By consent, here I mean the consenting of individuals to live in a society. Namely their consenting to offer up some of their liberties and power to a centralised government in return for a perceived increase in security and order.
However, my point is also linked to the 'age of consent' in the more ubiquitous sense; as that age at which one is legally allowed to engage in sexual activity.
But first let's make a distinction between two theories of how a people give consent to their rulers... the distinction between explicit and tacit consent.
Explicit consent is the everyday conceptualisation of consent, when someone has a clear choice and chooses to allow a particular course of action. For example, I explicitly consented to allow someone to go ahead of me in the supermarket queue this morning.
Tacit consent is in actuality the more pervasive form of consent, and refers to when someone upholds a norm or convention merely by failing to oppose it. For example I tacitly consent to being governed by Her Majesty because I haven't (yet) taken up arms against her/ left the country.
And this is where the recent case of Megan Stammers comes in...
One of the key arguments made by Locke is that the legitimacy of a Government rests upon the people giving their consent to be ruled. He postulates that this can come in the form of tacit consent, but only if there is the feasible potential ability of any individual to withdraw their consent... Without such a measure then the government becomes a totalitarian dictatorship as there is no alternative offered...
He argues that the two methods of withdrawing one's tacit consent are to a) express explicit discontent by overthrowing the government, whether by ballot or bullet, or b) leaving the jurisdiction of said government...
This is exactly what Megan Stammers and Jeremy Forrest did. They were born into the subjection of a government over which they had no part in creating or shaping and they therefore chose to withdraw their consent due to their inability to live under the laws created by that government. Explicitly they took issue with the law defining the 'age of consent' and therefore emigrated to France where they expected to live under a law more preferable to themselves.
Now this is exactly how Locke says tacit consent should work. If one doesn't like a law they should work to repeal it, or leave its jurisdiction. They ought not be held accountable under that law if they do not recognise its authority and are actively seeking to leave the society that it governs. Any attempt by the British government to prosecute either of them under the law they reject is simply demonstrating that the theory of 'tacit consent' is a lie, and proving that this government is unlimited, unaccountable and illegitimate... a terrifying prospect...
Wednesday 17 October 2012
Tuesday 16 October 2012
Jubilee... Celebrations?
It is a fundamental rule of a liberal society that men are judged on actions, effort and talent, rather than immutable unerring characteristics of themselves. For instance, factors that men cannot change, such as race, gender, skin colour, sexuality, ought have no reflection on their capacity to succeed, achieve their potential or fulfill their ambitions.
In this vein, the additional condition of family and nepotism ought to be irrelevant to one's success/ finances/ popularity. In essence, one should get out of life what one puts in.
Therefore, with these sentiments in mind, I am perplexed as to the incessant mania surrounding the Royal Family and their progeny. In fact, I am inclined to believe that this is the one area in which the French (and I rarely credit them with anything) are more socially advanced than we poor savages on our lonely Isle.
The Royal Family and their inherited inequities embody the rot that is thriving in the latest British generation. Tens of thousands of school-age children growing up with the notion that they can get something for nothing, that wealth is the be all and end all of success. These ideas are evidenced by the October Riots and are often blamed by analysts upon the influx of American celebrity culture such as The Hills and Jersey Shore. Shows which have become so popular that British versions have been commissioned with such orange idiots as Joey Essex and Amy Childs to flog the ever-increasingly desperate aspirations of glamour.
However, these 'celebrities' are mere extensions of an acceded culture, one that has existed ever since the first savages were subjected to the will of another. Namely that of royalty, a world where wealth is derived from parentage, where not a drop of sweat need be shed, where everything is on a plate from birth. And the worst of it is that such conditions are revered, they are aspired to, people look at the monarchy and dream of that lifestyle, they look at Kate Middleton and see a role model, someone to show the kids and say 'that could be you some day'...
Well, I conjecture that Kate Middleton is little more than a prostitute; famous and wealthy merely for sleeping (yes, and loving and marrying - I didn't say she wished to be a prostitute) with someone famous and wealthy. She has done nothing of note with her own talents and toil to merit being a role model, and therefore to revere her and her ilk is to merely pass along the message that one can succeed without working. And that is why the inherent inherited inequality of the Royal Family must be abolished if Britain is to achieve its productivity potential...
