HIJACK
June 24, 2019, 17:09:50 *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
Main Forum.Faces Gallery.Tunes and Mixes.The Desk
 
  Home Help Login Register  
Share this page
  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 ... 24
1  General / The Forum / Re: Arc Festival - 27 / 04 / 2013 - Eastville Park - Bristol on: April 29, 2013, 21:56:18
We're glad you all enjoyed yourselves!  Two Thumbs Now a little request Smiley


We need your help! Unfortunately two local residents have put in a complaint to the council about noise levels at the event, we consider that to be a great success that we only upset two people. Unfortunately until we add a few positive comments to that list from people who feel events like Arc are valuable to Bristol as a whole, the vocal minority become the majority and the future of our event is put in serious jeopardy.

Firstly, some major thanks are due!

What a fantastic party and a brilliant day! Every stage was rocking til the end. A huge thanks to the international and local music talent who lead the way and most of all thank you, such an 'up for it' and friendly crowd. Congratulations to the technical and creative teams who designed the stages and visual content, thanks to all to the volunteers, the friendly security teams, our partners, the production team, traders, and all the people and organisations who supported us online and by simply showing up!

Keep in touch with us on Facebook and Twitter, we have lots of wonderful pictures and footage of you all enjoying yourselves and all of the amazing performances that will release over the next few months, We'lll start getting them out to you shortly. We'll also be running a photo contest for all you photographers and keeping you up to date with what we'll be doing next!

We hope we gave you a great start to the festival season, and to the future of Arc in Bristol, we will be back.

Bristol City council have a comments and complaints system that can be used by all residents to give feedback about council services, comments can be given anonymously or with your details attached, and are all given in confidence. All we ask is that you spend two minutes giving some honest feedback about your experience at Arc. If you had a good time and think events like ours should go on into the future, please tell them why! Just file your comment under the arts, festivals and events section on the second page :-)

We really appreciate all your support, thanks for being so awesome!

https://www.bristol.gov.uk/page/create-comment
2  General / The Forum / ***KEEP AN EYE OUT FOR MY YAMAHA MOTORBIKE STOLEN SATURDAY****** on: September 24, 2012, 20:12:08


It's a 1997 Yamaha DT 125R

Reg is P411KYB

Stolen from Monk Road off Gloucester road, it's on the way home from Gloucester road to Southmead and Horfield so could be around there or wherever really if it was bumped, doubt they would have gone towards town, please call the police if you find it!



3  General / The Forum / Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan on: August 18, 2012, 14:54:32
Is an anagram of 'My ultimate Ayn Rand porn'  Huh
4  General / The Forum / Re: BLoc is a Road Block / Cancelled??? on: July 07, 2012, 01:33:54
Sucks for everyone Sad  Some of the Twitter jokes have come pretty fast though!



Someone apparently dropped a sticky bun on Mike Tyson's chinos so they shut down #bloc

Rumours flying around that #Bloc doesn't even exist & is infact a by-product of the worlds biggest K-hole filled with angry people & no dogg

Reports from #bloc suggest that the festival has been taken over by Cybermen and that the boat has been pulled under the waves by a Kraken.

for all you ravers trying to get into #Bloc I'm just letting u know iv got Snoop tied up in the back of a transit & were going Dogging!

i heard that snoop dogg and gary numan had a fight to the death because snoop stole gary's toffee apple #bloc

It appears as though #Bloc are scuppering the boat as part of a wider conspiracy to rid London of Supreme and Obey.






5  General / The Forum / Re: Good luck to our very own Sam 'able'... on: June 16, 2012, 21:42:58
Much respect...Mmm Morphine... Love

I took way too much morphine when i did it. Having the kidney out was fine compared to how I felt after a week of not having shat out any of the yummy hospital food they gave me.

Big up Able hope it works out well!
6  General / The Forum / Re: I like to buy a Mac pro for using Ableton and Max/Msp on: June 15, 2012, 14:09:33
So I'm assuming with the new macbook pro you can't use thunderbolt for both an external display and an ethernet at the same time?
7  General / The Forum / Re: So did Love Save the Day.... Or did it.. on: June 07, 2012, 15:02:33
It was a bit too wet to enjoy it to its fullest, but i still had a great time music was really good, got a bit quiet eventually on the just jack stage for jamie jones though.

I'm sure the bar situation was a licensing thing not shortsightedness as someone else mentioned, but in future could arrangements be made to remedy this?

There has to be a better way of speeding up service, perhaps insisting on trained bar staff, having a bar or part of the bar that offers cans only, or some kind of buy drinks tickets here and get drinks here type arrangement? I know those tickets aren't popular, but with such a limited bar situation having cash bars to sell drinks in cups seems like the slowest way it could be done.
8  General / The Forum / Re: Spare Love Saves the Day tickets? on: June 01, 2012, 16:20:49
 Script
9  General / The Forum / Re: GAMERS! on: June 01, 2012, 15:58:30
Another big release by GoG.com

Wing Commander Series and Ultima series

http://www.gog.com/promo/ultima_wing_commander?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_content=game_subject&utm_campaign=010612_ultima

Can anyone tell me, which is the best Ultima? I think it's 7, I think I keep on hearing great things about it, but can't remember

Online is the best Cheesy
10  General / The Forum / Re: Bilderberg Conference 2012 on: June 01, 2012, 00:17:55
Charlie Skelton covers this for the Guardian, he was pretty entertaining the last few years. Doesn't come from a conspiracist angle at all, pretty measured really, also a very nice guy who bought me beers once. He also writes for 10 O'Clock live.

Get your Bilderberg gossip from him here..

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/may/30/bilderberg-2012-technocrats-are-rising
11  General / The Forum / Re: Krakov anything worth doing? on: May 30, 2012, 18:37:05
Off on a Stag weekend in Krakov Poland this weekend, anything worth going to?


