Holiday in England, anyone?
 

http://www.youtube.com/uk looting

Too many vids to post.
In short, the uk has gone to shit in the last 4 days.
Everywhere people looting.
Police indifferent.
Homes set on fire
people getting murdered.

They should arm our shopkeepers with M-16's
& grenade launchers and immunity from prosecution.

The looters need to be killed.
Along with the looters parents.

Reminiscent of the Watts riots.
This is an outrage!
Looters should be shot on site.

Well you know when law enforcement won't do the job it becomes a citizens right to defend their neighborhoods, businesses and homes... oh wait, ya'll been stripped of your rights to possess weapons LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

Plenty communities are armed to the teeth and fighting when necessary to defend themselves (Often ironically, the much maligned immigrant communities. Certainly I've seen lines of sword-bearing Sikhs positioning themselves to defend the usually quite mixed-race poor neighbourhoods that some of this violence is damaging).

This rioting is rooted in deeper social and economic problems affecting the country. A large proportion of the country's youth feel (Correctly) that they have no real future prospects, after this current government (As with the previous conservative government in the 1980s) has stripped social programmes of funding, slowed economic growth to almost nothing with massive sweeping budget cuts, and has cut off higher education to all but the richest of the population.

When you have one of the highest economic disparities between rich and poor in most of europe (though still NOWHERE near as bad as the US) and then compound the situation of an entire generation who feel (And often quite rightly so) that they have nothing at all to lose, with increasingly aggressive behaviour of police, themselves stressed to breaking point by massive budget cuts, and layoffs, all wondering if their jobs will be the next ones to arbitrarily be dropped, you have a powderkeg, and a lit fuse.

Interestingly, the more northern areas (We consider regions like Manchester to be "the south" even if they think of themselves as "north") have not seen rioting this time around. This seems largely due to our part of the country already having an "us vs them" mentality of hatred towards London, which we see as more of an invading foreign power, and having an almost nationalistic pride in our shared identity and in our cities, rather than nihilistically seeing no value at all in anything.

How about this, I'll be a mercenary for hire. The city of London can provide me with an armored SUV and the following weapons and tools and I will do the job myself, free of charge, only because I enjoy law enforcement work and hate rioters.

1x M4A1 carbine with full auto mode
1x H&K MP7A1 submachine gun
2x M1911 .45 ACP handgun
1x M32 MGL six shot grenade launcher w/ tear gas and flare rounds
1x SR-25 sniper rifle
1x Remington 870 12 gauge shotgun with rubber and pepper rounds
1x Taser police gun with ~100 replaceable cartridges

I'll need enough ammo, magazines and 40mm grenade launcher rounds for all weaponry plus hand thrown tear gas, flashbangs and a variety of detaining tools such as LEO zipties and hand cuffs. I can solve the problem in about 48 hours. Because there is rioting in other cities I will have to travel so maybe up to 72 hours to end all violence. You can thank America. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Given that all this kicked off BECAUSE of someone being shot... I don't really see guns making things better. Interesting to consider what it'd be like if we DID have gun ownership permitted here, I imagine NATO would be setting up a no-fly zone over the country right now, and several countries would be beginning to recognise a transitional government based in Salford....

Nah, I'd only gun down the fools tossing "petrol bombs" as reported by the news. It is an act of terrorism. The other morons would be pelted with rubber bullets or pepper rounds and gassed out with tear gas. If London PD has access to audio weapons, I'll gladly use that too. It's basically high pitched audio frequencies blasted at unruly morons to disperse crowds.

:lol: Kitty I've never crossed a post with you but after reading this.... you are great! (you got a nice car too!):cool::respect: I can join too as a mercenary! (Love your arsenal! But for me I'd drop the Taser for a nice sharp Katana and the MP7A1 GL for a Nice 'n heavy SMAW Rocket Launcher) So we can solve this mess in +-24 hours! Stop the riots and everyone that survived (few) is happy again! Never underestimate the power of hardcore gamers!! -_-

Kitty I've added some rep. Ahh good sense of humor so rare to find in a girl!

