i dunno, feudalism seemed to work pretty well in most regards when not combined with serfdom. it certainly had it's issues, and a lot of modern stuff wouldn't work so well because it's not really compatible with the decentralization feudalism requires, but that's about it. now, there were a lot of things in place at the same Time as feudalism, which aren't actually feudalism itself, that we can do with out. feudalism, as a government structure, is based on personal loyalty and responsibility, as well as traditional rights and duties, which can be codified into written and absolute law without issue, generally, save that they tend to be highly local. it also, by its very Nature, strips away the largest problem with the US system (and now the EU system) where the government is just so large and responsible for so much stuff that there is no way to hold it accountable to Anyone. feudalism is generally arranged so that, at each level, if things go truly off the rails, and all other methods of seeking justice have failed, no ruler is out of reach of the capacity of their subjects of armed revolt or the like, either in physical distance or resource base. (at least in part because those who would be revolting Are the majority of the resource base, which is NOT the case in what is essentially a centralized empire (for all their republican structures) like the EU or USA)
i dunno, i actually have less problems with feudalism than i do with many modern so called 'democracies' (most of which aren't.)
if corporatism ends up being what it looks like it'd be, it's pretty much using the wost abuses possible in feudalism (mostly as a result of other structures, but feudalism was not set up to counter them) as the default basis of it's design, and labeled as Good things... (note that under feudalism they were the sort of thing that lead to assassinations and revolts...) the main difference is the use of lawyers and money rather than soldiers and steel... though under the Holy Roman Empire, the germanies were often like that too...
some people lose Days to that one the first couple of times they stumble across it.
fortunately, for most folks, after a while you stop running into things you aren't familiar with and it becomes somewhat less addictive and instead simply becomes a useful and interesting resource.
wouldn't stop the parents throwing enough of a hissy fit over it to cause serious problems for the lady by way of the school's desire to pacify them though.
i couldn't be surprised to see any attempt at that resulting in the monitor being charged with assault, to be honest.
i would expect their job to be to tell the bus driver to stop and to report such actions to the police so the schools/bus company can disclaim all responsibility for such actions.
basically discourage the behavior by increasing the odds of being caught, but that's about it.
indeed. a parent is a parent, not a friend.
large parts of their 'job description' are the same, and as the kid becomes an adult they get closer, but they are NOT the same thing.
a friend is not an authority (except, perhaps, incidentally, due to other roles). a parent is.
there's more to it than that, of course, but that's the basic difference.
should be noted: my mother spanked me when i was a kid and my behaviour was sufficiently unacceptable. (usually involved refusing to cooperate with lesser punishments.)
i like and respect my mother. we get along pretty well.
my father, on the other hand, would respond in an overly emotional manner, often accusing me of infractions which did not take place, getting into rants and screaming at me over perceived disrespect when i tried to point out such errors, making unreasonable demands of me given my age and health, assigning arbitrary punishments for non-specific lengths of time (all such punishments ended when he forgot about them, basically)...
which eventually pushed me to the point where, lacking other options, i lashed out and attacked him. (doing no damage or anything. i was still a kid) which lead to him ranting on about calling the police, which he never did.
now, a while after, my parents split up. events transpired such that i eventually went to live with my mum full time.
i'm 25 now. these days my dad and i get on reasonably well most of the time. (he's a lot happier and less paranoid these days, which helps, he has no authority over me anymore, which helps a Lot, and we don't live in the same house, which also helps.) ... but i still don't really respect him that much, if at all, beyond the basic respect i show all human beings as individuals when they're not actively causing me grief.
make what you will of that. I conclude that being reasonable and just is a hell of a lot more important (and by definition non-abusive) than not being physical.
why the bloody hell do so many people have no concept of the difference between an abusive beating and legitimate, reasonable, physical punishment?
i understand why corporal punishment was removed. far too many people with the above issue thinking the former was the later getting into a position to act on it.