The RFID crew are doing a one day electronic music festival over there this weekend, get in touch with one of them if you know them!
12  General / The Forum / Re: Google Front Page today on: May 23, 2012, 17:32:25
13  General / The Forum / Re: Petition: Make the EDL f**k off and not march in Bristol on: May 16, 2012, 19:39:26
trolling the edl with minirigs is an awesome idea
14  General / The Forum / Re: 50p vinyl action at Gimme Shelter! Sunday 13th May on: May 14, 2012, 14:53:01
Thanks to those who came along, the Funk reissues went down a treat !! Sold a lot of soundtrack albums to the 'samplers'  plenty more vinyl to come in !! open 12- 5.30pm Tues - Sat if you've not been in before.

The vinyl fair is there all week then?
15  General / The Forum / Re: Petition: Make the EDL f**k off and not march in Bristol on: May 14, 2012, 14:50:53
Anyone who doesn't think all protest should be banned should never argue against any group protesting. The state doesn't like protesting, if there is popular support for banning a particular protest group, it will make it difficult for others as well just because it can and does fight against all opposition to its power. Nevermind the free speech argument, if you think there is anything worth protesting against you're shooting yourself in the foot for strategic purposes.
16  General / The Forum / Re: Bristol Mayoral Referendum on: May 04, 2012, 17:02:48
Why does everything have to be some massive conspiracy? As far as I can tell mayors have nothing to do with some big capitalist plan to take all our money, they do that perfectly well anyway. Neither is this some horrible Tory scheme - the two elected mayors today have both been Labour. One of the most successful elected mayors to date has been in Hartlepool, the guy is an independent who when he first stood was mascot for the local football team.

Well you clearly haven't read the small print then.

It doesn't matter which party the elected mayor comes from, as you can see if you read the subtext of the policy documents, they're going to have to clear all major decisions with central government and negotiate when they want powers. Also in the document is a big part about basically all initiatives undertaken by mayors having to be implemented by and generally involving of private sector partnerships, historically a bad deal for the taxpayer.

You are quite right that I haven't read the small print. On the other hand, all of the stuff you mention above is true of local government already.

That doesn't affect the factual nature of the statements of intent in the policy document and the implications for the structural changes in power. It's all pretty basic political science, right wingers prefer hierarchal structures and strong leadership, corporatists benefit from those arrangements. This is what will happen, we'll be trading inefficient councils for inefficient monopolies and have to vote in another set of corrupt cunts every so often.

I didn't vote by the way, the fact that only 25% of people voted at all is better for me than everyone legitimising power by voting against it.
17  General / The Forum / Re: Bristol Mayoral Referendum on: May 04, 2012, 16:58:20
Why does everything have to be some massive conspiracy? As far as I can tell mayors have nothing to do with some big capitalist plan to take all our money, they do that perfectly well anyway. Neither is this some horrible Tory scheme - the two elected mayors today have both been Labour. One of the most successful elected mayors to date has been in Hartlepool, the guy is an independent who when he first stood was mascot for the local football team.

Well you clearly haven't read the small print then.

It doesn't matter which party the elected mayor comes from, as you can see if you read the subtext of the policy documents, they're going to have to clear all major decisions with central government and negotiate when they want powers. Also in the document is a big part about basically all initiatives undertaken by mayors having to be implemented by and generally involving of private sector partnerships, historically a bad deal for the taxpayer.

Which party likes private sector partnerships and traditionally does not have much power amongst the councils? Oh yeah, the Tories!


All of this is a little hard to reconcile with the ideological Tory predisposition for power in local government. Thatcherites may be suspicious of it, but at the grass roots (where the support for mayoral roles originates) there is a large belief in the necessity for strong, autonomous local authority.

Yes, but you must know that often means very little in policy discussions at the highest level, ideology frequently becomes a branding exercise and used for power grabs. They do want strong, autonomous local authority, but they also know hierarchies are easier to control or "influence" centrally, so its a win win for them.

States do not like giving up their power. Tories believe in hierarchies, they want local leadership instead of talking shop councils, but neither party is going to devolve real power without significant limits, limits in keeping with the general Tory policy of corporatism under the auspices of free trade.

The Tories want mayors because it gives the impression of local leadership and avoids the problems they have with rebellious councils, if you read the government document it is plain to see and stated clearly that "we want something in return" (I think it actually says that verbatim). It then goes on to detail what the something in return is, and mainly talks about private-public partnerships.

If this was a Labour scheme, it would come with all their bullshit instead, this is just a Tory one set up to work for the long term benefit of the Tories and their cronies, nothing really unusual about it.
18  General / The Forum / Re: Bristol Mayoral Referendum on: May 04, 2012, 16:40:14
Why does everything have to be some massive conspiracy? As far as I can tell mayors have nothing to do with some big capitalist plan to take all our money, they do that perfectly well anyway. Neither is this some horrible Tory scheme - the two elected mayors today have both been Labour. One of the most successful elected mayors to date has been in Hartlepool, the guy is an independent who when he first stood was mascot for the local football team.

Well you clearly haven't read the small print then.

It doesn't matter which party the elected mayor comes from, as you can see if you read the subtext of the policy documents, they're going to have to clear all major decisions with central government and negotiate when they want powers. Also in the document is a big part about basically all initiatives undertaken by mayors having to be implemented by and generally involving of private sector partnerships, historically a bad deal for the taxpayer.

Which party likes private sector partnerships and traditionally does not have much power amongst the councils? Oh yeah, the Tories!

It's not some big capitalist plan to take all our money, because as you said, that already happens. The big capitalist plan is to make sure all the money that is already being stolen is filtered through to companies who are given monopolies and make nice big donations to the Tories, not to mention the nice retirement jobs and the nice parties and the nice vocal opposition to Labour and trade unions.

But you can't very well go and easily take power away from councils as they are independent to a certain degree, and if there's one thing we know about protection rackets it is that they are territorial, so much better to get the people to vote for central government control. That way the councils become less powerful and more open to their inefficient service provisions being replaced by equally inefficient private sector monopolies.

