Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

jetcat

Members
  • Content Count

    133
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About jetcat

  • Rank
    HPC Poster
  1. There have been some controversial decisions to strip of citizenship, including for espionage. There's therefore currently two unequal classes of citizens, born and naturalized; the latter is far less secure. Also, if parents of a child born British are naturalized, the latter can still be in trouble should parents retain the second citizenship. Now, I think it's an absolutely wrong to strip people of citizenship on essentially a whim of Home Secretary as per current system, there's no definite list of offenses for which it can happen. On the other hand, I (a naturalized citizen) think it's wrong to allow keeping second citizenship while becoming British.
  2. Both, of course. Or, if you want to be charitable to politicians, they start their career without firm values and beliefs and define, harden and eventually calcify in the process. Also, the cultural narrative that informs values and beliefs is not produced exclusively for political purposes, whatever says that neomarxist view that dominate modern social sciences.
  3. Sorry for not being clear. It has little to do with "controlling the masses". Ideal modern government in mass societies would have been about setting up the incentive structures that promote peaceful cooperation within and resilience to destabilizing from without. Since we lack the all-knowing omnipotent deity to set it up, the imperfect evolved compromises between whoever has influence are used to define the structure. This is not to say that in sufficient numbers collective action will disrupt or re-negotiate the compromise. Representative democracy is one such compromise and the only structure that worked so far in mass society.
  4. In the age of mass politics, from 1890s till now this have indeed become the job of a career politician. It helps if politician's values align with the focus of their political messaging, but not strictly necessary. It is increasingly a matter of searching for niches through focus groups; probably a bit less so in the UK where it tends to happen at the party level.
  5. There's a fine balance to making people care but not care enough to blow themselves up, and elites used to be able to pull it off without mass communications and propaganda back in the days. I'd blame the whole thing on degrading average mental capacity past 1860s; obviously hits elites the hardest.
  6. It is actually about supporting the facade of ordinary people being involved in political decision-making. Social order and cooperation are dependent on consent of the governed. Representative government and democratic participation were ways to keep social order and provide for peaceful transition of power from one group of elites to another. It is extremely dangerous to undermine the illusion. Once the consent is lost the only things that keeps society together are tradition and legal sanctioned violence, and we all see what happens with traditional institutes of social stability like family, local community and church. Strangely, the same people most insistent on undermining the latter are also the ones chipping at the facade of democracy, as if the real intention is destroying social order.
  7. I know some who decided to withdraw from voting entirely having seen the way the referendum decision is being implemented and convinced as a result that representative democracy is a sham and a way of legitimizing whatever the Westminster elite wants. If one is convicted this way, the only moral thing to do short of nonviolent resistance or rebellion is to at least stop taking part in the play. Give it a good economic crisis (blamed on not implementing the unicorn Brexit they had in mind) and you get the angry and resentful lower and middle classes we all know and love from any violent anti-government insurrection in history. Same goes for remain, by the way, but at least they had lost the referendum to start with.
  8. Once the completion certificate is issued (which is needed regardless of whether the development requires permission), there's a mark next to one's house on the council tax record. The new band activates once the house is sold or after the re-valuation for tax purposes.
  9. I'd put it to Wilson's ignorance. There's very few Hungarians over here, especially compared to Polish and Romanian folks. Budapest and Vienna are a couple of hours' train journey away from each other; when Hungarian young people speak a foreign language, it's most likely German, plus a surprising number of them don't want to go anywhere full stop, unlike other young Eastern Europeans.
  10. As great as it is to punish people by making them living up to the moral standards they impose on others, I hesitate to normalize the lunacy. How about a liberal solution? Say, a voluntary carbon contribution calculated as percentage of personal output with open searchable registry. And a rule that one is only allowed to virtue signal on Twitter or attend a protest if theirs is at least 100% or more. The latter is probably unnecessary; the percentage itself will be virtue signal enough.
  11. Wow, this one is a genuinely good idea. This is essentially what the big companies do at carbon exchanges and in my opinion this very trading is the reason for all the overblown media brouhaha about the climate change. On the downside, that would open the market up for the plebs which is unacceptable. Also, who sets the ration?
  12. Indeed. I'm happy to bet that both massive resources will be expended by what is now 1st world countries on preventing climate change by 2030 and that not much of note will happen by then from the climate point of view, and everyone will claim progress and need for further spending.
  13. There's an interesting document on there with some advice for actuaries. The just of it looks to me like: be aware of climate change, be vigilant (mostly to regulatory changes), be wary of fossil fuel-related assets and explain climate change to your colleagues and partners. Which is reasonable but does not suggest any immediate catastrophic risk from climate change. Interesting to see how is long-term finance for fossil fuel-related activity is doing after over a decade of constant climate doom. Are there any margin calls? Unless I'm particularly ignorant (which is very likely), his thing looks like the Millennium bug on steroids; a real problem blown out of all proportions and a source of good profit for some.
  14. My three questions to those who honestly believe in quick catastrophic climate change caused by CO2 emissions would be as follows: 1. Why no business, including insurance companies, account for the risk in any way, if it's credible? In particular, why you can still get a mortgage and insurance for a property that will be unusable medium-term. 2. Why does the answer seem to be "anything but nuclear"? Nuclear power is very safe, has zero carbon emissions and any consequence from dealing with waste, while a legitimate problem, is way way further down the line than our supposed extinction from CO2. 3. How does one achieve zero emissions if all of its growth comes from developing countries increasing living standards of billions of their citizens? If all developed countries excluding the US achieve zero emissions tomorrow, it will offset about half of China's growth in CO2 emissions in the last 10 years. Shall we try to keep them from improving, or reverse their living standards somehow? Global warming/climate change/whatever next looks like a real concern blown out of proportions by an honest attempt to attract attention to legitimate environmental causes and exploited by crooks. For decades various environmentalists tried to gain public attention and political traction on pollution, plastics, deforestation, animal and plant extinction and disappearing biodiversity. It never gained much; public is too busy consuming the products of material abundance that brought about all of the above. Then someone came up with a brilliant idea to scare public to death by threatening _them_ with death and destruction of the very prosperity that caused the ignoring of the actual issues. That worked, but attracted a bunch of crooks, political operators, scaremongers in the press and the small human-hating loony fringe of hard left (children are immoral because they harm the environment, that lot). There result we see is that all the politicians and press talk about is horror stories of our impending destruction in 12 years (while the man-made climate change is probably an actual issue), not the harm to the environment caused by rapid growth of consumption in the former 3rd world.
  15. Can we evaluate which system had historically produced the most capable politicians, scientists and artists and revert back to it? Looks like the secondary school and universities have been degrading since about mid-late 1960s. Had anything radically changed then?
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.