but the moralistic IDIOTS who keep assuming the latter is the former obviously managed to avoid the ENTIRE BLOODY HISTORY OF THE HUMAN RACE where there is MOUNTAINS of evidence that this is untrue.
the simple fact is that it requires balance. such punishments should not be the first recourse, there must be rules and a process. it must be known ahead of time what actions will lead to such punishment. such punishment must be used Every time it is warranted by such rules and process and Never when it is not, and such punishment must be neither excessive given the actions taken, nor so weak as to be irrelevant.
i'm going to be honest: the public shaming and persecution by undisciplined students and ignorant staff unwilling to check allegations and quite willing to punish victims, not for fighting back, but for even Being there to be attacked, or for missing school due to illness when said staff are unwilling to provide materials to allow learning to continue in the mean time that I experienced are, generally speaking, FAR more damaging to a kid's well being than the strap, properly employed, ever was.
and children go through rebellious streaks Anyway, if their personality is so inclined, 'whipped' or not.
as for 'and abuse their parents in turn' that may be true in some cases. probably cases where actual abuse took place. it's also true in cases where no such punishment was used At All. correlation at best. again, you are conflating physical consequences with abuse, By Default, which is in error.
(and no, such punishments are no longer legal here. hell, the legislation that made that change recently was a prime example of such confusion, to the point where Pulling a kid out of the way of an Oncoming Truck as classified as abuse and, when this was pointed out, the morons pushing for the law said it was up to the police to decide whether to prosecute or not. even if physical punishment is not involved, That is a system with arbritary and unreliable enforcement and punishments all out of proportion to the so called 'crime', leading to it generally being ignored. it doesn't help prevent child abuse, which there were already laws against and which those who were prone to abusing children were already ignoring. it just makes good parents criminals as well.)
i think the issue is that that reaction should NOT be the one the kid sees when the Kid is in the wrong. reasonable enough when the kid's the victim (or punished harshly by an outside source, even if legitimately.), but when the kid is in the wrong, especially at that sort of age, the father would, indeed, better serve himself, his kids, and society, if his response is the strong, tern, and authoritative sort. (which is NOT the same as violent, uncaring, abusive, etc.) this does not automatically equate to instant punishment without investigation into the reality of the situation (that undermines authority)...
now, Some of the issue here is that there is a strong undercurrent in the society of large parts of the anglo-sphere (at least) that expressing such empathy is a sign of weakness, and Because of that it undermines the father's position as an authority. were that not the case it would be less of an issue.
but again, the problem is not that the father feels empathy for the woman and finds the whole thing upsetting. it is that his response When Dealing With the Kid about it, is to break down crying. to the sort of people who would do this thing in the first place, who are undoubtedly bullies, that is a Weakness. which undermines the parent's capacity as an authority figure to enforce, or even encourage, behavioral change.
(this is one of several reasons, incidentally, that the old apprenticeship systems back a century or two used to work so well for society as a whole, as well as passing on skills and such. it placed that primary authority with the aprentice's master. the emotional attachments were quite different, and thus so were the reactions. kids (boys at least) that age tend to be far more inclined to listen to someone who has authority over them for an actual Reason, as they see it (the one teaching them the skills they need to earn a living, in this case) than to their parents, who they are largely trying to find an identity independent of, for one.)
blah. hopefully my point is intelligible, i'm not good at explaining this stuff at the best of times. (and this is not the best of times for me.)
probably more like the rest were the sort of nonsense court order where the proper response is to contest it, or are not filed properly, or are invalid due to whatever protections are in place for such things (safe harbours, constitutional thingies *shrugs* not like i'm a lawyer or a US citizen...)
also possibly jurisdictional issues. the US is not the only government to completely fail to understand the concept of Borders when it comes to law enforcement as it relates to the internet, but it's certainly the worst. (which is even more amusing when you realise that US companies are some of the worst offenders when it comes to region-locking stuff on the internet...)
only if you mean small as in 'managing a small enough area that the governors are in reasonable reach of the governed, who can thus show their displeasure.'
because every other 'small government' argument i've ever seen is actually 'pro control by the corporations', though usually due to ignorance rather than malice.
way i figure it, if you need more than 200 representatives to properly represent your people, you're too damn big.
if your representatives spend more time traveling or in your capital than they do in reach of their electors, well, you may not be too big, but you have a problem and size may be contributing.
so....
yeah, not so much 'small government' as 'small nation', really.
further more, the people they label as 'pirates' are a lot closer to smugglers, if one really must make a comparison to old-timey nautical shenanigans.