While we're on the topic of making transatlantic suggestions, how about predator strikes on the next few tea party rallies, solve all America's problems in short order!

;)




(For those who may not take it as intended -OBVIOUSLY I'm being quite facetious here. Just to illustrate that the people behaving in an abhorrent manner, are, to be fair, the victims of increasingly conservative government, even from putatively liberal regimes -we had it with Blair, imposing a virtual police state and involving us in wars which we are STILL paying the cost of out of cuts to government responsibilities at home, America has it with Obama, and his systematic implementation of every policy on the Republican manifesto- and as a result, the number of disenfranchised individuals in the population has grown to a point where rabid aggression is the only way they can get their voices across.

For comparison, peaceful protests have been staged across the country for almost a year now, with millions taking to the streets, only to be flippantly told by the government, in these precise words, to "get over it". When all attempts to protest the activity of a government 70% of voters voted against are met with this disdain, what recourse but violent uprisings remains?)

That would be a wonderful trade.

By all accounts, the person shot and killed by police was a gang-banging drug dealer. Since all the people rioting probably aren't overly upset that he is dead, it stands to reason that the majority of them are just using it as an excuse to get free stuff via looting.

I just hope that none of my online friends and family from here or at my other forum don't get caught in the middle of this.:(

Sadly, I think this type of rioting and looting is going to be a common feature of British society from now on. There is a saying that it is an ill bird who fouls his own nest, and that's what these cretinous looters have done: fouled their own nest by destroying businesses and houses in their own communities. Their imbecility and total lack of respect for others is frightening.

Being serious. That's obvious that's only a :censored: excuse! Just like the G8 at Genoa, the same story Police kills one scum = free stuff for other scums. Only a fucking excuse to do Chaos and steal!

I hope that all the UK guys & gals here will be OK in this bad moment!

Ah you know, the Brits riot every 20-30 years. Broadwater Farm estate kicked off in the 80's, as did Brixton. The only diofference this time is that the tossers have social networking to propagate their plans. A lot of these housing estate fodder are pure scum, single parent, ill-educated, welfare culture, no discipline.

We still have pointed sticks, and fruit!


The uk is a joke.
Groups of residents have been forming small community groups to defend their areas against looters and rioter
and the top cop has told them publicly not to do this!
bbc.co.uk/news/uk You couldn't make this shit up.

The second amendment in the usa was put in precisely to stop the shit we have in the uk happening.
The uk needs a Bill of Rights
just like the usa one.

If it was up to me
you would be so hired.
Free meals and gym membership would also be thrown in. :)

I personally believe it all started with the guy in London being shot dead... In all the times he had been arrested before he was hand cuffed, brought before the magistrates who gave him such a low sentence or even just a caution and so he was free to do his evils again..... being shot dead, to all his gang mates, for pulling a gun and aiming at a police officer was a bit harsh (remember, here in Engand we are not taught right from wrong anymore by the justice system.. you can do a crime here and be expected to be let off).
The riots started off as just that ..Riots, protests against the police for shooting dead one of their own. remember Raoul Moat, one of the nastiest characters you could possibly meet. shot dead by police and is now a martyr.

The looting just happenend as a consequence and the crowds turned ferral. it is human nature to want something for nothing.

Look,
you don't need to sell yourself.
You've got the job; you're hired.

I just rang the Metropolitan Police Commissioner.
He said you would have to show him your badge first, though.

You're hired too!
CoD:MW
or
Battlefield: Bad company
I need to know for insurance indemnity options! :lol:

Well, I guess England needs to resurrect a two hundred year old policy of sending the scumbags to Australia. ;)

Don?t be so stupid. UK has not ?gone to shit?. Yes the riots are terrible but despite what the media like to portray this is not happening everywhere but is localised to certain areas. It?s right to be concerned about what is happening but lets put things into perspective please

Although from your last comments I guess you are being sarcastic?