There's no conspiracy, its the ideology and the implications for power structures i disagree with, and its all easy to see if you just read the details.
19  General / The Forum / Re: Bristol Mayoral Referendum on: May 04, 2012, 15:18:12
I was gonna vote yes but had things to do. See what happens now then.

My prediction: Cunts on a power trip concoct hair brained schemes that don't work and increase your council tax. All the money flows out of Bristol, goes to big companies like Serco and is used to do nice things like buy prisons from US states on the provision that they remain 95% full (true story).
20  General / The Forum / Re: Netherlands bans tourists from entering cannabis cafes... on: April 28, 2012, 21:41:20
I always wondered why people would go to all the effort of leaving the country to get high, now maybe i'll never know!  Embarrassed

I can't understand why anyone would want to go to Oktoberfest when they can go to Wetherspoons. I can't understand why anyone would want to go to Disneyworld when they can go to Blackpool.  Huh

bad comparison imo. Either way, you have to pay out to get there and the end result is the same for me.  Pimp



Well some people might not see the difference between the Epcot Centre and The Pepsi Rollercoaster, it's all in the eye of the beholder isn't it.

Some people like to have the option of freely smoking hundreds of different sorts of weed, some people just like sitting on the sofa staring into space and couldn't care less where they are Smiley
21  General / The Forum / Re: Netherlands bans tourists from entering cannabis cafes... on: April 28, 2012, 17:03:25
I always wondered why people would go to all the effort of leaving the country to get high, now maybe i'll never know!  Embarrassed

I can't understand why anyone would want to go to Oktoberfest when they can go to Wetherspoons. I can't understand why anyone would want to go to Disneyworld when they can go to Blackpool.  Huh
22  General / The Forum / Re: Spare Love Saves the Day tickets? on: April 28, 2012, 16:59:20
If you feel that we are comercializing or capitalising on the Bristol music 'scene', you know very little about the industry let alone what we do. lol.

Of course you are commercialising and capitalising on the Bristol music scene, you get paid by promoters to distribute their flyers, and by advertisers to market their products to your audience. Don't Panic is the very definition of a business capitalising on a music scene. I don't think there's anything wrong with that whatsoever, but you do make money out of the music scene.
23  Food for your Ears / The Desk / Re: ableton to logic on: April 27, 2012, 22:30:43
right i want to sync a long sample in logic so i warped it in ableton then eported it as a wav and the wav plays fine on my laptop but when i drag it into an audio ch on logic 9 it just shows me a messed up wav file and makes no sound what so ever any ideas folks winding the crap out of me

tar angus

Don't bother with the warping.

Highlight the audio file in logic, hold alt to stretch it in time, then go into flex mode and use the master quantize thing in the inspector to set it to whatever swing and stuff you want, you can even drag around the transients individually etc. You probably already know that, but still don't get why you'd want to do it in ableton specifically unless you're doing something kerrazy
24  General / The Forum / Re: The Bristol music scene is monopolised by too few on: April 27, 2012, 16:21:26
    Bristol is one of the best cities for electronic music in the world, stop moaning.

    Just to be clear to everyone, I'm specifically talking about large scale events large with budget in excess of £10-15k.

    The 'bass music/electronic dance' industry, as industries go is A fairly niche from revenue and workforce figure perspective.. Therefore there is much less focus from a regulatory and competition standpoint to ensure the market and industry grows. What is it that encourages markets and economies to grow?Huh?

    The key ingredients are:
    • FREE TRADE
    • OPEN MARKETS


    Surely you don't think either of those exist in promoting?[/list]
    25  General / The Forum / Re: Mac users - what app's can't you live without? on: April 22, 2012, 22:08:40
    Are all programs apps now?

    Actually no, but all apps are programmes and they always were, so he's right to call them apps. Anything that has direct human interaction and aimed at a front end user is an application, whereas there are all sorts of programmes running in the background you don't interact with.
    26  General / The Forum / Re: Mac users - what apps can't you live without? on: April 22, 2012, 22:04:39
    Any of you who are writers or students should take a look at Scrivener, it's a word processor built for people who actually write, and lets you organise Chapters into different documents through a sidebar and has built in stickies etc labelled as research.
    27  General / The Forum / Re: What's all this about a Mayor of Bristol? on: April 20, 2012, 16:47:37
    I take it it's too late to apply then  Undecided

    No. George Ferguson said he's putting himself forward now because he doesn't think many people understand what they will be voting for in the referendum. Once that has taken place, and if Bristol votes to have an elected mayor, I imagine anyone will be able to put themselves forward.

    So, if he wins (big if), he could in effect give all powers back to the council? thus making a mockery of mayor2.0's ?

    I can't claim to have read the legislation for elected mayors in detail but I doubt they will have the power to abolish the mayoral position. And I'm not sure how you've come up with that scenario?

    Firstly, mayor2.0 is totally different to the symbolic mayor we now have, he or she will no longer open swimming baths and cut ribbons in iffy looking gardens and parks, the new mayors (which IS happening) will have new powers, those powers will be stripped from our democratically elected officials and given to the mayor and their entourage (who will be appointed by and serve the capital investors of Bristol2050), those powers include control over planning and investments (both state and private) and new laws to force the people to accept the planning and investments and the changes those things will bring about.

    That's the nuttshell, so with that in mind can the mayor give those powers back to the duly elected officials? its just a random question, that is all.

    I'm sure there are plenty of good arguments against elected mayors but I'm not sure you're objection on the grounds that it will strip power from democratically elected officials holds much water. It's a referendum on having elected mayors?

    Read the policy document dude, he's totally (mostly) right, it's all about stripping spending power from democratically elected officials and giving the private sector "leadership" in everything, it's just giving local politicians "real power" but only giving it to them if they do what the Tories want from them. This will all be done behind closed doors, and will result in god knows how much of our money being spent on consultants and shitty public/private partnerships.