Re: A quick fix, and a great way to seriously stymie the USG...
put it this way: the current government is on thin ice as it is. if the high court does anything Other than that or forcing the US to hand the evidence over to the defendant (and tossing the whole case if they refuse), if it looks in ANY way like there was undue influence from the government here (and it will, whether there is or not) ...
let's just say, combined with the asset sales, the curren't government's odds of staying in power are pathetic.
that said, given who's in it, the asset sales make sense in light of that... they try to run the country like a corporation, and their leadership is known for being of the mindset that 'asset stripping things then selling the failing husk on is totally legit business' and the like... guess that would explain the asset sales...
added bonus: they're putting serious effort into breaking the school and social welfare systems too. (the social welfare system has issues that are basically unfixable without a fundamental shift in how the government views the economy and economics as a whole, however. and just tossing it entirely would probably collapse the government far more easily than the so called 'constitutional crises' which would supposedly happen should the GG actually do their job...)
further, there's good odds the current administration was meddling in the process. they've managed to establish themselves a bit of a reputation as dishonest, incompetent, unwilling to listen to the public if they can possibly get away with it, and quite prone to supposedly doing what the public wants then later, quietly, changing it Back to the thing everyone was protesting against without any mention making it's way into the news until after the fact, if at all.
as has been pointed out quite often, the current administration has a majority in parliament (just, barely, squeeked it.), but it has no mandate.
(meanwhile it's pushing HARD for the one thing even it's Own Supporters hated... the PM keeps trying to claim that people voted for it knowing they were going to do the asset sales thing, he won the election, thus they have a mandate to do it. missing that even their own supporters were against That part of their plan, even when otherwise supporting them and considering all other parties to be much worse. a 50%+1 (or maybe 2) majority does not a mandate make when a record 1/4th of the electorate DID NOT VOTE, you got TIES in some electorates, came close enough in others that it had to be disputed in court or whatever due to error margins, and even the people who supported you are speaking out against what you're claiming to have a mandate to do! meanwhile, the whole mega-upload thing is bleeding national of the saner portion of it's voter base (the ones who actually think) due to all sorts of different parts of it's handling. the only people who actually Support the government/US on this are the sort of rabid crazies who think ANYTHING that isn't going exactly how their perfect party wants is due to 'whinging and ignorance' on the part of some nebulous 'left'... never mind that their so called 'left' makes up closer to 3/4ths of the electorate and parliament than 1/2 when nothing suspect happens with the elections and economically only has 'National and ACT need to stop being idiots and trying to copy the Failed US model' in common. )
gah. rant got away from me again. i'm not good at staying on topic at all, am i?
unfortunately, under the current government, and after the previous government (assuming you count based on who is PM not based on election cycles) stripped the Privy Council (technically the monarch.) out as the final court of appeal and replaced it with something that parliament can more easily lean on*, the answer to that question is not as cut and dried as it might be.
'course, under the previous government odds are good this never would have got off the ground. oh, they were willing enough to bend over for the US government in terms of it's Goals... but methods? nope. play by the rules or not at all. (not that they wouldn't shamelessly take advantage of the rules, but every step along the way would be legit.)
*no, the public did NOT approve. it was yet another 'sneak it through without warning and only tell anyone about it after the fact' law change. a chronic problem here that will not end until we actually get a governor willing to do their damn job. not that there's any hope of That. (seriously, as constitutional monarchies go, NZ's actually set up to be quite absolutist in a lot of ways... and then the monarch doesn't rule directly, but appoints a governor, and then the governor abdicates almost all responsibility to parliament... leaving parliament with those absolute powers WITHOUT a counter-balancing power to keep it in line...)