All I got is a security guard badge from my days working security. I can provide pretty much my own outfit and vehicle. I'll just need a bullet proof vest to counter stabbing weapons or possible illegal firearms. Oh and I'm a COD:MW kinda gamer.

quote:-

Jodie: (from the avatar) I'm a time traveller. Or I was. Im stuck in 1969


When you get away from 1969, could you meet me last thursday?

More like a deadly combination of Bad Company and Just Cause. Prepare for some delicious, evil solving Chaos with a smile :) London! :lol: :lol::lol::lol::lol:

It doesnt really paint a good picture for London or the United Kingdom ahead of the Olympics next year. But then China's human rights record didnt paint a good picture for them, but they did alright out of the Olympics...

Anyhow, that's off topic a little.

I dont really like the term "riots" because there was no political motive for any of the rioters. All that took part are feral scum who deserve nothing in life and all that the law can give them (in terms of punishment). They were opportunistic thieves who think blaming the government for everything will get them places in life. Duh. No.

People have lost homes, cars, possessions, businesses and possibly their jobs because of businesses not being able to afford to open up again.

Some of the yobs that took part in this did so to further their own greed and gain. They could afford items they stole. One of the first to be charged was (and I say was, because I doubt he will be in September) a primary school teaching assisstant. A member of society and the community that children are supposed to look up to. Another was a 19 year old university student whose father is actually a millionaire. They had no reason to riot or protest.

The police should have used a very heavy hand with the apes that tore up London, Bristol, Manchester, Birmingham and other cities in the United Kingdom. But given the outcry over their tactics at the G20 protests two or so years ago, they were worried that their actions would be condemmed.

The past few days have really angered me and many people in this country. Yes, the economy and job market is bleak at the moment, but it will pick up. There are jobs around, just people are too stupid and lazy to go a look for them.

The next time this happens I hope the police give these idiots a bloody good hammering. There was no reason for cities to be torn up as they were.

Thank you, Amy, for saying what no one else did: that despite the despicable behavior of the rioters, and the fact that such action does nothing to advance the "cause" of those who riot (to the degree that they have a "cause"), the riots are definitely rooted in a socio-economic situation of deep alienation from society. Here in the United States, it has become the norm that ascending generations are worse off than their parents. The economic disparities in this country grow and grow. Young people face a future of temporary labor (what the French rightly call "precarious work") and increasing alienation and atomization. It's no wonder that any spark can lead to conflagration.

This is not to excuse rioters. Individual or group violence is a bankrupt approach to changing the world. The youth of England, just like the youth of the United States, could learn a thing or two from the serious side (i.e., not the Yippies) of the anti-Vietnam War movement and how it was organized, or how the students in France in 1968 united with trade unions and nearly brought down the DeGaulle government.

You should start up a PMC. :) Governments around the world seem to have quite a fondness for mercenaries nowadays.

Plus you could have a niche market for contractors and porn all in one. Polo shirts, baseball caps, Oakleys, M4's and girls with big dongs. If you make it, they will come...

You were a Security Guard as well? Maybe we should both go to the UK and "rattle some trees". It'll look good on my resume.;):lol:

Plus, I'm First Aid certified so that should help in a pinch.:yes:

You are quite right SMC. The exportation of manufacturing jobs to China by corporate America has resulted in a very serious labor problem. It's the same in England. Unless the economy improves rapidly (unlikely), we can expect unrest here.
Corporations are becoming international with little regard for their home base. Profit rules, companies find a place to manufacture where labor is a bit above slavery. Once the workers demand a decent wage, they move on to the next country desperate for work. The world of Milton Friedman has arrived.

First Aid, CPR and NYS licensed Security Officer w/ 8 hour + 16 hour certified training.

That?s all a socialist claptrap theory that absolves people of taking responsibility for their own actions. Poverty is no excuse for what happened during the riots.

The media has now started interviewing people that the media calls ?experts? on this. However unless one has experienced poverty then one can hardly be called an expert in how poor people will act. These ?experts? see things only through their own eyes and then imagine how they would act if they were in that situation and then extrapolate that to the poor.