In this vein, the additional condition of family and nepotism ought to be irrelevant to one's success/ finances/ popularity. In essence, one should get out of life what one puts in.
Therefore, with these sentiments in mind, I am perplexed as to the incessant mania surrounding the Royal Family and their progeny. In fact, I am inclined to believe that this is the one area in which the French (and I rarely credit them with anything) are more socially advanced than we poor savages on our lonely Isle.
The Royal Family and their inherited inequities embody the rot that is thriving in the latest British generation. Tens of thousands of school-age children growing up with the notion that they can get something for nothing, that wealth is the be all and end all of success. These ideas are evidenced by the October Riots and are often blamed by analysts upon the influx of American celebrity culture such as The Hills and Jersey Shore. Shows which have become so popular that British versions have been commissioned with such orange idiots as Joey Essex and Amy Childs to flog the ever-increasingly desperate aspirations of glamour.
However, these 'celebrities' are mere extensions of an acceded culture, one that has existed ever since the first savages were subjected to the will of another. Namely that of royalty, a world where wealth is derived from parentage, where not a drop of sweat need be shed, where everything is on a plate from birth. And the worst of it is that such conditions are revered, they are aspired to, people look at the monarchy and dream of that lifestyle, they look at Kate Middleton and see a role model, someone to show the kids and say 'that could be you some day'...
Well, I conjecture that Kate Middleton is little more than a prostitute; famous and wealthy merely for sleeping (yes, and loving and marrying - I didn't say she wished to be a prostitute) with someone famous and wealthy. She has done nothing of note with her own talents and toil to merit being a role model, and therefore to revere her and her ilk is to merely pass along the message that one can succeed without working. And that is why the inherent inherited inequality of the Royal Family must be abolished if Britain is to achieve its productivity potential...
The Politics of Religion
Here's an interesting study from Demos (a British thinktank) looking at the correlation between religion and political persuasion...
http://www.demos.co.uk/publications/faithfulcitizens
It concludes that (1) "religious people are more active citizens (who) volunteer more, (and) donate more to charity" and (2) "religious people are more likely to be politically progressive (people who) put a greater value on equality than the non-religious."
This is surprising; religion has long suffered under the stigma of conservatism, the illegitimate authority of religious bodies being exampled as dogmatic, restrictive and stifling of free thought or action. However these conclusions seem to refute such a perception. Conclusion (1) indicates a tendency towards welfare more akin with left-wing socialism, whereas Conclusion (2) creates a image of liberal progressiveness, tolerance and idealism.
Upon reflection, it is not hard to see how Conclusion (1) is supported by scripture and the general attitudes of society. Most Labour PMs have identified themselves as Christian (this is not insinuating that Conservatives have not) and the most Christian constituent nation of the UK (Scotland), is also the most Labour-supporting. Teachings of most religious organisations include instructions to be charitable, such as the zakah of Islam and Christ blessing 'he who considers the poor'. And let's not forget that in all stages of socialism but the final there is the necessity for a strong leadership to dictate wealth redistribution and plan the economy. Therefore it does not seem a monumental absurdity to reconcile socialism with Christianity.
However, with Conclusion (2), I struggle to find the liberal values of equality for all, intellectual emancipation and liberty from authority in any form of religious pursuit. The condemnation of homosexual and female equality by the vast majority of religious doctrines are yet more examples of intolerance on the part of the monotheistic ideologies and those who purport to interpret their holy texts.
This struggle to understand how such bigotry could be labelled liberal precipitated my desire to look closer at the methodology behind Demos' report... and surprise, surprise, I unearthed some horrendous discrepancies. Essentially they asked a multiple choice question with 4 options to answer (p58) but then lumped those respondents who chose either Option 2 or Option 3 into the same group (pluralist) to analyse the results, thereby reducing four categories to three to interpret. They consequently feigned surprise that pluralists returned most results, evidently hoping that the readership would overlook their blatant search for such a skew. This bias is why they produced the correlation that they did, as the pluralist group is undoubtedly both liberal AND religious, and therefore raises several questions concerning the actualities of their claimed independence and even their fitness to practice.
God, I love it when my gut feeling is validated...