On the post: EU Commissioner Reveals He Will Simply Ignore Any Rejection Of ACTA By European Parliament Next Week
Re:
you just have to avoid falling into the insanity trap that is empire.
democracy ceases to work the moment it is large enough to require you to tack 'representative' onto it to continue functioning.
representative democracy, isn't. it's oligarchy with popularity contests instead of murders.
On the post: EU Commissioner Reveals He Will Simply Ignore Any Rejection Of ACTA By European Parliament Next Week
Re: Re:
i dunno, i actually have less problems with feudalism than i do with many modern so called 'democracies' (most of which aren't.)
if corporatism ends up being what it looks like it'd be, it's pretty much using the wost abuses possible in feudalism (mostly as a result of other structures, but feudalism was not set up to counter them) as the default basis of it's design, and labeled as Good things... (note that under feudalism they were the sort of thing that lead to assassinations and revolts...) the main difference is the use of lawyers and money rather than soldiers and steel... though under the Holy Roman Empire, the germanies were often like that too...
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re:
fortunately, for most folks, after a while you stop running into things you aren't familiar with and it becomes somewhat less addictive and instead simply becomes a useful and interesting resource.
On the post: Get Ready For The Political Fight Against Encryption
Re:
On the post: Epic Win/Fail: Bullied Bus Monitor Sparks Overwhelming Support, But Also Death Threats To Kids
Re: Re: Re: Out of Control
On the post: Epic Win/Fail: Bullied Bus Monitor Sparks Overwhelming Support, But Also Death Threats To Kids
Re: Re: Re: Out of Control
i would expect their job to be to tell the bus driver to stop and to report such actions to the police so the schools/bus company can disclaim all responsibility for such actions.
basically discourage the behavior by increasing the odds of being caught, but that's about it.
On the post: Epic Win/Fail: Bullied Bus Monitor Sparks Overwhelming Support, But Also Death Threats To Kids
Re: Re: Re: Out of Control
large parts of their 'job description' are the same, and as the kid becomes an adult they get closer, but they are NOT the same thing.
a friend is not an authority (except, perhaps, incidentally, due to other roles). a parent is.
there's more to it than that, of course, but that's the basic difference.
On the post: Epic Win/Fail: Bullied Bus Monitor Sparks Overwhelming Support, But Also Death Threats To Kids
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Excellent point
i like and respect my mother. we get along pretty well.
my father, on the other hand, would respond in an overly emotional manner, often accusing me of infractions which did not take place, getting into rants and screaming at me over perceived disrespect when i tried to point out such errors, making unreasonable demands of me given my age and health, assigning arbitrary punishments for non-specific lengths of time (all such punishments ended when he forgot about them, basically)...
which eventually pushed me to the point where, lacking other options, i lashed out and attacked him. (doing no damage or anything. i was still a kid) which lead to him ranting on about calling the police, which he never did.
now, a while after, my parents split up. events transpired such that i eventually went to live with my mum full time.
i'm 25 now. these days my dad and i get on reasonably well most of the time. (he's a lot happier and less paranoid these days, which helps, he has no authority over me anymore, which helps a Lot, and we don't live in the same house, which also helps.) ... but i still don't really respect him that much, if at all, beyond the basic respect i show all human beings as individuals when they're not actively causing me grief.
make what you will of that. I conclude that being reasonable and just is a hell of a lot more important (and by definition non-abusive) than not being physical.