I was born into poverty. I had an alcoholic father who used most of his money to feed his addiction. We were in dire straits before, but when my father died we were even worse off. Later when my mother remarried my step father wanted nothing to do with me and I was treated with indifference at best and open hostility at worst.

We were nowhere near to being considered middle class. We often didn?t have much to eat so to supplement our meals I went hunting and fishing every chance that I had which would be most weekend mornings and sometimes all day Saturday or Sunday. I would do this throughout the year. Depending on the season I would also go fishing or hunting in the evening. I certainly contributed a substantial amount to what we had to eat.

I started working at age thirteen and by the time I was sixteen I was working three part-time jobs as well as going to school.

All this wasn?t all that strange to me as most of my friends were also considered poor. There were distinctions made between my friends and me and the others we knew who would be considered middle class to affluent. Those from the affluent families would have nothing to do with us.

It has been suggested that the young people rioting and committing criminal acts see no hope of improving their lives because they can?t afford to go to university. However, none of my friends nor I ever went to university although many of us certainly wanted to go. University was very expensive and we simply could not afford it. There were very few scholarships available then and those always went to the ones that didn?t need them anyway. Instead my friends and I furthered our education by other means.

According to the ?experts? my friends and I should have been bitter at society and taken our revenge by robbing, looting, burning, destroying, etc. None of us went our rioting. We didn?t blame anyone else for the position that we were in or things that we couldn?t have. We didn?t go out looting, pillaging, burning, or destroying others property. We didn?t maim or kill people. Instead all of us worked hard and pulled ourselves out of poverty. Every one of my friends, from when I was young, and I are now considered middle class and most of us are quite well off. It was hard work and ethics that got us this far in life.

ila, this is not the first time that you have responded in this way to one of my posts. I will only say that what I wrote (what you call "socialist claptrap theory that absolves people of taking responsibility for their own actions") is not an excuse for the riots -- as I make clear. Rather, it is an explanation that one must guage without emotion. You are absolutely correct that "poverty is no excuse for what happened during the riots," but in many instances poverty -- especially URBAN poverty -- breeds alienation from society. This is a simple fact; whether it is your less urban experience is immaterial. Your very tough life growing up yielded a different outcome and a different person. The tough life growing up yields different results for different people.

By the way, when a country has a social contract with its citizenry that includes certain social safety net features and that contract is broken, it is not unexpected that some of the more desperate and alienated in society may respond violently. IT IS NO EXCUSE, just an explanation. You don't have to like it to recognize that it happens. And it is especially prevalent among youth who see the older generations as responsible for the breaking of the contract, or who see people with wealth and power at a level those youth cannot even imagine attaining as responsible.

Again, no excuses ... just analysis. When we analyze society and seek to find solutions to urgent problems, our own experiences should inform our analysis but our emotions must be checked at the door.

I feel I can speak on this with some authority as I have experienced poverty first hand. This is not a theory for me, but was my reality at one time.

One of my purposes in my original post was to refute the opinion of experts who stated that all those growing up in poverty will eventually react in a way that we have seen in the past week in England. As can be seen in my original post I illustrated the fact that not everyone growing up poor will react with rioting, looting, arson, and killing.

Perceived breaking of a non-existent social contract is, as you state, no excuse. The breakdown is in those that expect everything to be given to them without any effort being put forth on their own part. Most of those with material possessions did not have everything given to them. They worked for them. It is sloth, envy, and greed that the rioters use to justify their actions. Hard work has been a recipe for success in the past. There is no reason why the rioters cannot also follow that path.

Agreed.

Alas, it looks like our tolchukking skills will not be required there any longer. Phooey!

Any so-called "expert" who states that growing up in poverty results in someone eventually reacting in this way should be discounted not for her or his theories, but for the unscientific nature of the conclusion. After all, a propensity to riot is not something with which a person is born. Socio-environmental conditions are what lead people to such action, right or wrong, and the idea that "all those" who grow up in poverty will eventually engage in such action is preposterous.



