Simple question...
Are you in favour or against it? Why?

Discuss! :cool:

What's a "common"???

Baron Max

Parliamentary seats should be auctioned on the open market to the highest bidder.

It is humanly impossible to end all the corruption so this is actually the best, the most democratic way to deal with it, to accommodate the ownership of politics openly, to see where the influence really is.

But it immediately gives power to rich people. GIven the asymetttry of information, that means that the rich folks would always be one step ahead of everyone else. Not to mention a lack of come back for the ordinary folks.

Anyway, we used to have a system like that in the UK. It wasnt very good, premitted massive repression, lack of freedom, encouraged mercantilism, and generally was bad for people. Except those in charge of course.

But it immediately gives power to rich people.

This is the great illusion, that it is possible to give power.

Think that and you'll wait forever and you day to be given enough.

Nope, not an illusion at all. All you have to do is permit someone else to do something.

Your american, right?

Nope, not an illusion at all. All you have to do is permit someone else to do something.


Nonsense.

Were it not that the permitted already own the power to do, the permission is pointless.

Parliament is a system, not a permission. It works to order.

Pardon? Your saying that the rich already have the power, so we might as well formalise it by letting them run the gvt openly?

HHmm, back to aristocracy and feudalism. You want that?

The House of Commons should be privatised and sponsored by British Gas. Seat allocation should be restricted to those with wealth totalling £1 billion or more, stars of popular music and TV (including reality TV contestants), and those who can prove close links to the Royal Family.

But I'm not sure that the thread starter is referring to the House of Commons. Perhaps he could clarify?

And that would result in what outcome, redarmy? I refer you to the last thousand yeard sof British constitutional history.

BEsides, the simple fact is that British gas couldnt afford the house of commons. Since they lost their monopoly they havnt exactly been the biggest kid on the block.

I think he meant public land. Grazing areas and the like. Perhaps some forests.

Nope, not an illusion at all. All you have to do is permit someone else to do something.

Nonsense.

Were it not that the permitted already own the power to do, the permission is pointless.

Parliament is a system, not a permission. It works to order.

Your american, right?

Ad hominem already?


HHmm, back to aristocracy and feudalism. You want that?

Unfortunately, I am mature enough to know that what I want is beside the point.

And that would result in what outcome, redarmy? I refer you to the last thousand yeard sof British constitutional history.
It would result in us being ruled by our betters - those who are noble of blood and pure of heart.
BEsides, the simple fact is that British gas couldnt afford the house of commons. Since they lost their monopoly they havnt exactly been the biggest kid on the block.
British Gas are the most appropriate sponsors. The government should give them the necessary funds.

It would result in us being ruled by our betters - those who are noble of blood and pure of heart.

British Gas are the most appropriate sponsors. The government should give them the necessary funds.
Ahhh, sasrcasm. Aint it fun.

Nonsense.

Were it not that the permitted already own the power to do, the permission is pointless.

Parliament is a system, not a permission. It works to order.
That sounds tautological- if they already have the power, they are in charge, so they dont need permission, so why do we even need to bother witha parliament in the first place? WHy not go straight back to feudalism?



Ad hominem already?
No, just curious. Your getting a bit paranoid here.



Unfortunately, I am mature enough to know that what I want is beside the point.
So just sit happy in your chains then.

British Gas are the most appropriate sponsors. The government should give them the necessary funds.

You must have missed the news.

Already they gave away what they had to give, and it was supposed to have belonged to you.

Yes, funny that. British Gas lives on, though:

http://www.centrica.com/index.asp?pageid=14

Commercialization and/or privatization of the commons always results in less for the public or at least lower quality.

No, just curious. Your getting a bit paranoid here.
So just sit happy in your chains then.

That is your paranoia, not mine.

Around here we are not so afraid of chains.

That sounds tautological- if they already have the power, they are in charge, so they dont need permission, so why do we even need to bother witha parliament in the first place? WHy not go straight back to feudalism?

As I had already tried to explain, corruption cheats because of the secrecy. Tax is avoided because it goes offshore. To stand a chance to control it, first you need to see it.