On the post: Epic Win/Fail: Bullied Bus Monitor Sparks Overwhelming Support, But Also Death Threats To Kids
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Excellent point
i understand why corporal punishment was removed. far too many people with the above issue thinking the former was the later getting into a position to act on it.
but the moralistic IDIOTS who keep assuming the latter is the former obviously managed to avoid the ENTIRE BLOODY HISTORY OF THE HUMAN RACE where there is MOUNTAINS of evidence that this is untrue.
the simple fact is that it requires balance. such punishments should not be the first recourse, there must be rules and a process. it must be known ahead of time what actions will lead to such punishment. such punishment must be used Every time it is warranted by such rules and process and Never when it is not, and such punishment must be neither excessive given the actions taken, nor so weak as to be irrelevant.
i'm going to be honest: the public shaming and persecution by undisciplined students and ignorant staff unwilling to check allegations and quite willing to punish victims, not for fighting back, but for even Being there to be attacked, or for missing school due to illness when said staff are unwilling to provide materials to allow learning to continue in the mean time that I experienced are, generally speaking, FAR more damaging to a kid's well being than the strap, properly employed, ever was.
and children go through rebellious streaks Anyway, if their personality is so inclined, 'whipped' or not.
as for 'and abuse their parents in turn' that may be true in some cases. probably cases where actual abuse took place. it's also true in cases where no such punishment was used At All. correlation at best. again, you are conflating physical consequences with abuse, By Default, which is in error.
(and no, such punishments are no longer legal here. hell, the legislation that made that change recently was a prime example of such confusion, to the point where Pulling a kid out of the way of an Oncoming Truck as classified as abuse and, when this was pointed out, the morons pushing for the law said it was up to the police to decide whether to prosecute or not. even if physical punishment is not involved, That is a system with arbritary and unreliable enforcement and punishments all out of proportion to the so called 'crime', leading to it generally being ignored. it doesn't help prevent child abuse, which there were already laws against and which those who were prone to abusing children were already ignoring. it just makes good parents criminals as well.)
On the post: Epic Win/Fail: Bullied Bus Monitor Sparks Overwhelming Support, But Also Death Threats To Kids
Re: Re: Re: Re:
now, Some of the issue here is that there is a strong undercurrent in the society of large parts of the anglo-sphere (at least) that expressing such empathy is a sign of weakness, and Because of that it undermines the father's position as an authority. were that not the case it would be less of an issue.
but again, the problem is not that the father feels empathy for the woman and finds the whole thing upsetting. it is that his response When Dealing With the Kid about it, is to break down crying. to the sort of people who would do this thing in the first place, who are undoubtedly bullies, that is a Weakness. which undermines the parent's capacity as an authority figure to enforce, or even encourage, behavioral change.
(this is one of several reasons, incidentally, that the old apprenticeship systems back a century or two used to work so well for society as a whole, as well as passing on skills and such. it placed that primary authority with the aprentice's master. the emotional attachments were quite different, and thus so were the reactions. kids (boys at least) that age tend to be far more inclined to listen to someone who has authority over them for an actual Reason, as they see it (the one teaching them the skills they need to earn a living, in this case) than to their parents, who they are largely trying to find an identity independent of, for one.)
blah. hopefully my point is intelligible, i'm not good at explaining this stuff at the best of times. (and this is not the best of times for me.)
On the post: Google's Latest Transparency Report Shows Increased Censorship From Governments Not Normally Known For Censorship
Re:
also possibly jurisdictional issues. the US is not the only government to completely fail to understand the concept of Borders when it comes to law enforcement as it relates to the internet, but it's certainly the worst. (which is even more amusing when you realise that US companies are some of the worst offenders when it comes to region-locking stuff on the internet...)
On the post: Monsanto May Be Forced To Repay Brazilian GM Soybean Royalties Worth Billions Of Dollars
Re: Roundup Ready
sound's like they'd happily blame and charge you if they noticed it first, after all.
On the post: Leaked TPP Proposal Reveals That US Wants To Give Multinational Companies Tremendous Power
Re: Re: Re: Re:
because every other 'small government' argument i've ever seen is actually 'pro control by the corporations', though usually due to ignorance rather than malice.
way i figure it, if you need more than 200 representatives to properly represent your people, you're too damn big.
if your representatives spend more time traveling or in your capital than they do in reach of their electors, well, you may not be too big, but you have a problem and size may be contributing.
so....
yeah, not so much 'small government' as 'small nation', really.