The social contract is not, as you write, "non-existent." Again, irrespective of how one analyzes the reason for the riots, the existence of the social contract must be recognized as a given. In Britain, a social safety net has existed. As it is dismantled, the dynamic in society changes. Unless society as a whole renegotiates the contract or agrees to its dissolution, it is being "broken."

In the United States, the safety net components cynically dubbed "entitlements" by politicians who wish to eliminate them are part of a social contract.

During the great depression (1930s), thousands of people were out of work and additional thousands of poor farmers lost their farms in the midwest dust storms. It was a terrible time for a lot of people. Social services were practically nonexistent. Yet, there was little violence, people suffered starved and died without help. They didn't burn down their neighborhoods, they looked for work.
The urban youth in the big cities that have grown up disenfranchised from the working society seem become sociopathic and lash out, setting fires and looting. They have no feeling of responsibility to a society that ignores them.
Do the social services that we have today have something to do with the urban youth problem or is it simply the lack of opportunity to make a living as part of the society?

Disenfranchisement (or more accurately, alienation) from "working society" is a powerful motivator for all manner of terrible behavior. Just as the value of a human life may diminish to near zero to the urban youth who experiences gang murder all around him as he grows up, so too do those who are marginalized in society, and who feel little opportunity for success, develop a sense of no responsibility to that society. It is not an excuse ... just a fact.

Unfortunately, and despite what ila has written above (see our earlier exchange in this thread), it is not a simple matter of working hard to pull one's self out of poverty. The reason we have the so-called "working poor" is because of the structural problem of a society that is based on labor exploitation. If someone can work hard all his life and never get out of poverty, is it the person's fault alone? I think not.

Another aspect of this issue appeared during the Katerina disaster. Looting was a major problem but also was the lack of community. People stood around doing nothing to help. It was necessary to bring in hundreds of outside people to deal with the situation. Why didn't the residents of New Orleans band together to do something? Of course outside aid was necessary, the place was flooded. Often in cases of disaster we see people banding together to aid others (earthquakes, ect), there seemed to be little of that during Katrina. Was it because these people were so alienated and disconnected that they had no idea how to get organized?

Whuuu????

Another case of 'back in the good old days' syndrome. People did riot during the depression, you could say they didn't riot much, but on a historical scale, these current riots were not much of a riot.

Certainly there was lots of unrest particularly in the labor unions. The National Guard in California brought in tanks to help quell longshoreman strikes.
Also there was a huge march on Washington by veterans demanding funds due them.
In the 30s farming was still a big deal and many city dwellers had family still on the farm. This helped tide over a lot of unemployed city dwellers.

John Rehill

Americans are quite deliberately NOT taught the true and full history of the Depression period. There was brutal repression by the forces of the government to put down labor unions, unemployed unions, political action on the left, and so on. The various aspects of the "New Deal" -- Social Security, unemployment insurance, and so on -- were enacted precisely because the ruling wealthy, or at least the segment that won the argument, recognized that giving up a bit of profit was preferable to the alternative, which was the very real possibility of social revolution in the United States and an end to all their profit.

They only did this after their attempt to stage a coup, that failed to garner the military support, they needed to get FDR out of office.

Are you referring to the 1933 "Business Plot" that was to have been led by Smedley Butler of the Marine Corps, and about which he later testified about to a Congressional committee. While I am not one to shrink in the face of allegations of fascist plots in the United States, this particular one is of some historical dispute, at the minimum. I would be hesitant, if I were you, to state something so definitive about it as you have in your one-line post.

the following is from Wikipedia.

I am well aware of the Wikipedia entry. I stand by my suggestion not to state the existence of the Business Plot with such certainty, as reputable historians have called such certainty into reasonable question.

Its existence or non-existence doesn't change the basic premise of my post that prompted you to mention the Business Plot.

Additional information on the plot rumors to oust FDR.

It's an interesting story. Could it happen now if the economy fails to recover? So far the rich are just getting richer so why should they want to kick out Obama?

