Thursday, February 24, 2011

TWOP - a dissection

Well David you asked me to have a look at the TWOP so it's your own fault ;-)

I'll work my way through each heading starting with Home:

TWOP believes that anyone paying any form of tax in Britain is paying for government.
Yep I'll agree with that
Therefore, in a capitalist society where you have a right to do what you want with what you pay for, the government should be an executive body without the power to set policy.
Hmm yes, the argument against is that the people do set policy by appointing/electing people/Parties that state what they'd do. Of course that has shown its flaws in that they'll say one thing then do another and it's not as if we can get rid of them very easily should they do this.  Do we need to go the whole hog and remove policy decision from them entirely? This is something I've been thinking about and I'll publish my thoughts another time.

What's TWOP? A bit of rhetoric but the meat lies in the listing of some of its features:

i) All government decisions will be made online, by calm and sensible discussion
I was with you all the way up to the end - have you seen forums? We'd start off with a topic such as "Reduce dependency on foreign oil" and the first response will be "First!" followed by "Damn you beat me to it" then "'First' how gay", "No you is ta GAY!" and degenerates from there. Either that or it'll turn into a discussion on Quantum Physics.
ii) Businesses will have the vote just like other taxpayers
Again that seems logical after all it is businesses that really do things in this country; but how will that work? If I'm the sole owner of two businesses do I get three votes; how many people will list themselves as self-employed working as contractors so as to get two votes. It's fraught with problems.

iii) Mass media will be banned from influencing public opinion
Which means we won't have any mass media. Even confining themselves to celebrity tattle will be an influence - "We should all be as thin as Cheryl Cole!", "Ban Salt!"

The New British Way! Good at least not the New English Way.
We are known as a nation of shopkeepers; that phrase always uttered with a faint sneer of derision.
Which is odd as it was written by Adam Smith (he of the £20 note) as part of an empire-building remark, being a nation of shopkeepers in this regard is a good thing. We also get the repetitious "We are known" by whom exactly?
our every word and action subject to Health and Safety regulations
Which ties to point (iii) above as well as the supposed (point iii again) incoming American tendency to sue at the least provocation. So many of the stories of the Elf'n'safety have little or nothing to do with the HSE and come off the back of people reading and believing the media stories.
We dwell like woodlice in the dark, damp places, corralled into orderly swarms by the stormtroopers of Political Correctness.
Yet groups such as the EDL and the BNP exist, these stormtroopers aren't doing a very good job. To look at the contrast examine current unrest in those countries that really do clamp down on things.

We'll never get to the stars with that attitude
I agree I really do. One of the overarching goals of the entire Earth should be to get off it; I'm serious. As it stands we've all got our eggs in one basket. To ensure the long term survival of our species (and those we bring with us) we have to get off this planet and start spreading.
The New British Way, also known as The Attitude, is the deliberate fight against any point of view and any type of behaviour that acts against individualism.
Ah problem
The Attitude is not a license to behave any way you want to.
Problem solved, by contradiction? You can express your individualism in any way you like so long as you don't affect anyone else's individualism. I've tried to express the problem before by hypothesising about a company that poisons a town's water supply during its manufacturing processing. Hey no-one is making you drink that water, no-one is making you stay in that town; that's all your decision.

The typical Brit will be like Cal Lightman;[...]
Please don't be a link to Fox, please don't be a link to Fox...  oh.
[...]irreverent, cocky, unpredictable, irrepressible, and absolutely, one-hundred-percent confident in himself.
Britain no longer a nation of shopkeepers,but a nation of tosspots instead. The trouble with that attitude (or is it Attitude) is that it really only works when you're right. I don't really want to bring this up but... George Bush. Hmm okay in theory if we're all like that we won't get swayed into doing things by someone else, but that would contradict point (i). If I'm one-hundred-percent confident in myself and so is the person I'm debating against neither of us are going to shift from our positions. So policy will be enacted as being - that which the majority already agree with; in which case I refer to my original point about only working when you're right.