This struggle to understand how such bigotry could be labelled liberal precipitated my desire to look closer at the methodology behind Demos' report... and surprise, surprise, I unearthed some horrendous discrepancies. Essentially they asked a multiple choice question with 4 options to answer (p58) but then lumped those respondents who chose either Option 2 or Option 3 into the same group (pluralist) to analyse the results, thereby reducing four categories to three to interpret. They consequently feigned surprise that pluralists returned most results, evidently hoping that the readership would overlook their blatant search for such a skew. This bias is why they produced the correlation that they did, as the pluralist group is undoubtedly both liberal AND religious, and therefore raises several questions concerning the actualities of their claimed independence and even their fitness to practice.
God, I love it when my gut feeling is validated...
Monday 12 March 2012
No-one has ever 'HAD' to kill...
So, this is a little off-topic. Well, I just mean I'm bringing it forward a bit, I would probably have got round to it in the end.
I've just been watching 'SAS: Are You Tough Enough?', a sort-of documentary/ competition to see if civilians can hack it in SAS selection. It's very entertaining and I recommend it, but that's beside the point.
The issue I wish to address here is a small sentence, near the end of the show, from Barry Davies (Ex-SAS WO) in which he says 'Until you've had to kill somebody, errm, it's really very hard to talk about it.'
Now, I don't dispute the main message, that someone who hasn't killed another can not talk about such things with such ease, but I do take umbrage with the insinuation that killing is a necessity, a duty, an unavoidable occurrence.
There is no-one who has ever 'had to kill somebody'; killing has always resulted from a conscious choice and consequential decision, ergo, a desire. Whether it be the decision to pull the trigger, aim at the target, or even just to join the Armed Forces (in the knowledge that you will be forced to make those decisions), there has always been the option to not kill.
Yes, this may mean abstaining from service, firing wide, or even simply not pulling the trigger, but the fact remains that every man killed has been the result of another's intent and desire.
Even when one's rights and freedoms are threatened, the act of killing is a conscientious decision that those rights are worth more than the other man's life. Whether you agree that they are or not, there is no disputing that killing is a choice, one that every soldier must make and live with the consequences.
There is no shifting the buck to someone else and, therefore, Barry Davies ought to choose his words more carefully, in order to avoid appearing casuistic...
I've just been watching 'SAS: Are You Tough Enough?', a sort-of documentary/ competition to see if civilians can hack it in SAS selection. It's very entertaining and I recommend it, but that's beside the point.
The issue I wish to address here is a small sentence, near the end of the show, from Barry Davies (Ex-SAS WO) in which he says 'Until you've had to kill somebody, errm, it's really very hard to talk about it.'
Now, I don't dispute the main message, that someone who hasn't killed another can not talk about such things with such ease, but I do take umbrage with the insinuation that killing is a necessity, a duty, an unavoidable occurrence.
There is no-one who has ever 'had to kill somebody'; killing has always resulted from a conscious choice and consequential decision, ergo, a desire. Whether it be the decision to pull the trigger, aim at the target, or even just to join the Armed Forces (in the knowledge that you will be forced to make those decisions), there has always been the option to not kill.
Yes, this may mean abstaining from service, firing wide, or even simply not pulling the trigger, but the fact remains that every man killed has been the result of another's intent and desire.
Even when one's rights and freedoms are threatened, the act of killing is a conscientious decision that those rights are worth more than the other man's life. Whether you agree that they are or not, there is no disputing that killing is a choice, one that every soldier must make and live with the consequences.
There is no shifting the buck to someone else and, therefore, Barry Davies ought to choose his words more carefully, in order to avoid appearing casuistic...
Theory of Patriarchy – Chapter 1
I’ll delve into the history books later on for a thorough
look at why the world is so male dominant – this post is concerning itself with
why some men are so anti-women, or, for want of a better word, misogynist.
It’s all to do with desire and need. Boys mature seeing
these lovely creatures growing up alongside them, they desire them. They
instinctively desire them, especially the most attractive ones, but they are
taught by their mothers to respect them all. Therefore they are chivalrous,
courteous, helpful and polite. All guys start out like this, sweet and naive. They hold girls their equals.
But then those girls, the ones that are being chased, recognise their own
attractiveness. And the trouble begins...
