Where the foxes caper unmolested, the government packs your school lunch, and “the only answer for these appalling crimes is to bring back the death penalty for any driving offence no matter how small”
The time has come for people power to show these morons who really does rule this country,the wall has now reached the back of the the true bosses here. We’re all being taken for idiots. – Mike, Coventry
This society gets worse and sicker by the day. I can’t wait until I can retire and get out of this hell hole of a country. – Diana, England
Eating a sarnie?! does that also apply to sweets? Or having just one hand on the wheel? which would mean virtually nearly every driver getting caught as (unlike most other countries) most cars are manual! – Cww, Ipswich, Suffolk
Oh happy days in our free and happy country- smile you slaves or I will tax sorry fine you- Happy Xmas Gordon Mcbean. – Ian, Hereford
I think the use of these high tech digital cameras to catch potentially dangerous drivers is a fantastic idea. I’m tired of observing drivers using mobile phones and smoking whilst driving on our congested roads where full concentration is needed at all times. I’d make the fines higher too, maybe confiscation of their cars would make these irresponsible drivers think twice. Lets go for it. – Bill, Warrington England
Will there be two variants of camera? Type A set up to screw Joe Public; type B programmed to disregard police who commit the same offence. – Glyn, Southampton, U.K.
I think I’ll give up motoring and take up drug-dealing, pimping, mugging, burglary, and extortion …it’ll be safer for me, and more socially-acceptable. – David Bourke, Rochester, England.
Murderers are treated better than motorists, but then they’re an easier target. They give the government a big income from fines and they improve the ‘crime’ statistics no end. Government has become a joke in this country. – Ian, Benfleet, UK
h/t Drained Brain
One of those “who then is my neighbour” type of questions…
What is the nature and extent of my responsibility to this present society? Must there be a demonstrable failure on my part for culpability to be incurred? Or only for those failures that lead to immediate harm, whether to person or property?
If I am only individually responsible for my own actions, per argumentum, whence alights the responsibility to address those social ills that arise though no fault of my own?
Could it be, perforce, that you two are sharing a pipe?
Heh heh…
I’m just being me, Brain, I’m a borborygmic logophile. Yet you must admit, while it may have been a long sentence, it was well constructed.
I do think, Tenebris, that there must be a “demonstrable failure on my part for culpability to be incurred”. We can’t have people running around claiming culpability for hypothetical failures. Of course, we can argue about what a “demonstrable failure” is ’till long after the cows have come home.
The “responsibility to address those social ills that arise though no fault of my own” accrues from the fact that if the socially successful are not responsible for preventing the socially unsuccessful from getting too far behind, then eventually the unsuccessful will destroy the public processes and methodologies that make possible the socially successful.
Alas, my pipe broke many years ago, and I returned to the art of rolling for my evening indulgence. Tabacco, though naturally, Dutch…
The “responsibility to address those social ills that arise though no fault of my own” accrues from the fact that if the socially successful are not responsible for preventing the socially unsuccessful from getting too far behind, then eventually the unsuccessful will destroy the public processes and methodologies that make possible the socially successful.
Such mellifluent rhetoric would fit tidily into an NDP platform. Come to think of it, I do believe it’s already there, in words more suitable to the non-pipe-smoking proletariat.
Sort of a socialist pipe-dream…
My dear Mr. Brain. Such mellifluent rhetoric was at least in part cribbed from Mr. Alan Greenspan’s interview on Charlie Rose, in which he explains that he considers himself to be a libertarian, he discusses his thirty-year relationship with Ayn Rand, he deliniates the limitations of ideology, and he considers the responsibilities of the successful to prevent the unsuccessful from bringing down the mechanism of success. You may have noted that Mr. Greenspan is not your average NDPist.
Here’s the interview, it’s one hour long, and it’s my favourite interview of 2007:
video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-8342614253746711839
IMHO Greenspan has been talking just a leetle too much lately. If he is indeed coming across as a leftist then so be it.
You might read this article:
http://www.amconmag.com/2005_03_14/article1.html
It contains some cribbable material.