Contrary to what officials, pimps and other criminals think, 'respect' has nothing to do with fear.
Oo did you see the "other" there and its implications? Odd to include officials there as everything I've heard coming out of their mouths backs up the view here: respect ≠ fear.
Respect means dealing with other people as if they matter; as if their views are as important as yours.
But they're not! Okay sorry I jest... but only a little. This attitude leads us to the teaching of Creationism, Global warming sceptics etc. who think that their non-scientific, untrained views are as important (or most often relevant) as those espoused by people being backed up with evidence.
Even if you think they're wrong, it means listening to them, talking calmly to them, seeking to resolve a situation by discussion rather than by shouting, threats, or violence.
Well yes no need to use threats or violence, and as I've made by position clear from a discussion about WFBNP it's better to try and show them why they're wrong than just telling them they're wrong. But again this contradicts our notion of debate with a 100% confident person.
That's why future decisions on government policy must be made online. Even with 'emoticons', it is hard to get worked up in an online debate,
Wow you really haven't seen some forums.
Trust and respect go hand-in-hand.
Not quite someone can be respected for making a killing on the market, but you wouldn't necessarily trust them to baby-sit "Do you know how much babies can be sold for!"
To trust is to give up control - to grant the freedom to make mistakes.
But why would I, a 100% confident individual, ever need to do that?
It's me. It's you. It's ego
It's me referring to untrained people again. Right simple terms - the Ego (in Freudian terms) is the mediator between the Id and Reality; what one might expect in the Trinity (Id, Ego SuperEgo) is Id "I want" Ego "Yes/No you can/can't do that" and SuperEgo "But you shouldn't". However the Ego is biased towards the Id so it becomes "I want" - "How do I do/get it". The Ego is a rationalising tool.

For those with a 'poor' Ego it's difficult to rationalise the desires of the Id ("I want" - "You can't have") conversely those with a 'over' Ego can get to rationalise things ("I want" - "Sure because it's a Tuesday") with the SuperEgo only stepping in, if we're lucky, when it's along the lines of "I want to kill him" - "Well they are annoying" - "Uh no"
Before you can respect anyone else, you must respect yourself. Before you can trust anyone else, you must trust yourself, your own judgment, the likelihood that, in any new or unexpected situation, you will get it right rather than getting it wrong. Without this faith in yourself, you cannot change the world; you cannot do anything.
Tie that to my previous paragraph and you can see I agree. Innovation comes from the interaction of "I want" and "How do I get it". However point back to the 100% confident and that equates to a 'over' Ego. So as an example "I want all the money" rationalises to "Taxing the rich hurts the country" I'm not saying the rationale is wrong, just be aware of where it comes from.

In order to respect yourself, in order to trust yourself, you need to be doing things that give rise to respect and to trust. Do you face up to your problems bravely, or hide from them and pretend they don't exist, like a coward?
Yep in no way biasing the question there.
What applies to others must apply to us. What applies to us can be applied to others.
Except doesn't that contradict Individualism? I'm not like everyone else, you're not like me. I'm not implying I'm better, merely different.

Build a True Democracy. As I've mentioned elsewhere do a search for Demarchy (again a term so well known it doesn't feature in the Firefox dictionary)
There are three things we need to do: advertise, recruit, and train
Just like the army
All this takes money. 
Which would be the fourth thing.

Facebook - founded in 2008 4 people like. "There are no discussions"

The TWOP Blog. Which doesn't link back to the TWOP forum by the way. That would take a lot more work to examine.

Okay some interesting points that need work and further explanation to iron out the kinks, certainly not so bad as some sites I've seen.


David George said...

Dear Ranter,

You are a coward; what a shame. If you weren't, you'd have the guts to talk to me directly.

I've seen plenty of online forums; most of them seem to be unmoderated. Given that the TWOP one will be the source of all decisions regarding the way Britain is governed, I think moderating it will be completely necessary.

Certainly there are details of True Democracy that need working out. What new system is perfect?

The point you really seem to have missed is this: the taxpayers in Great Britain are paying for government. It is therefore, to my mind, not a question of whether the taxpayers should be allowed to vote on any subject - they are paying for the right to do so!

