For some background context, the UK has a very powerful bureaucratic state. Its own media service, its own civil service (which in turn deals with the conduct of everything from education to healthcare), and what may be the most extensive security apparatus in the world, second only to the USA. All of this sounds intimidating, and it is only tolerable because it is with the consent of the citizenry, who otherwise can't be bothered - the government runs smoothly and does its job (to whatever degree of competency is continually debated). For example the police are the citizenry, with the philosophy being that the police are citizens in uniform and so you get stuff where as the civilian populace is disarmed, neither do the police carry weapons.
This shit really ramped up during WWII wherein the government drastically ramped up their bureaucratic control and regulation of people, from rationing to passports and building architecture for council housing, and they never really gave up the powers they assumed. I would like to adopt a more libertarian view on things, but will for the foreseeable future remain convinced that there's not much point.
The three main ones would be in order:
*Usage of violence against the state. Very much against it. There's the cultural aspect where from the distant past, wherein to this day we celebrate the execution of terrorists who tried blowing up parliament 400 years ago, to the Northern Ireland conflict which has only somewhat ended to Islamist terrorists, the last foiled plot of which was just 2 days ago e.t.c., very, very much against people who take violence against the state, there's nothing good that comes out of assassinating policemen, gunning down innocent people or bombing bureaucrats and marketplaces. The failure to act in such circumstances causes the suspension of rule of law, which is when things get increasingly ugly, and if those in that vacuum of civic law do not form a stable hierarchy of their own - things will get incredibly shite. I would any day of the weak prefer a stable, authoritarian bureaucracy, even one that goes against my wishes, to a continuous unstable state of insurgency which causes the suspension of law.
*Drugs and the legality of it. Very much against it, and I also envisage this question as being part of a larger ethical issue: Does the state have any role or right to influence the lifestyles of the citizens which comprise it? I answer that with yes.
*People left to their own devices have a habit of indulging until their habits become inseparable from their lifestyle, which then incurs costs on the state healthcare and security systems, which is to say nothing of themselves - I do not believe you can have a free society when people are allowed to become slaves to their vices - nothing more dangerous in a capitalistic society than the option to transact your way into pleasure without regard for everyone else. Without the state intervening to artificially raise the price on sugar, alcohol, tobacco and so on to name a few recent policies, people do not reduce and they certainly do not kick up old habits themselves. Without state intervention, whether the ill practices of parents are passed down to kids is a significant question.
A hilarious one, but one in which the state is uniquely positioned to be able to alter a practice over the series of generations and to act in a manner that is controversial or unpopular - looking at Russia's decision to ban smoking for those born after a certain year as the most obvious case, but it's the more mundane things like the ending of drink driving and simultaneous reduction in unhealthy habits and promotion of healthy ones that are the keystone. Though I must say, while my sentiments are entirely one way, I diverge on what makes effective policy from what is current policy.
*On issues like mass surveillance, mass data retention and meda-data screening, I am zealously in favour of individual liberty and anonymity, however the mass of public opinion is widely in favour of it, they engage with such systems as willing participants everyday and so do not see any sacrifice made in the name of safety. Thus out of pragmatism I strongly agree that the security apparatus of the state is vital in combating terrorism, because it is useful in revealing plots and tracking fighters, and the time is not yet right that society is willing or desiring a rollback. It could potentially even be a century before rollback is possible... So, I figure it is better to ensure the system runs as transparent and efficient as possible, than to pointlessly get in the way of such a process.
Poll
16 (32%)
Author
Topic: Shit, let's be Off-Compass Meme Poll Meme (Read 438442 times)