Quoi?

Submitted by Sword of Islam & The Babies of Beslan (United Kingdom), Jul 12, 2006 at 18:12

Submitted by Charles Smyth, Jul 11, 2006 at 17:35

The problem with Britain is that the culture is not based on freedom but is based on the philosophy that the authority of government prevails over the individual.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

- What is the alternative to the above? Anarchy? Not a very feasible solution in the best of worlds!

I would suggest that it is more accurate to say that the the 'problem with Britain' is that there is an emphasis on the rights and protection of seemingly every minority that ultimately ends up superceding the rights and protection of the greater population as a whole. It is impossible to have positive discrimination without negatively impacting another group. It's basic physics; well, the only thing I can remember from my physics classes, ie 'every action has an equal and opposite reaction'. It's what makes the universe go round. Parity is the aim but disparity is all we see.

Islam in the UK? Londonistan? There are no hard and fast answers to that question that membership of the UN, or the EU for that matter, wouldn't prohibit!

I believe that the problem is actually quite the reverse of what you say. Too much political emphasis is placed on local politics. Local elections result in campaigns that end up targeting specific social groups. If you have unpopular social groups that 'ghetto-ise' themselves then local politicians will invariably target these groups and adjust their policies to win the votes of these people in that given ward or constituency. This ultimately colours the political agenda of central government. It's the number of 'seats' that determine the government of the day, not the number of votes and therein lies the problem.

The only way to eliminate the tendency to favour minority groups in the UK is to abolish local government and count votes as a national whole rather than constituently. This would wipe out any power that these minority groups have to colour the policies of our Government. I don't believe that this would result in any kind of negative discrimination against worthy groups as the citizens of an affluent democracy tend toward generosity. But it would reduce the power of nationally insignificant, but locally powerful, groups that tend to play with a 'stacked deck'. However, the appropriate checks and balances would need to be in place to reduce the possibility of totalitarianism.

It's not ideal but it's better than the status quo and a far cry from anarchy - which is the last thing we want. Isn't it?

My biggest concern is with the US national debt. Who owns it? Now there's a thought to give you sleepless nights! What happens if the creditors come knocking?

http://www.economyincrisis.org/

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".