On the post: Washington State Tries To Criminalize Service Providers For User Behavior; Internet Archive Sues
Re: Internet for Dummies
On the post: Washington State Tries To Criminalize Service Providers For User Behavior; Internet Archive Sues
Re: Re: Re: Re:
fire...
*shifty eyes, carefully nudges cannon out of sight*
On the post: Slovak Collecting Society Sends Village Invoice For Singing Folk Song About Itself
Re: Re:
further more, the people they label as 'pirates' are a lot closer to smugglers, if one really must make a comparison to old-timey nautical shenanigans.
On the post: New Zealand's High Court Steps Into Extradition Fight Over Kim Dotcom
Re: A quick fix, and a great way to seriously stymie the USG...
let's just say, combined with the asset sales, the curren't government's odds of staying in power are pathetic.
that said, given who's in it, the asset sales make sense in light of that... they try to run the country like a corporation, and their leadership is known for being of the mindset that 'asset stripping things then selling the failing husk on is totally legit business' and the like... guess that would explain the asset sales...
added bonus: they're putting serious effort into breaking the school and social welfare systems too. (the social welfare system has issues that are basically unfixable without a fundamental shift in how the government views the economy and economics as a whole, however. and just tossing it entirely would probably collapse the government far more easily than the so called 'constitutional crises' which would supposedly happen should the GG actually do their job...)
On the post: New Zealand's High Court Steps Into Extradition Fight Over Kim Dotcom
Re: Re:
as has been pointed out quite often, the current administration has a majority in parliament (just, barely, squeeked it.), but it has no mandate.
(meanwhile it's pushing HARD for the one thing even it's Own Supporters hated... the PM keeps trying to claim that people voted for it knowing they were going to do the asset sales thing, he won the election, thus they have a mandate to do it. missing that even their own supporters were against That part of their plan, even when otherwise supporting them and considering all other parties to be much worse. a 50%+1 (or maybe 2) majority does not a mandate make when a record 1/4th of the electorate DID NOT VOTE, you got TIES in some electorates, came close enough in others that it had to be disputed in court or whatever due to error margins, and even the people who supported you are speaking out against what you're claiming to have a mandate to do! meanwhile, the whole mega-upload thing is bleeding national of the saner portion of it's voter base (the ones who actually think) due to all sorts of different parts of it's handling. the only people who actually Support the government/US on this are the sort of rabid crazies who think ANYTHING that isn't going exactly how their perfect party wants is due to 'whinging and ignorance' on the part of some nebulous 'left'... never mind that their so called 'left' makes up closer to 3/4ths of the electorate and parliament than 1/2 when nothing suspect happens with the elections and economically only has 'National and ACT need to stop being idiots and trying to copy the Failed US model' in common. )
gah. rant got away from me again. i'm not good at staying on topic at all, am i?
On the post: New Zealand's High Court Steps Into Extradition Fight Over Kim Dotcom
Re: Re: Re:
'course, under the previous government odds are good this never would have got off the ground. oh, they were willing enough to bend over for the US government in terms of it's Goals... but methods? nope. play by the rules or not at all. (not that they wouldn't shamelessly take advantage of the rules, but every step along the way would be legit.)
*no, the public did NOT approve. it was yet another 'sneak it through without warning and only tell anyone about it after the fact' law change. a chronic problem here that will not end until we actually get a governor willing to do their damn job. not that there's any hope of That. (seriously, as constitutional monarchies go, NZ's actually set up to be quite absolutist in a lot of ways... and then the monarch doesn't rule directly, but appoints a governor, and then the governor abdicates almost all responsibility to parliament... leaving parliament with those absolute powers WITHOUT a counter-balancing power to keep it in line...)
On the post: Former Federal Judge Calls US Prosecution Of Megaupload 'Really Outrageous'
Re:
now if only the banking system it weren't based on the blatant LIE of lending out money they don't actually have...
Next >>