On 21/08/13 13:11, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 20/08/13 22:27, Michael Chare wrote:
On 20/08/2013 18:25, David.WE.Roberts wrote:

http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog...fracking-%281%
29.aspx

Don't think it has been posted here before.

No doubt it will be ignored by the greenwash NIMBYs.

Should people who break the law (to the extend of being arrested) in
order to impose their views and therefore demonstrate their contempt
for democracy be allowed to remain members of the House of Commons?

As opposed to the ones there who break the law (but not to the extent of
being arrested) in order to impose their views and therefore demonstrate
their contempt for democracy ?

Are these the eco-fascists we are referring to?

er no. most of the parliamentary benches in fact..

There are good legal arguments for stating that really important things
like the Iraq war decision and indeed the climate change act were in
fact in contravention of the rules laid down for parliamentary
procedure, and in fact that joining the EU was in fact 'ultra vires',
as well.

That makes the governments that pushed them along criminals of one sort
or another, and in te case of various EU treaties renders them
technically null and void.

That's at the major legislation level.

Then we have insider trading. Anyone who buys up cheap properties in the
certain knowledge that relaxing constraints on housing loans will create
a massive boom is guilty of insider trading. Bliar comes to mind.

Likewise those with interests, declared or otherwise, who sponsor
'renewable energy' policies. Half the cabinet seems to have a finger in
that pie...

That is the problem with 'big state' : if more than half the nations GDP
is flowing through government, the money gets spent the way they decide,
to favour themselves and people who sponsor them. You dont get to spend
it the way YOU want.

What choice do most of us have, when it comes to education, or
healthcare. None. There is one monopoly supplier and a few independents
who will cost you far more OVER AND ABOVE the taxes you wont get back
for not using the state supplied ones size forts all non-choice.

What I wonder would your reaction be if there was only one soft drink
you could buy, and you got taxed on the basis you could have it
delivered free. But you would have to pay if you wanted pepsi instead

You would scream corruption, monopoly, and unfair.

But as Miliband informs us 'we just don't GET the way things are done,
in Europe'

And long may it continue to be that way.

--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.