That was what I was saying in my first post.

I still say the social contract is non-existent. Every program run by any government is paid for through taxes. Governments do not create money they only redistribute what is taken in taxes. The government takes in money (from me) and later gives it back. The government did not create any program out of benevolence. Programs were created by governments in the hopes that they will be retain power because it looks like they are doing something for nothing. Therefore there is no social contract.

maybe there is a contract
 

Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.

Have you ever wondered, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, WHY do we have deficits?

Have you ever wondered, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, WHY do we have inflation and high taxes?

You and I don't write the tax code, Congress does.

You and I don't set fiscal policy, Congress does.

If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair.

If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red.

If the Army & Marines are in Iraq and Afghanistan it's because they want them in Iraq and Afghanistan .

If they do not receive social security but are on an elite retirement plan not available to the people, it's because they want it that way.

There are no insoluble government problems.

True enough, Congress makes the decisions, however, we elect them. I would suggest the budget is in the red because we want all the goodies the government can provide with the ultimate credit card.

Question: Can the government keep the voters happy on a balanced budget?

Fran,
you are so spot on, and this post is awesome.
:respect:
:heart::heart:

With all due respect to you, my friend, I don't think you are using the term "social contract" in the way I am, and certainly not according to the standard definition as employed by philosophers and political scientists since Rousseau, who wrote the first definitive book on the subject.

Other than the fact that politicians serve the interests of those by whom they are bought and paid for (i.e., they do not do any of this for themselves, per se), this is largely correct.

If they do not receive social security but are on an elite retirement plan not available to the people, it's because they want it that way.

Congress is NOT covered by Medicare.

Seems pretty selfserving to me.

The special healthcare and retirement plans of members of Congress amount to a pittance, dollar-wise, compared to the full scope of financial giveaways that elected Republocrat officials -- at the federal, state, and municipal levels -- enact for their masters. Yes, those plans are self-serving, but they exist because the masters reward their servants with the okay to create such perquisites. To focus on them to the exclusion of all else misses the larger point.

That's my take as well on government.
On taxes, wealth creation and wealth creating jobs.
Also non-wealth creation jobs and numerous safety nets for social support and cohesion, required by society for it to function and to create and maintain the structures to enable the wealth creation jobs to flourish.
When government gets too big it creates fake jobs in the form of multi-layered bureaucracy paper pushing
to create the illusion of job creation when it is nothing of the sort.
All paid for by the wealth creators.
Which is as it should be.
Unless the government grows that side too much
for the purpose of power and a dependent electorate who will vote for them coz they work in expanded structures.

Thats when it all falls down. Like now in the UK.

Frankly, I don't understand your view of the social contract. To me a social contract is when the public decides to form a government in order to provide services that the public cannot provide on their own. The public can decide what type of government they want, totalitarian, representative of communal, for example. We in the US decided on a representative type of government as our social contract. In order to provide the services the public desires, the government levies taxes to pay for the services. If the government cant obtain sufficient taxes to provide the services, It can issue notes (borrow money) to pay for the services. In the past these notes (bonds, dollar bills) were backed up by gold reserves stored in Fort Knox. Theoretically, anyone could go to a bank and exchange their dollars or bonds for gold. President Nixon did away with that so the government could have unlimited opportunity to expand its credit line. The value of the bonds and the dollar are now based on the faith and credit of the government. We now have a government deeply in debt and comitted to provide a vast array of services in addition to protecting us from dangerous threats such as Afghanistan. Our social contract with our government is in dire need of rehabilitation.

Just as Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, and others came to their own different ideas of what the social contract is I too have my own version of what it is.

For me the social contract is what politicians say they are doing for their citizens all the while making it look like it isn?t really the citizens paying for it, but rather giving the impressions that the politicians are somehow creating programs out of the goodness of their heart and the generosity of their spirit.