Automatically the man is at a disadvantage. He is the
chaser, ergo she has the power. She knows she is the commodity, and therefore
the chaser automatically becomes devalued – as they say ‘you want what you can’t
have’, when it’s yours it loses some appeal.
They realise the potency of their looks/ charm, and they
begin to exploit it. Not consciously at first, they just enjoy the attention.
They beautify themselves, they expose more and more skin, they do everything in
their power to increase their erotic capital. They enjoy the attention, even
more so than they realise, to the extent that they will lead guys on who they
aren’t attracted to in the slightest, just to keep up a steady flow. As Samuel
Coleridge said, ‘A man’s desire is for the woman, but a woman’s desire is rarely
other than for the desire of the man’. And to be perfectly honest, I don’t
blame them. The feeling of being valued and chased is a hell of a lot better
than the savagery of fruitless desire.
And so the girl enjoys leading the guy on.
Until he realises she’s not actually interested in him, just
dicking him about.
And this goes on with successive girls.
And he becomes more and more bitter and disillusioned.
And no longer the sweet, chivalrous, naïve guy he was.
Until one day, he
ends up formulating a theory of misogyny and writing something like this.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hmmm, that was a bit intense. And I suppose an entirely
personal experience. As Remy De Gourmont pointed out, ‘Most men who rail at
women are railing at one woman only’. He may be correct but in my case it’s a
good seven or eight…
EDIT - found this link the other day, very well-written, mostly accurate and entirely hilarious. Number's one and two are particularly poignant, I believe.
5 ways modern men are trained to hate women.
EDIT - found this link the other day, very well-written, mostly accurate and entirely hilarious. Number's one and two are particularly poignant, I believe.
5 ways modern men are trained to hate women.
Sunday 4 March 2012
Gay Marriage
Gonna start this one with a pretty shocking revelation... you ready? Here goes...
I LIKE the fact that Cardinal O'Brien, leader of the Catholic Church in Scotland, has condemned gay marriage proposals as a 'grotesque subversion of a universally accepted human right'.
(Full story here http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17249099)
That way, when someone asks why I dislike the Catholic Church, I don't have to delve into my extensive list of papal atrocities, historical barbarisms, scientific repressions, judgements of questionable morality, or divisive actions.
It is a lot easier to point to its outdated, prejudicial, discriminatory, inflammatory, bigoted and homophobic views.
How an organisation can claim moral authority yet discriminate against certain factions of society, based on unchangeable facets of themselves, is unknown to me. How O'Brien can even reference the slave trade (see article) in such a debate, but fail to see how immoral and untenable his position is, is beyond staggering.
A cynic may argue that such statements as his are designed to provoke, that the Church plays (for want of a better phrase) devil's advocate in order to still seem relevant in today's world. They say any media coverage is good media coverage, indeed it has sparked this thread of thought. Therefore, a cynic may conclude that religious leaders do not believe what they are saying, merely that they are expected to say it.
An optimist would hope this is the case, however corrupt it may be, when the alternative is that some members of the human race have progressed no further than believing the tenets of a 2000 year old book.
Which brings me onto my over-arching theme when dealing with religion. Why is it still around? In a world where we are encouraged to think for ourselves, and to pursue intellectual emancipation, why are there those who are happy to be constrained by others and told what/ how to think/ behave? I have my ideas, but you'll have to wait for that. Trust me, it'll be good...
I LIKE the fact that Cardinal O'Brien, leader of the Catholic Church in Scotland, has condemned gay marriage proposals as a 'grotesque subversion of a universally accepted human right'.
(Full story here http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17249099)
That way, when someone asks why I dislike the Catholic Church, I don't have to delve into my extensive list of papal atrocities, historical barbarisms, scientific repressions, judgements of questionable morality, or divisive actions.
It is a lot easier to point to its outdated, prejudicial, discriminatory, inflammatory, bigoted and homophobic views.
How an organisation can claim moral authority yet discriminate against certain factions of society, based on unchangeable facets of themselves, is unknown to me. How O'Brien can even reference the slave trade (see article) in such a debate, but fail to see how immoral and untenable his position is, is beyond staggering.