    As soon as the mayors get in and find out they can't do shit they'll be making deals with central government in the vague hope that they'll finally get some power to do what they want. It says quite specifically in the document that the government "are clear that cities will need to offer something in return" - how does that devolve power in any way?

    Right now if there isn't a council majority for central govt. they don't have a huge amount of influence in local politics, after this, they'll control what happens in all the major cities, it says so in the policy document "we will expect something from cities in return".....
    28  General / The Forum / Re: What's all this about a Mayor of Bristol? on: April 20, 2012, 16:42:16
    http://www.dpm.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/sites/default/files_dpm/resources/CO_Unlocking%20GrowthCities_acc.pdf

    Raising the stakes – an illustrative menu of bold options

    Greater freedoms to invest in growth

    1.     Give cities one consolidated capital pot (rather than multiple funding streams), allowing them
    the freedom to direct and prioritise economic investment

    2.     Access to an additional £1 billion Regional Growth Fund (RGF) to support innovative and
    ambitious economic programmes

    3.     Powers for cities to ofer business rate discounts to local businesses, with the opportunity to
    match fund this through RGF bids

    4.     From 2014, a new round of Structural Fund programmes (European Regional Development Fund
    and European Social Fund) allows member states to adopt a special focus on cities. Cities will be
    able to play more of a leading role in shaping bespoke and integrated programmes which play
    to their assets and address their barriers to growth

    5.     Where there is local business support, enable the creation of industry-speciic Business
    Improvement Partnerships with the power to generate revenues to support growth across  
    the economic area

    6.     Access to new infrastructure funding through Tax Increment Financing where this is spent on
    economic development projects, in line with the Local Government Resource Review

    7.     Recognise the benefits for local authorities that opt to pool business rates across their LEP to
    enable more efective economic decision-making and to manage fluctuations in their budgets
    The power to drive critical infrastructure development

    8.     Allow cities to take strategic transport decisions by devolving local transport major funding

    9.     Increase cities’ control over rail services, through devolving responsibility for commissioning
    local and/or regional rail services, including the management of franchise arrangements

    10.  Develop with cities specific proposals for developing greater accountability to local
    communities for local bus services, in the context of wider Bus Service Operators Grant reform

    11.  Enable cities to integrate use of public sector buildings and generate savings by vesting local
    public sector assets in a single local property company, with receipts invested in local economic
    development

    12.  Put greater regeneration funding and responsibilities in the hands of cities, by devolving Homes
    and Communities Agency spending and functions

    13.  More planning freedoms for cities, including devolving non-planning consents where cities can
    reduce impact on business

    14.  Ensure better strategic planning across cities and their LEP areas by granting LEPs statutory
    consultee status for planning proposals


    The Government is committed to devolving powers and resources to the most appropriate level. In some cases this will be
    individual local authorities, but in others it will make sense for decisions to be made at a level which matches the economic
    geography of a city (broadly the area covered by the LEP). We will take a bespoke approach, agreeing on a case-by-case basis
    the spatial level at which decisions should be made, and the governance structures that need to be in place. .

    Our challenge to cities. Raising the stakes – an illustrative menu of bold options (continued)

    15.  Support the development of connected urban spaces through a £100 million capital pot for
    competitive bids for ambitious broadband infrastructure plans, including:
    •   superfast broadband to strategic business areas;
    •    city-wide high-speed mobile connectivity (e.g. Wi-Fi); and
    •    information and demand-building activities.
    Enabling cities to boost skills and jobs in their area

    16.  Give cities the opportunity to grow apprenticeship numbers in their area by establishing City
    Apprenticeship Hubs, accessing national funding to catalyse new apprenticeships in small
    businesses

    17.    Create a City Skills Fund to enable cities and colleges to work together to tailor the
    provision of adult skills to the needs of employers in the city

    18.  Give cities the opportunity to drive local employment and skills through:
    •    better service integration with Jobcentre Plus, including the alignment of local resources to aid
    job growth;
    •   working with training providers to tailor skills provision to match city needs;
    •   shared service delivery through co-location; and
    •    efective partnerships to share and exchange information.
     
    19.  Improve integration between welfare to work programmes and other social services by allowing
    cities to expand existing Department for Work and Pensions contracts (e.g. the Work
    Programme Contract) to include other wraparound services

    20.  Support cities’ inward investment ambitions by UK Trade and Investment working intensively
    with city LEPs to understand, develop and promote their ofer to international business as
    part of their wider UK promotion

    21.  Cities will be able to benefit from an enhanced programme of support for 16–17 year olds  
    at high risk of disadvantage to support them in getting into education, work or  
    an Apprenticeship


    Cities will need to ofer something    
    in return

    1.18 While the Government is committed to
    devolving significant new powers and funding to
    cities, we are clear that cities will need to offer
    something in return. At the heart of the city deal
    is the notion of a mutually beneficial transaction,
    negotiated on the basis of ‘asks’ and ‘offers’ from
    both parties.

    The Government’s asks
    As such, in return for the offers set out above, the Government will be setting out asks where we
    think that cities need to do something differently. These asks will be speciic to each city and the
    propositions they come forward with, but are likely to fall into a number of areas:

    •    leadership and accountability: where cities want to take on signiicant new powers and funding
    streams, they will need to demonstrate strong, accountable leadership, an ambitious agenda for the
    economic future of their area, efective decision-making structures, and private sector involvement
    and leadership (cities with a directly elected mayor will meet this requirement);

    •   outcomes and eiciency: in agreeing to devolve powers or support licensed exceptions, cities will
    need to demonstrate that they have clear goals in terms of improved outcomes or reduced costs
    and a plan for achieving these goals;

    •   risk and reward: just as cities will want to reap the rewards of new powers and projects in city
    deals (for example, retaining a portion of additional business rates), they must also be willing to
    take on proportionate risks and put their own resources forward as part of the deal;

    •    innovation and creativity: through the deals we will work with and encourage cities to be creative
    and innovative in how they use both new and existing powers to maximum efect to boost private
    sector investment;

    •    private sector growth: cities will need to demonstrate that they are taking decisive action to boost
    private sector growth, supported by strong, dynamic partnerships between public and private
    sector leaders; and

    •   open and more localised public services and governance: the Government is striving to
    create more responsive, eicient and open public services. As cities take on new powers and
    responsibilities, they will need to demonstrate what actions they will take to deliver open public
    services through greater choice, decentralisation, diversity, fairness or accountability. And cities will
    need to show that they have clear plans to promote the use of the range of powers available to
    communities, including those provided by the Localism Act.




