Each of those being an erosion of freedom is greatly debatable, which this is not the topic for (and I have no idea what your last one even means, it is being given in such emotive, semantically empty terms). All I['ll say, though, is that your idea that as Bill of Rights would somehow make none of that possible... is simply incorrect. The actual amount of difference it would make is zero.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Each of those being an erosion of freedom is greatly debatable, which this is not the topic for (and I have no idea what your last one even means, it is being given in such emotive, semantically empty terms). All I['ll say, though, is that your idea that as Bill of Rights would somehow make none of that possible... is simply incorrect. The actual amount of difference it would make is zero.
Well we haven't got a Bill of rights so we don't know if it would make a difference.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Whilst that is true, I don't think that's a helpful observation.Well, I am glad the crowds are now (ineffectually) smashing windows of government buildings in the name of democracy.
It's always been the way violent dissent against the eddifice of power. In this case the treasury, it's wonderful symbolism in my opinion.
I would disagree over the helpfulness of my observation, i've never felt it's wrong to long for what you don't have. Especially if it should be a fundemental right.
It wasn't helpful because it was such useless conjecture. I could just say back that a Bill of Rights would make things much worse, and silence your protests by saying "Well, you cannot say it would not be worse as we haven't had one." Any argument on the subject has to be based on what logical facts we can bring to bear; that something has not been tried yet is in no way at all a reason to try it. You have to justify it for other reasons.
My opinion of you being happy at them smashing things up I think is already clear.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
It wasn't helpful because it was such useless conjecture. I could just say back that a Bill of Rights would make things much worse, and silence your protests by saying "Well, you cannot say it would not be worse as we haven't had one." Any argument on the subject has to be based on what logical facts we can bring to bear; that something has not been tried yet is in no way at all a reason to try it. You have to justify it for other reasons.My opinion of you being happy at them smashing things up I think is already clear.
It wouldn't silence anything it would just create a circular argument which is what we have.
I have always enjoyed the spectacle of just civil disorder... I was in Market sqaure Nottingham 20 years ago and I particularly enjoyed throwing things at the NF in Bexley in 85.... It's a right of passage for a generation in my opinion.