Oh, absolutely, we certainly can’t have a libertarian man who happened to have been chairman of the Federal Reserve for over eighteen years of relative prosperity running around talking too much. No, no, that won’t do 😉
Perhaps, Brain, you might actually find it elucidating to watch Mr. Greenspan’s interview. And please understand, that’s not intendend to be an insult (you may have noticed that I tend to eschew insults), rather, it’s that I found the interview particularly elucidating, and so I offer it in good faith.
Ah, Vitruvius, then art thou a utilitarian and a pragmatist? Is there no tragic hero in your philosophy?
Vitruvius: Just to mention that I looked at the Milton Friedman interivew (2005) which I loved. Did not watch Greenspan but now that you mention Ayn Rand (I’m 95% done with 1st read of Atlas Shrugged) I will definitely do this.
Notwithstanding that even in the opinion of the estimable Friedman he’s the best Fed chairman since inception, I find Greenspan’s oracular pronouncements coma-inducing — which come to think of it is probably his carefully crafted schtick!
LOL, through the 3-way exchange with Tenebris and Mr Brain! Good stuff, all three of you!
Perhaps, Brain, you might actually find it elucidating to watch Mr. Greenspan’s interview. And please understand, that’s not intendend to be an insult (you may have noticed that I tend to eschew insults), rather, it’s that I found the interview particularly elucidating, and so I offer it in good faith.
Why? Because you cribbed from it? Maybe you’ve bitten off more than you can eschew.
If you look back on the Greenspan era, you may realize that it was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to heaven, we were all going direct the other way – in short, the period was so far like the present period, that some of its noisiest authorities insisted on its being received, for good or for evil, in the superlative degree of comparison only.
I cribbed the above from A Tale of Two Cities.
Man, there’s a low-hanging Tail of Two Cities joke here, but, no.
I don’t even know what a “tragic hero” is, Tenebris. Sounds like a bad idea to me. Look, I’m in part a philistine, in the sense that I axiologically assign high scores to functional successes, things like comfort and infrastructure. Yes, I’m utilitarian. Yes, I’m pragmatic. But more than that, much more than that, I’m Vitruvius.
You might, MND, want to check out my previous SDA comment on matters of Greenspan, Friedman, Kissinger, and Lee Kwan Yew, regarding the value of their aged wisdom:
http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/007690.html#c224990
Vitruvius, yes I got the ideas from that earlier link of yours to the 4 Rose interviews with much appreciation. With TV, I’ve probably thrown the baby out with the bathwater, as in, I watch very very little.
I’ve watched the first 11 minutes of Greenspan to be continued tomorrow. So far, EXCELLENT. BTW, I recently asked ET to try some Ayn Rand — I’m intrigued to learn how influenced he was by Rand. And Rand was a great Aristotle enthusiast, I gather, which I thought ET might connect with.
Failure is foolishness? Is success your only metric for value? Is “here I stand” without worth? Do not they also serve who only stand and wait?
Is only the realization of the plan of value, and not its imagining?
‘Tis tragic, indeed! Vitruvius would have wept.
This Charlie Rose? I guarantee you, Charlie Rose is clueless here. None of this… He’s listening to, you know, Mongolese as Fred Thompson is going through all this. (laughter) Sometimes you have to laugh at these poor, clichéd liberals who just live in the most closeted, cocooned world, while thinking they are the most worldly and erudite among us.
I cribbed the above from Rush:
http://tinyurl.com/2tus6m
Isn’t this a form of terrorism – invoking fear in motorists.
Sure if you can’t control drunk drivers and those under the influence of drugs – get those junkies stuffing their faces with ding dongs.
Now, now, Tenebris, it does not become you to put words in my mouth. I rather doubt that if the original Vitruvius (25 BC) and I got together he would weep. And I say that having read his De Architectura.
Meanwhile, we have gotten to the point in this tangent where I think that we’re pushing our luck on Kate’s rule constraining extended off-topic debate, so unless someone wants to pull this back to driving and cameras and the state, I think I’ll cash in my chips.
Happy new year, everyone; thanks, Kate.