    Tl:dr - they will give the people seeking power in cities more power as long as they do what the government wants them to do. They will only do it if there is "private sector involvement and leadership", meaning, take everyone's tax money and give it to businesses and enforce local monopolies on the services they provide.

    So to answer your question Wes, no, not a chance in hell.

    Hooray for corruption, pretty much every single point makes it clear that this is all about diverting tax money and council tax money into the private sector, and that it's all about taking power away from local councils, not giving it to them, because there will be one set of easily corruptible politicians who have to hammer out deals in private with the government in return for their powers. All these fancy growth schemes mean more taxes taken from you, and all of that money wasted on inefficient private sector monopolies.
    29  General / The Forum / Re: What's all this about a Mayor of Bristol? on: April 19, 2012, 23:06:56
    I do know that the UN are setting agendas for "local autonomy", but don't you think the UN just acts as a reflection and amplification of power structures in the five UNSC members rather than has much power to mandate things in its own right?

    I think this localism and green stuff is more an excuse for getting lucrative government contracts for things that sound vaguely good and PR friendly for the public at the moment rather than a long term grand plan coming from the UN, or rather that the current grand plan really just reflects how corporatist governments are right now.

    I'm definitely with you in saying this is bound to be very anti-democratic, although it's made up not to be, and will only add to corruption.
    30  General / The Forum / Re: Scientists explain the ‘Cheerio Effect’ on: April 19, 2012, 22:08:09
    I though this was obvious.

    31  General / The Forum / Re: What's all this about a Mayor of Bristol? on: April 19, 2012, 21:51:27
    I don't think George Ferguson could win it over the main parties, nearly half a million people here I can't imagine a huge proportion of them would have heard of him before, and unless he was in with the politicians the inertia from having to answer to the council will probably prevent him getting much of his own vision enacted anyway, he should stick to helping communities outside of forcing them to do anything.

    The tories are completely conning everyone, they're pushing this under the guise of devolution and empowering local governance but all it really does is centralise power and where influence is exerted in a political class. Vested interests always influence and corrupt vertical power structures on the strategic level more than councils and are always less transparent, which is exactly what the Tories want. It will be more corrupt and more feudal and their pals in industry get their way and be partnered to every expensive scheme because people vying for power in the mayoral office need the support of long standing powerful interests, like the merchant venturers and the big businesses in the temple quay area etc.

    In theory it all sounds good because a mayor who is elected and has power in the council really can make things move but I do hope everyone doesn't fall for it and think that setting up that kind of infrastructure won't just serve the interests of the conservatives, ie. nepotism and plutocracy in the clothes of localism and free market ideology. If they really stood for the ideology they promote they wouldn't be putting in extra layers and costs to the taxpayer for governance, they'd massively cut the councils and replace their functions privately but also set up a mayoral office, overall cutting taxation and increasing efficiency, and direct representation. What they really want is to be able to control the councils in the long term and after they lose power, through their friends in industry.

    32  General / The Forum / Re: The downgrading of St. Pauls Carnival on: April 18, 2012, 23:56:44
    Quote
    cast your vote to let us know if you want to see a procession focussed St Pauls Carnival this year or cancel the Carnival for 2012
    .

    Not great options, obviously everyone would choose the first. if they said sound system & music focused or procession or cancel it would be better.

    Struck me as a bit of a pointless question too! They would make good politicians by the sounds of it
    33  General / The Forum / Re: Raspberry pi on: April 17, 2012, 16:07:15
    This looks set to be popular, my bet is Apple release one within the year, and it's more popular, less functional, but without all the protruding components. Also I can see it being kept in pockets by schoolkids and things breaking off it, if it's aimed at kids not sure why it's got an open design!
    34  General / The Forum / Re: Should we prioritise individual awakenings over that of the collective? on: April 15, 2012, 16:56:39
    Ben you have a very optimistic view of humanity, I cant fault you for that. I guess i don't!

    I think people pay taxes because if they dont, they'll get into trouble. I dont think they pay them thinking 'i really must pay these taxes to support poor people get healthcare and education'. In my mind this is where the anarchy system falls down. People are unfortunately inherently selfish, they do what they can to provide for themselves and their close relatives, in general they will walk on by the poor person struggling in the street. This reason is, i suspect one reason religion came about - to control and guide people and to make them contribute to a societal system, rather than just look out for themselves. The rule of law has now taken over from religion in controlling society. I personally feel we need a democratic system to control the law makers, otherwise the people would not be represented (as it happens i dont think this happens very well, but its better than no representation at all). Without laws making people contribute to the poor, i dont think they would at all, and my reasoning behind this is that society over the millennia has found that anarchism wasnt really a very productive and nice way of living, so decided to try something else. If the world was full of jesus-like people, then yeah i'd be up for a bit of anarchism, it'd be like a big group of mates sharing and looking out for each other. awesome. Hang around in some less nice areas of bristol/england/the world and see that quite often, people dont like each other.

    It's just my opinion though, and i doubt we'll agree!

    Optimism about the human race and the responsible use of power is the exact excuse the state gives to justify its existence, my realism is what leads me to think that giving that much power to a central authority will result in total disaster!