A cynic may argue that such statements as his are designed to provoke, that the Church plays (for want of a better phrase) devil's advocate in order to still seem relevant in today's world. They say any media coverage is good media coverage, indeed it has sparked this thread of thought. Therefore, a cynic may conclude that religious leaders do not believe what they are saying, merely that they are expected to say it.
An optimist would hope this is the case, however corrupt it may be, when the alternative is that some members of the human race have progressed no further than believing the tenets of a 2000 year old book.
Which brings me onto my over-arching theme when dealing with religion. Why is it still around? In a world where we are encouraged to think for ourselves, and to pursue intellectual emancipation, why are there those who are happy to be constrained by others and told what/ how to think/ behave? I have my ideas, but you'll have to wait for that. Trust me, it'll be good...
Intro
So, first post. Ground-breaking stuff. Well, for me, at least.
I actually created this blog a few days ago, and have since been racking my brains about what to put in it. Do I make it a forum for expressing my rambling thoughts to the world, or do I try and inject some coherency into arguments and stick to a narrow range of topics?
I'd like to believe the first option would be entertaining reading but then, maybe I have got an over-inflated opinion of myself and the contents of my head. Therefore, I have turned towards the second option. I intend to expound, on this page, on my favourite subject... Politics. Or more importantly, the politics that interests me.
To this end, and to get some understanding of what you can expect in the following posts, I would like to briefly list my political likes and dislikes. This will give some idea of the issues I intend to tackle in the future.
Likes - Personal choice, Personal freedoms, Emancipation, Cooperation, Humanism.
Dislikes - Corruption, Religion, Exploitation, Conflict, Nationalism.
Actually, that's pretty wishy-washy. There's no real surprises there. Who doesn't like freedom, who doesn't dislike corruption? That was a waste of time. Maybe it would be better if I just told you some of the things floating around my head that I intend to write up soon. I have split the list into two headings, with the idea that I'll get round to the Current Hot Topics sooner rather than later, before they cool down. The Perpetual Injustice Explanations can take a little longer, as I may get quite controversial and thus will need time to collate evidence and ensure coherency.
Current Hot Topics
Abortion
Gay marriage
Arab Spring
Afghanistan
Iranian Nuclear Power
Perpetual Injustices: My Explanations
Religion (this can be guessed from the blog title)
Patriarchy
Well, that culminates my first post. I'll hopefully get another up soon, most probably about the current Gay Marriage topic in the UK, or Abortion in the US, but I have a lot of work to do in the next two weeks. Hey, maybe I'll stick one or two of my more salient essay points up on here. Who knows?
I actually created this blog a few days ago, and have since been racking my brains about what to put in it. Do I make it a forum for expressing my rambling thoughts to the world, or do I try and inject some coherency into arguments and stick to a narrow range of topics?
I'd like to believe the first option would be entertaining reading but then, maybe I have got an over-inflated opinion of myself and the contents of my head. Therefore, I have turned towards the second option. I intend to expound, on this page, on my favourite subject... Politics. Or more importantly, the politics that interests me.
To this end, and to get some understanding of what you can expect in the following posts, I would like to briefly list my political likes and dislikes. This will give some idea of the issues I intend to tackle in the future.
Likes - Personal choice, Personal freedoms, Emancipation, Cooperation, Humanism.
Dislikes - Corruption, Religion, Exploitation, Conflict, Nationalism.
Actually, that's pretty wishy-washy. There's no real surprises there. Who doesn't like freedom, who doesn't dislike corruption? That was a waste of time. Maybe it would be better if I just told you some of the things floating around my head that I intend to write up soon. I have split the list into two headings, with the idea that I'll get round to the Current Hot Topics sooner rather than later, before they cool down. The Perpetual Injustice Explanations can take a little longer, as I may get quite controversial and thus will need time to collate evidence and ensure coherency.
Current Hot Topics
Abortion
Gay marriage
Arab Spring
Afghanistan
Iranian Nuclear Power
Perpetual Injustices: My Explanations
Religion (this can be guessed from the blog title)
Patriarchy
Well, that culminates my first post. I'll hopefully get another up soon, most probably about the current Gay Marriage topic in the UK, or Abortion in the US, but I have a lot of work to do in the next two weeks. Hey, maybe I'll stick one or two of my more salient essay points up on here. Who knows?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)