You do seem to take great pleasure taking our ideas apart, but this, I'm afraid, convinces me even more of your cowardice and ultimate uselessness to the revolution. You may well see the problems we have in this country today, but you have no intention of lifting a finger to do anything about them. You are one of the little people in hiding. A pity. I had some hope for you.

FlipC said...

Dear David,

And where could I have responded, to one of your own blog postings? But my points were generic rather than specific. To your email address directly? But that contradicts your own points about online debate.

To address your point about online forums; those that are obscure need little moderation; those that aren't will have a tendency to fall victim to the flaws I've mentioned. As your proposal is expected to be a high-traffic public arena I agree that moderation will be required.

But who will do the moderation and what rules will be implemented? How does this 'censorship' align with your points about individualism?

Have I missed the point? Note I repeat the very point you make and follow it with "I'll agree with that". Too many 'vision statements' don't get backed up with implementation details they simply sit at the "wouldn't it be nice if everyone was nice" phase; you've tried to back yours up and I respect that. I've just identified what I think are some flaws in your assumptions.

Do I take pleasure in taking your ideas apart? Yes, yes I do. I'm good at it and I take pleasure in doing what I'm good at.

What I take greater pleasure in though is when I have performed one of these dissections is the person coming back to me with recommendations as to how they'd fix these flaws or even rebuttals that my points are even valid. That's called debate, one of the mainstays of your platform; perhaps you'd like to engage in some?

As to my usefulness to the "revolution" oh yes I'd expect I'd be the first up against the wall (metaphorical or otherwise) it's rare for naysmiths to be tolerated in any regime.

As for lifting a finger to help... I produce ideas and thoughts which are tagged here. Do I go out with a loudspeaker to harangue the people; do I lower myself to enter the current debacle that is the political situation? No on both accounts - do you?

David George said...

Please do not misunderstand me. Your dissection is very welcome; the usual reaction I get is rather the army officer who, when shown some of Spike Milligan's early writing, said, "Very good", while moving in the general direction of away.
I do have recommendations for the flaws you mention, which I will come back to you with as soon as I can. I am currently working on a rebuild of the whole TWOP site; I have known for some time that it needed doing, and your comments have prompted me to finally get on with the work - and there's a lot of work.
'Naysmith' is an interesting word, not one I've come across before. And there won't be any wall for anyone to be up against. Our revolution exists to free the people of Great Britain; that includes those who oppose us. As far as I'm concerned, you don't oppose us; you're simply not working with us yet.
One final point here - producing ideas and thoughts is all very well; I've produced a fair few myself. Without action, they are worth nothing. Do you produce these ideas so that you can sneer at the world, or do you want to change it? If change is what you want, we are what you want. Yes, we want your ideas - they have already helped. But money is the root of everything. If nothing else, please sign up for easyfundraising with us and help us raise more. Then we can turn ideas into action; then we can make it a world worth living in.

FlipC said...

Yet your initial reply seemed rather hostile?

Despite that I'm glad that you can respond to my criticism and I look forward to your arguments.

"Naysmith", yes it's a rather old word; I'm not even sure it made it into Modern English. Monarchs used to employ them to pick out the flaws in any plans presented and were highly sought-after. It's easy to say "That won't work"; much harder to say "This is why it won't work".

Thoughts without action are worth nothing? I think Plato and Aristotle et al would disagree. Do I produce them just to "sneer at the world"? I hope not. In that respect I hope my willingness to engage in debate and admit fault confirms that.

In terms of doing something. To use an analogy I'm the guy who thinks up and communicates the various plays in an American Football team; you wouldn't expect me to go out on the field and put them into practice; I'm aware of my limitations.

Fund-raising... [sigh]. In theory a good idea doesn't need promoting; in practice I agree with you. Yet as it stands although I agree with the main objectives as I've said there are certain underlying concepts that trouble me; the arguments you've to present may change that.

As an aside saying 'we value your ideas please join us' is good; saying 'we value your ideas please give us money to spread them' just trips various mental alarms :-)