It is often quite true that politicians convey this impression. However, the public is not stupid, although they often appear to be, they know somebody has to pay for the governments services. What the public hopes is that somebody else pays a greater proportion of the cost of the services than they do. Cost-benefit is not the exclusive purview of the rich.

ila, you can't just go and take a time-honored philosophical term that has a specific meaning and decide to use it for something completely different. Just because you might decide to call the love of transwomen "existentialism" doesn't make it existentialism.

yes, it is.
 

The early 19th century philosopher S?ren Kierkegaard is regarded as the father of existentialism.[ He maintained that the individual is solely responsible for giving his or her own life meaning and for living that life passionately and sincerely in spite of many existential obstacles and distractions including despair, angst, absurdity, alienation, and boredom.

Subsequent existentialist philosophers retain the emphasis on the individual, but differ, in varying degrees, on how one achieves and what constitutes a fulfilling life

So if Ila wants to call it existentialism, he is existentially correct.
For the rest of us here on the forum this certainly fulfills the distraction part of the paragraph above. That is, we are loaded up with despair, angst, absurdity, alienation, and boredom.
Other than that we probably fit into that other deffinition found in Wikipedia: Idontgivearatsassialism
I do what I can to have a fulfilling life; including web surfing.:)

note: not typed in Magenta at dauls request.;)

I could write a long essay on semantics to disprove that ila would be correct in calling it existentialism, but instead I will concede the point to you because your point isn't really germane to the discussion of the social contract. Let's see you come up with some quote from a philosopher that makes it okay for ila to redefine what "social contract" means.

Is surfing the internet for porn a fulfilling life? It is definitely self indulgent and avoids most of life's restrictions and inhibitions. Having a nice sexual fantasy every morning with a beautiful passionate young lover helps me get through the rest of the day.
Is that what Kierkegaard is taking about?

Is surfing the internet for porn a fulfilling life?

Randolph, you should not be asking me. You need to ask yourself.
You've had the *hots* for me for two years now and the ol' ticker is still ticking. Don't you realise that if you reach the goal of the fantasy, the fantasy will end?
quote: "A man chases a girl until she catches him."

I could write a long essay on semantics to disprove that ila would be correct in calling it existentialism, but instead I will concede the point to you because your point isn't really germane to the discussion of the social contract. Let's see you come up with some quote from a philosopher that makes it okay for ila to redefine what "social contract" means

On behalf of the rest of the forum, thanks for saving us from the boredom.
As far as Ila defining what is to him, a social contract; my previous post says he is responsible for that. That satisfies me.
Now, as long as Ila satifies me..........:heart::censored::censored:,,,Well, that's not germane is it?

Dammit, Fran, I have been trying to unbutton your blouse for years and all you talk about is Ila, Ila, Ila.
What does Ila have that I don't have. sob sob :lol:

Social contract
 

Back to the social contract.
In a sense, Ila has a point. We no longer have a valid social contract with our government. The upper class has hijacked the social contract. It is now between them and the government. The rest of us are out in the cold.
Until recently we assumed we had a classless society (in the traditional sense) based on constitutional rights. There have always been rich and poor but there was a feeling that anybody could rise to the top. In other countries, especially England class distinctions were and still are very apparent.
Reagan's policies that persist until today set the stage for the wealthy to become a class (upper) and take control of the social contract. This has enabled them to carefully control government policies to protect and enhance their well being. All of the statistics support a massive shift of wealth from the middle class to the upper class. However, it is more than wealth that has shifted, it is also power. Power to run the economy, power to set foreign policy, power to set priorities.
As Karl Marx said there has always been a struggle between classes. The rich want to protect their wealth and the poor want redress of their grievances. Our Constitution was supposed to deal with these issues. It appears that it is no longer functional.

And for you, a "you're welcome" for so readily giving you another opportunity for a post of this sort.

I certainly can. Others certainly felt free to decide what a social contract is. I am just as free to decide what a social contract is. Just because someone decided years (centuries earlier) what a social contract is doesn't make that (those) person(s) correct. Social contract is an expression and not a defined word.