    Historical evidence disagrees with your idea that states were formed voluntarily (in Europe at least). States have been around just as long as religions have, and the state uses religion as a control mechanism, but there isn't much evidence that laws took over from religion, they always existed simultaneously. Yes people pay taxes because they are threatened, but people help people because they want to, as evidenced by the existence of charities, this wouldn't stop happening just because the state disappeared, and some of that extra disposable income so wastefully deployed by the state now as spending would find its way to the needy, who would be a whole lot less needy to begin with.

    Pretty much all your concerns and assumptions are addressed in the doc I posted if you are interested in it.

    If you do, read about how dispute resolution organisations and private defence agencies enforce respect for property rights, anarchic society doesn't have to rely on people being nice to each other any more than it does now, it can just be encouraged without a state.

    Wes I posted the picture to highlight that statism and anarchism and collectivism and individualism are points on different axes however you choose to plot it, as you well know. I'm not using political theory, just stating the obvious, that any anarchist doesn't care about the right-left debate as long as you agree to the non aggression principle.

    In any case, I'm done reading through your condescending posts because you never actually contribute, look at what you just posted, didn't answer one of my questions or contribute to the discussion you started, nothing to reply to, just childish posturing, as I'm sure you are well aware.
    35  General / The Forum / Re: Should we prioritise individual awakenings over that of the collective? on: April 14, 2012, 18:49:40

    So in the opt in tax world, what happens to the people who cant afford to pay for insurance and these 'subscription fees'?

    Firstly you have to ask yourself, does the statist world provide for the poor and helpless right now? The answer is resoundingly no, supported by relative and absolute poverty figures over time the world over, and compunded by the problem that social services provided now come out of the pockets of children in the future. Worrying about how something will work that doesn't work now is worrying about the wrong thing.

    Pages 53 and 114-15 in the doc i posted cover most of the main objections about healthcare and education in brief.

    In short though, poverty would be far less common due to the increase in wealth afforded through zero taxation and the eradication of state governed money and therefore recessions, as would the occurrence of single parent families due to the lack of subsidization for it. For those who are unable to work, concerned citizens will provide for it exactly as they do now

    Before you balk at that suggestion, do a little thought experiment. The theory of the statist goes something like this. We all must contribute towards helping the poor, and we all chip in to the social security system because we voted in politicians to represent that desire with our pooled resources. If the desire is there, why does it need to be violently enforced and necessitate a state solution? In a stateless society that really cared about the poor and helpless, you would be ostracised if you could afford to help and wouldn't.

    Quote
    "Another point that I would like to make up front is that there always seems to be a strange
    disconnect or isolation in people’s concerns about the helpless and dependent in society.

    For instance, whenever I talk about getting rid of  public schools, the response inevitably comes
    back – automatically, it would seem, just like any other good propaganda – that it would be terrible,
    because poor children would not be educated.

    There is a strange kind of unthinking narcissism in this response, which always irritates me, much
    though I understand it. First of all, it is rather insulting to be told that you are trying to design a
    system which would deny education to poor children. To be placed into the general category of
    “yuppie capitalist scum” is never particularly ennobling.

    A person will raise this objection with an absolutely straight face, as if he is the only person in the
    world who cares about the education of poor children. I  know that this is the result of pure
    indoctrination, because it is so illogical.

    If we accept the premise that very few people care about the education of the poor, then we should
    be utterly opposed to majority-rule democracy, for the obvious reason that if only a tiny minority of
    people care about the education of the poor, then there will never be enough of them to influence a
    democracy, and thus the poor will never be educated.

    However, those who approve of democracy and accept that democracy will provide the poor with
    education inevitably accept that a significant majority of people care enough about the poor to
    agitate for a political solution, and pay the taxes that fund public education.

    Thus, any democrat who cares about the poor automatically accepts the reality that a significant
    majority of people are both willing and able to help and fund the education of the poor.

    If people are willing to agitate for and pay the taxes to support a State-run solution to the problem
    of education, then the State solution is a mere reflection of their desires and willingness to sacrifice
    their own self-interest for the sake of educating the poor.

    If I pay for a cure for an ailment that I have, and I find out that that cure actually makes me worse,
    do I give up on trying to find a cure? Of course not. It was my desire to find a cure that drove me to
    the false solution in the first place – when I accept that that solution is false, I am then free to
    pursue another solution. (In fact, until I accept that my first “cure” actually makes me worse, I will
    continue to waste my time and resources.)

    The democratic “solution” to the problem of educating the poor is the existence of public schools –
    if we get rid of that solution, then the majority’s desire to help educate the poor will simply take on
    another form – and a far more effective form, that much is guaranteed.

    “Ah,” say the democrats, “but without being forced to pay for public schools, no one will surrender
    the money to voluntarily fund the education of poor children.”

    Well, this is only an admission that democracy is a complete and total lie – that public schools do
    not represent the will of the majority, but rather the whims of a violent minority. Thus votes do not
    matter at all, and are not counted, and do not influence public policy in the least, and thus we
    should get rid of this ridiculous overhead of democracy and get right back to a good old Platonic
    system of minority dictatorship. "

    This proposal, of course, is greeted with outright horror, and protestations that democracy must be
    kept because it is the best system, because public policy does reflect the will of the majority.
    In which case we need have no fear that the poor will not be educated in a free society, since the
    majority of people very much want that to happen anyway.
    Exactly the same argument applies to a large number of other statist “solutions” to existing
    problems, such as:

    • Old-age pensions;
    • Unemployment insurance;
    • Health care for the impoverished;
    • Welfare, etc.

    If these State programs represent the desires and will of the majority, then removing the
    government will not remove the reality of this kind of charity, since government policies reflect the
    majority’s existing desire to help these people.