Democracy fails because nobody takes any notice anyway.
They're sat there watching soap operas, not debates in Parliament.


No, just curious. Your getting a bit paranoid here.
So just sit happy in your chains then.

Except that I am not in that here, I am in this here, where there is not so much of the dread of the chains.

Just a clarification about "commons"...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commons
"In England and Wales, a common (or common land) is a piece of land over which other people—often neighbouring landowners—could exercise one of a number of traditional rights, such as allowing their cattle to graze upon it. The older texts use the word "common" to denote any such right, but more modern usage is to refer to particular rights of common, and to reserve the word "common" for the land over which the rights are exercised. By extension, the term "commons" has come to be applied to other resources which a community has rights or access to."

A more expanded use of the term is "all that is not privatized". Water, for instance.

If it is against the USA terrorist government, I am for it.

As I had already tried to explain, corruption cheats because of the secrecy. Tax is avoided because it goes offshore. To stand a chance to control it, first you need to see it.

Democracy fails because nobody takes any notice anyway.
They're sat there watching soap operas, not debates in Parliament.
But we do see it. Every year. Its just that in many cases will is lacking. Many people are also not watching soap operas. We are campaigning, but I'm sure you dont want to know about that.



Except that I am not in that here, I am in this here, where there is not so much of the dread of the chains.
Because you have accepted them. Why dread what you accept and embrace?

Because you have accepted them. Why dread what you accept and embrace?

That is not my positon and you've no right to assert that it is.

I neither dread nor embrace personal comment.

I say to f off, boring jerk, and take your straw man wth you.

But we do see it. Every year. Its just that in many cases will is lacking. Many people are also not watching soap operas. We are campaigning, but I'm sure you dont want to know about that.

Because you have accepted them. Why dread what you accept and embrace?

If you want to win people over you are not going to do it with that sort of juveline shit kicking.

But we do see it. Every year. Its just that in many cases will is lacking. Many people are also not watching soap operas. We are campaigning, but I'm sure you dont want to know about that.

Because you have accepted them. Why dread what you accept and embrace?

If you want to win people over you are not going to do so with that sort of juveline shit kicking.


A more expanded use of the term is "all that is not privatized". Water, for instance.

The water industry in the UK is already run by private
companies:

http://www.water.org.uk/home/resources-and-links/links/water-operators

The water industry in the UK is already run by private
companies:

http://www.water.org.uk/home/resources-and-links/links/water-operators
What a shame.... :(


So... what do you think will happen if everything is privatized? For example, how would you feel if someone would charge you for the air you breathe? Like in that movie... Total Recall (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_Recall_%28film%29)... :D

So... what do you think will happen if everything is privatized? For example, how would you feel if someone would charge you for the air you breathe?

In effect this is already the case, because in some parts of the World it is dangerous to breathe, so a premium price is paid to be somewhere else.

If you want to find land that is not already privately owned or soon to be so, you have to go to the Antarctic or somewhere similar.

I think privatization of most commons is good. Not all, but most.
When the commons are owned by someone, they're well taken care of. The tragedy of the commons occurs not when someone owns the land and over uses it, but when no one owns the land, and all abuse it.

Non-privatized commons are rapidly degraded because non-ownership leads to irresponsibility.

Well, that's the argument in favour of it. But what happens when someone has a monopoly over water, for example? Let's see a case study:

http://www.citizen.org/documents/Bolivia_(PDF).PDF

What do you think about this example, Roman? Do you see the risks involved in privatizing the commons?

I think he meant public land. Grazing areas and the like. Perhaps some forests.That's what I assumed as well. Population pressure turns "the tragedy of the commons" into a catastrophe. Everyone puts one more sheep to graze on the commons than it can support, so all the sheep are stunted and everyone gets less wool and less meat.

These days "the commons" includes the very air we breathe. The oceans are commons and look what's happening to fish stocks.

Well, that's the argument in favour of it. But what happens when someone has a monopoly over water, for example? Let's see a case study:

http://www.citizen.org/documents/Bolivia_(PDF).PDF

What do you think about this example, Roman? Do you see the risks involved in privatizing the commons?

I see the risks in monopolization, yes.