If you actually think that it is a fungible expression and not a defined philosophical concept, I don't even know where to go with the next part of the discussion. Oh, well ...

Hey Ila, You can call an apple and orange if you wish and get used to being ignored. Some people call the bagpipe a musical instrument, in some Northern countries anyway.:lol:
If one wants to disagree on what kind of government we have, that's is fine. We all know what government means. Those are the guys that collect taxes. Taxes are collected with the consent of the governed, that is a social contract. If the government becomes too powerful, it can tax without consent, at the risk of revolution. Alternatively, it can create public debt in lieu of taxes, which is essentially the same as taxes, the public still has to pay the bill. :censored:

Well, that's your definition of a social contract and it differs only slightly from my definition.:)

One of the basic tenets of productive argument or discourse is an agreement on the meaning of fundamental terms. If that does not exist, there can be little or no progress toward achieving any sort of synthesis of ideas or, at minimum, clarification.

ila chooses to reserve for himself a personal definition of an established term. He makes an argument for why this is okay, but it is not one I believe works. Therefore, I truly do not know where to take the argument next. It has nothing to do with "conceeding" to him; I have not conceeded that his perspective is correct.

As for conceeding to you, Fran, I have no idea what it is to which you are referring.

Yes, you conceeded
 

I am well aware of the post you quoted. I was referring to the specific issue of "social contract" -- and I stated that your point was not germane. Clearly, you have succeeded in employing my use of the word "concede" in that context as a cudgel, as you are wont to do, but it doesn't make it true that I conceded anything but a willingness to forego further discussion about something that was irrelevant to the topic.

Now, do you want to escalate this as in the past?

WB
 

Question:
How do you tell the difference between a British Police Officer, an Australian Police Officer and an American Police Officer?

Answer:
First - Lets pose the following question:

You're on duty by yourself walking on a deserted street late at night.
Suddenly, an armed man with a huge knife comes around the corner, locks eyes with you, screams obscenities, raises the knife,

and lunges at you.You are carrying a Glock .40, and you are an expert shot, however you have only

a split second to react before he reaches you. What do you do?

BRITISH POLICE OFFICER:
Firstly the officer must consider the man's Human Rights.
1) Does the man look poor or oppressed?
2) Is he newly arrived in this country and does not yet understand the law?
3) Have I ever done anything to him that would inspire him to attack?
4) Am I dressed provocatively?
5) Could I run away?
6) Could I possibly swing my gun like a club and knock the knife out of his hand?
7) Should I try and negotiate with him to discuss his wrong doings?
8) Does the Glock have appropriate safety built into it?
9) Why am I carrying a loaded gun anyway, and what kind of message does this send to society?
10) Does he definitely want to kill me, or would he be content just to wound me?
11) If I were to grab his knees and hold on, would he still want to stab and kill me?
12) If I raise my gun and he turns and runs away, do I get blamed if he falls over, knocks his head and kills himself? .
13) If I shoot and wound him, and lose the subsequent court case, does he have the opportunity to sue me, cost me my job, my credibility and the loss of my family home?

AUSTRALIAN POLICE OFFICER:
BANG!


AMERICAN POLICE OFFICER:
BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! 'click'....
(Sergeant arrives at scene later and remarks: 'Nice grouping!)

You left out the part where after the American police officer shoots and the sergeant arrives, no knife is found. Happens all too often ...

LAPD
The Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD), The FBI, and the CIA are all trying to prove that they are the best at apprehending criminals. The President decides to give them a test. He releases a rabbit into a forest and each of them has to catch it.

The CIA goes in.
They place animal informants throughout the forest.
They question all plant and mineral witnesses.
After three months of extensive investigations they conclude that rabbits do not exist.

The FBI goes in.
After two weeks with no leads they burn the forest, killing everything in it, including the rabbit, and they make no apologies.
The rabbit had it coming.

The LAPD goes in.
They come out two hours later with a badly beaten bear.
The bear is yelling: "Okay! Okay! I'm a rabbit! I'm a rabbit!"

It was a black bear of course...