    If these programs do  not represent the desires and will of the majority, then democracy is a
    complete lie, and we should stop interfering with our leader’s universal benevolence with our
    distracting and wasteful “voting.”

    tl:dr - society and a conscience exist independently of the state, and if anything people will be better provided for because the solutions for helping the poor and needy will be provided in a free market and everybody won't con themselves into thinking the state provides for it.
    36  General / The Forum / Re: Should we prioritise individual awakenings over that of the collective? on: April 14, 2012, 18:28:29
    Wes, I would have thought you of all people knew that voluntaryism is not right wing, that being said, "Libertarianism" has been hijacked in a sense by the American Right at the moment so you could be forgiven for thinking the ideas are americanized, but go and read some Bakunin, Rothbard and Molyneux (and for that matter what the american right are arguing for in the first place) and you'll know what a real Libertarian is and therefore what you're actually talking about Smiley

    Collectivists and Capitalists are perfectly tolerant of each other when they agree that they shouldn't violently enforce their goals, I wonder whether you think society should be controlled coercively?

    Were you suggesting there are further options? All societal designs must either be violently enforced or not, surely, requiring a state, or not?

    37  General / The Forum / Re: Should we prioritise individual awakenings over that of the collective? on: April 13, 2012, 20:18:40
    I can't even be bothered to begin pointing out the absurdity of optional taxation  (plus I'm typing on my phone so it'll take me months) so I'm out of this.  If you honestly believe that modern society can function without any central authority you're bonkers.

    Well unless I'm wrong you haven't really thought/read about it very much so that doesn't surprise me. Of course it would "function", but it all depends on whether you think the best society can be brought about through violent means or through free association.

    Is that the only two options?



    A society is either statist or stateless, violently controlled or freely associating, so yes!
    38  General / The Forum / Re: Should we prioritise individual awakenings over that of the collective? on: April 13, 2012, 19:58:09
    I can't even be bothered to begin pointing out the absurdity of optional taxation  (plus I'm typing on my phone so it'll take me months) so I'm out of this.  If you honestly believe that modern society can function without any central authority you're bonkers.

    Well unless I'm wrong you haven't really thought/read about it very much so that doesn't surprise me. Of course it would "function", but it all depends on whether you think the best society can be brought about through violent means or through free association.
    39  General / The Forum / Re: Should we prioritise individual awakenings over that of the collective? on: April 13, 2012, 07:15:09
    How on Earth would taxation work if it was optional?

    However any normal business or pooling of resources works, by meeting a demand people are willing to pay for. Security, dispute resolution etc can all be provided for consensually as well as forcibly, when taxation is forced you inevitably get stuff you don't want like war and stupid laws and nepotism because the price mechanism is broken.

    And how would this 'opt-in' form of taxation actually work?

    Wouldn't there be another huge level of bureaucracy dealing with everyone's individual payments?

    Lots of different ways, insurance, lotteries, subscription fees, whichever was the most efficient and appropriate for the service provided would be chosen by the market.

    No, anything provided in an environment of competition will always be more efficient than a forced monopoly. I don't see how you imagine any service provided without the state being more bureaucratic, because how much funding it would achieve is dependant on how fit for purpose it is, totally unlike now, with insane levels of bureaucracy because their customers can't leave them when they aren't satisfied with the service. They call deregulation cutting the red tape for a reason!

    This is really good introduction to the practicalities, I highly recommend reading it or at least looking at the clearly labelled chapters that you find most problematic with no centralized government.

    http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/practicalanarchy.pdf
    40  General / The Forum / Re: Should we prioritise individual awakenings over that of the collective? on: April 13, 2012, 06:40:02
    How on Earth would taxation work if it was optional?

    However any normal business or pooling of resources works, by meeting a demand people are willing to pay for. Security, dispute resolution etc can all be provided for consensually as well as forcibly, when taxation is forced you inevitably get stuff you don't want like war and stupid laws and nepotism because the price mechanism is broken.
    41  General / The Forum / Re: Should we prioritise individual awakenings over that of the collective? on: April 12, 2012, 23:04:41
    i disagree with you there, i don't need to be kept in line, and normally it's the pricks that want to take charge that are the problem... anyway i thought we were supposed to have complete autonomy now?
    You might not need to be, but many more do. That's why we have laws and prisons. Without a deterrent or punishment for anti social behaviour then society in general would be fucked. Whether you agree with all of those laws is, once again, a different matter.

    What makes you think the government is best capable to deter and punish anti-social behaviour and promote a good society, and what makes you think they have a right to extract wealth from everyone forcibly to do it.

    Historical evidence shows that most western states came about not from collective defence but from when roving bands robbed agricultural settlements on a regular basis, and in return those people 'belonged' to one group of extorters over another to deter theft from rivals. the concentrations of wealth and military power in the places where the extorters lived evolved over time to became petty fiefdoms etc and then evolved into the states eventually. Hardly a good background for promoting positive behaviour.

    The point is it all came about through extortion and anti-social behaviour, going into communities, extracting wealth and suppressing natural rights to freely associate is about as anti social as it gets, until taxation is voluntary and not monopolistic it will never work in the interest of society.
    42  General / The Forum / Re: How much are you controlled? on: April 11, 2012, 22:40:15
    How much aren't you?
    43  General / The Forum / Re: Bristol Mayoral Referendum on: April 05, 2012, 15:25:39
    I think a mayoral system is probably better, having councillors over tiny areas doesn't reflect the fact that a lot of people move around now and identify with Bristol as  a whole more than their local area, and you basically end up voting in a body of people that don't really have the capability to drive progress for the city as a whole as well as someone directly elected could do. I wouldn't trust the Tories to implement it fairly though so I won't be voting, you know whatever the result it will mean changes to the councils that don't benefit anyone.
    44  General / The Forum / Re: need a new desktop PC - any recommendations? on: April 02, 2012, 14:34:21
    In my experience ebay builds are usually significantly cheaper than buying from any website or even buying components, may have changed since I last bought a PC though.


