

[saggel]

I should be prime minister coz id make cigars tax free AND !! Id make cigars from all over the world available and no laws to stop buying from abroad.. Tax free cigars.. wow wouldnt that be cool

In my Government you'd certainly be minister of foreign affairs

[Soulmanure]

In my Government you'd certainly be minister of foreign affairs

But he most certainly would not be the Minister of People's Cigars, which must be a part of the new government. There wouldn't be any cigars left for the people!

[saggel]

But he most certainly would not be the Minister of People's Cigars, which must be a part of the new government. There wouldn't be any cigars left for the people!

True... this guy would be the most corrupted Minister of People's Cigars...!!!

[richgirling]

On the third hand (I live next to a nuclear power plant), I think that in a very important way we, and I speak for Americans here, are more interested in the possession of freedom, abstractly held, than in responsibility for that freedom. In other words, when I hear my fellow citizens complain about freedom and its loss, they seem to be upset about whatever it is that the government is making them do, but they never seem to want to get up and take action, to participate, to be a voice in that decision. More importantly, the decision is often made out of anger or a vague hope, rather than a studied interest in building a better mutual government. You can see these two phenomenon in the Obama campaign, in which many people suddenly felt like government was a positive thing, and the Tea Party, in which many people suddenly felt like the government was a negative thing; in both cases, and for different reasons, those people will stand up briefly, be disappointed by the realities of large governing bodies, and go back to their private lives.

It strikes me that when political decisions are made in the midst of reactionary anger or open-ended hope, rash decisions are made while long term consequences are not thought through.

So my sense of a truly free liberal democracy would be one in which people generally studies the issues, 50 percent voting numbers were not considered adequate, and responsibility for, not just of, government was the norm.

Alright, my two cents (that probably don't make much sense).

You have hit the nail on the head there Soul, citizens lethargy is the key to all governments’ powers.
They keep most of us just well fed enough (materially) so we will not get “hungry” and demand change by democratic or other means.

>[QUOTE]
>I agree with you that the idea of a 'free world' is an illusion, and I think that it might even be an undesirable one.>
[/QUOTE

But as you said I don’t think most of us would want to or be able to cope with the true responsibilities that real freedom would hold so when it comes down to it we are grudgingly happy to let other people tell us what to do.

But keep fighting the power anyway G-Man!

[Soulmanure]

[/QUOTE

But as you said I don?t think most of us would want to or be able to cope with the true responsibilities that real freedom would hold so when it comes down to it we are grudgingly happy to let other people tell us what to do.

But keep fighting the power anyway G-Man![/QUOTE]

I agree, though I was thinking something else on that point, which I didn't quite spell out. I think think there is a difference between absolute freedom, which seems to be implicit in many arguments about government control, and limited freedom, which I believe is necessary. By this I mean that there is a difficult continuum between anarchy (absolute freedom) and tyranny (negation of freedom), and somewhere in between is that place where we recognize that our freedoms must be limited by our coexistence with others, but not to the point where we lose all in the process.

It seems to me that many discussions about freedom lose sight of these distinctions, especially when we are all too hopeful or all too angry. That is the pain of democracy, which is the pain of other people--what we want for ourselves impacts what others want for themselves, and the negotiation of those conflicting desires is fraught with, well, name your conflict. This is most likely why we tend away from political involvement and find it easier to be upset from afar. It's a bit like yelling at someone else whilst driving; there's a certain satisfaction for the moment, and then we drive on in our solitary confinement.

And now for something completely different: The Larch. The.....Larch.

[Lee Nub]

And now for something completely different: The Larch. The.....Larch.

Lmao, what a classic line.