What it boils down to is that I don’t want Big Brother watching me pick my nose or scratch my crotch while I drive, walk or sit on the loo. It’s an invasion of privacy, and if you think that’s ok because you don’t pick your nose or scratch your crotch then you’ll be fine…one day they’ll be watching for you though.
You gotta hand to the Brits … pretty innovative twist on taxation.
Now all they need is enough infractions so that, for example, a typical motorist will get a ticket once a month. I mean really … the guy looking at the guy using the cell phone should get a ticket also.
I feel safer already!!!
The days of Britain running itself are over. The EU passes the majority of laws. The Parliament basically rubber stamps them. Even the tongue in cheek suggestion of passing a death sentence for driving offences is a non starter. Britain can never reintroduce capital punishment all the time we remain members of the EU. What started out a good idea (a common market) has morphed into an unelected socialist super state. If “the people” rose up and threw out the scoundrels who currently sit at Westminster it wouldn’t really make much difference. The real power is in Brussels. Hopefully they will wake up and realise this one day. However I am not waiting to find out, which is why I am emigrating to Canada.
Joanne:
“Isn’t this a form of terrorism – invoking fear in motorists.”
In a manner of speaking, yes…low level coercion meant to intimidate control/compliance/conformity…but of a far greater value to the technocratic social engineers who are constructing this electronic gulag is the the conditioning effect of this public surveillence grid.
This gets the docile population conditioned to the idea they are such a “problem” to their keepers, that they must be surveilled day and night …monitored constantly for their propensity to sin against the omnipresent nanny state….this sets the mood for more and more surveillance and less and less privacy in the forming technocratic feudal society…state owned bond servants don’t require privacy…they must be watched day and night lest they revolt on their masters.
Actions like this( where the state takes the position every citizen is simply an unapprehended felon which constant monitoring will correct) are an affront to civil societies…it denotes a leadership system’s contempt for the citizen…and a state belligerence which feels it has the right to aggressively intrude into every private personal moment of life.
This is the leading edge of big brother statism and anyone who calls it anything less is either rationalizing in circular incoherence to be self-deluding or they are a part of the problem. Intrusive statism deserves only one response from a responsible citizenry in a fee nation…that is massive resistance and open noncompliance.
That said, I bet there are conditioned sheep out there right now bawling for even more of this type of state intrusion so they can feel more secure.
“Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” – B. Franklin
If the politicians were thinking, they would realize that they could enjoy a substantial float if they allowed motorists to pay their fines in advance of the commission of crime (prepaid atonement). Keep your account topped up, and the authorities will simply dip in when you offend. No fuss, no muss, no bother. The collected funds will be invested prudently in hedge funds and electronic toll highways, while any “excess” profit will redistributed fairly to the third world via the UN NGOs (after handling costs) – for global atonement. But wait! think of the convenience when it comes to carbon taxes! It will be unparalleled.
Come on socialists, see the light! Capitalism is way ahead of you on the curve with this one. It was “plastics” in “The Graduate”. Today, it’s “Stored Value Accounts”. Coming to a socialist utopia near you. Mark my words.
Wow — unbelievable ! Sorry for ya Brits…
And to think Churchill saved the world drinking 24/7!
There oughta been a law against “drunk world-saving”!!!
The Brits are now governed by the rule of law of Germany and the Roman Catholic Church. Gee, two world wars, millions dead on all sides and for what? I wonder if Britain would have accepted their loss of sovereignty before 1914 and millions dead……they would have rather been dead.
Or, get a .22 caliber rifle with a scope and silencer and start shooting the cameras randomly.
Paintball guns are better- all you need to do to disable the camera is gum up the lens, and you don’t have to worry about where the shot went if you miss.
And the cops can’t bust you for discharging a firearm inside the city limits (usually a non-trivial offense) if you get caught.
To be specific, Rosignol, in my use of the word aristocracy, from the Greek “government by the best”, I do not consider heredity to be the best (though there may be contributing factors in some cases). We agree: meritocracy is the goal, and apparently we agree that as long as some are not meritocratic, others will be relatively better. Ergo, if things go well: an aristocracy, but one of merit, not one of crony fraud and corruption.