    Ankermann pc sell really cheap systems, this is perfect for music production for 500 quid

    http://www.ankermann-edv.de/ANKERMANN-PC-Systems/INTEL-Core-i7/PC-Core-i7-2600K-HDMI-DVI-RGB-ports-4GB-RAM::9948.html



    This one has more RAM, slower processor but also has a graphics card -

    http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/INTEL-i7-2600-QUAD-CORE-ATI-HD-5450-8GB-RAM-1TB-HOME-GAMING-PC-COMPUTER-/400276743857?pt=UK_Computing_DesktopPCs&hash=item5d325a66b1#ht_2263wt_1398
    45  General / The Forum / Re: Squatting criminalised. on: March 31, 2012, 18:31:44
    There is a housing shortage in Britain, the proportion of people renting has increased largely due to the Tories shutting down housebuilding programmes when most of us were young or unborn. Now we pay artificially inflated rental prices because we aren't allowed to build our own houses wherever we want to and there aren't any more council houses being built (inb4 no squatters or renters would live in council houses - lrn2 basic economics).

    This distorts the market for housing massively, banning squatting without also adding a tax on unused buildings and land just means that landowners are even more inclined to hold on to property indefinitely and not put it to use until the marginal cost of holding onto it exceeds the expected profit from using it (most likely never as long as housebuilding or planning laws remain the way they are). All those thousands of people who squat now need to rent meaning we pay even more still to a group of people who will only ever become richer, which was obviously the thinking behind this, revenue generation and wealth transfer.

    If the effects of this legislation, particularly without similar legislation being introduced to benefit the non-landowning class, weren't so completely at odds with what the tories publicly stand for, you'd think it was a pretty clever political win from them, making everyone argue about the right to squat rather than the right to hold land without putting it to use.
    46  General / The Forum / Re: Farewell NHS on: March 26, 2012, 00:43:42
    thankyou for clarifying what nonsense means for me. Your reasoning basically amounts to "taxation isn't theft, because the concept doesn't exist independently of how the state defines it." That's nonsense and you know it. Taxation is theft by any consistent definition of it.
    You must therefore think this non-optional package you give away without any say as to where it goes is worth it for whatever reason, and must assume that the only way communities can prosper and be free from violence is through being threatened with it, and are prepared to put up with all the invading, killing, exploitation, bank bailouts, nepotism, wars on drugs and censorship for healthcare and education that could in reality be easily paid for by insurance and unionised workforces threatening only to withhold their productive labour in return for what they actually want (the number one enemy and potential death of every state, it renders it uneccessary) anyway.

    If resources are pooled together by somebody forcefully extracting them, a large proportion will have to go back into securing the power and fear that enable them to use that force, and keeping those that help out in the private sector sweet. If they are pooled together naturally and consensually, it is far more efficient and resources are distributed more equally without the suppression of collective bargaining to give greater value to ownership. Ownership of the means of production as a source of power is irrelevant without the threat of next weeks taxation and suppression of unions to keep the workers turning the wheels, production simply won't happen until employees are willing to do it.
    47  General / The Forum / Re: So let me get this straight... on: March 23, 2012, 13:13:20


    48  General / The Forum / Re: Farewell NHS on: March 23, 2012, 13:01:46
    Quick question Ben:

    Is there such a thing as society?

    Yes, it being "the totality of concepts of all purely natural relations and institutions between man and man..." - and being what the state uses political means (threats of violence) to dominate and control
    49  General / The Forum / Re: Farewell NHS on: March 23, 2012, 09:47:44
    Yeah it isn't stealing. Its just not.

    Libertarian attitudes taken to their unfettered logical extremes rapidly descend into nonsense, as seen in the attitude that tax is directly equivalent to theft. It isn't. Its not. No.

    edit: If, as one might cynically expect, the govt was to take away free-at-the-point-of-use healthcare and not reduce taxes correspondingly, I'd be more inclined to see that as theft.

    There are no logical extremes in what I say and it is far from nonsense, nonsense would imply that a statement is contradictory.

    Taxation is theft, and I can justify my position by saying that all non-optional appropriations of wealth using the threat of force are theft.

    How is it different if I threaten you with imprisonment unless you give me £1000 to pay for war different than if the government does? When does the non-optional appropriation of wealth stop being theft and become something else. You can't answer it consistently, which is why it is contradictory and nonsense to suggest that taxation isn't theft.

    Your edit is telling, as you think that if the government isn't forcibly extracting wealth from you to fund healthcare and diverts it somewhere else, it becomes morally indefensible and then is theft - this is what the article expands on, whether you can justify theft for the purposes of giving others healthcare using reason.

    I'm assuming you have some reasoning to justify your declaration that "taxation is theft" is nonsensical? Or does "it's just not stealing" justify everything the government decides to do with the money it takes from us.
    50  General / The Forum / Re: Farewell NHS on: March 23, 2012, 09:26:25
    Exploring the statement that we all have a "right to health care" (that you owe sick people for their healthcare) from a libertarian perspective using the argument from morality.

    Very interesting!

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/molyneux9.html

    Would like to know the opinions of those in favour of government supplied healthcare on this argument?

    It makes me think that anyone who thinks like that must be either autistic or a sociopath. 

    Why? Is it the attitude that something that requires stealing £2k annually for every man woman and child should be morally defensible? If not, why shouldn't it be? Should the government just be allowed to steal money for whatever it wants to do? Or is it just the way he applies logic to examine moral propositions?

    Lots of people seem vociferously opposed to the idea that healthcare should not be be free without being remotely interested in justifying why it should be ok to steal from other people to extend the life of the brain dead, for instance.
    Pages: [1] 2 3 4 ... 24
    Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

    HIJACK is part of purplelight Media
    and is hosted by purplelight Hosting Services. | Privacy Policy

    Tickets powered by The Ticket Fairy and Bristol Tickets