More World Troubles Than 'Normal'?

[Outrider]

Dear Outrider,

I was thinking more about scrapping cars all together, claim back our roads for walkers and because I like cycling, more cycle paths.

I am not a fan of buses but if I could travel to work by train

Gonnagle.

Unfortunately, given the population levels in the developed world, our society is built around the personal mobility that cars have given. It's not commercially viable to operate trains out of a town as small as the one I live in, and it's not possible for me to do my job without travelling extensively to all the clients I work with, which is far beyond anyone's capacity to cycle around

The immediate impact of the internal combusion engine can be mitigated, the cultural impact of the personal mobility and freedom that the car brings - I think it would be a shame to lose that, but I do think that more planning needs to be done to make cycling a viable option.

O.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Outrider,

Unfortunately, given the population levels in the developed world, our society is built around the personal mobility that cars have given. It's not commercially viable to operate trains out of a town as small as the one I live in,

Yes but I think the world is changing fast, I am thinking about my nephew who lives in Texas, he constantly talks to his company here in Glasgow by video conferencing, are cars really needed or just a luxury. ( just thinking  )

Gonnagle.

[Outrider]

Dear Outrider,

Unfortunately, given the population levels in the developed world, our society is built around the personal mobility that cars have given. It's not commercially viable to operate trains out of a town as small as the one I live in,

Yes but I think the world is changing fast, I am thinking about my nephew who lives in Texas, he constantly talks to his company here in Glasgow by video conferencing, are cars really needed or just a luxury. ( just thinking  )

Gonnagle.

My wife and I tried to take the kids to Legoland last year by train - it's perhaps an hour long trip by car, and it took us nearly six hours each way by public transport, and that was accepting the later start than we'd have wanted because of the time the bus left town. As the world is constructed now, cars are a necessity.

Could they be a luxury? Perhaps, but it's difficult to see how - unless we densely pack people in, then having everything in someone's life within walking or cycling distance isn't viable, and we don't all want to live in massive conurbations.

O.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Outrider,

I use my car to travel to work but by public transport my work is less than half an hour away, laziness on my part, also the car is cheaper, or is it, what with upkeep, tax and insurance, no I am just lazy

But I do think we need to step away from this car mentality, put more money into our public transport, open up all those lines cut by Beeching but it all boils down to money, or does it??

Gonnagle.

[Nearly Sane]

Not had a car for five years. I usually hire one a couple of times a year. But then I live in the centre of town.

[Rhiannon]

Dear Outrider,

Unfortunately, given the population levels in the developed world, our society is built around the personal mobility that cars have given. It's not commercially viable to operate trains out of a town as small as the one I live in,

Yes but I think the world is changing fast, I am thinking about my nephew who lives in Texas, he constantly talks to his company here in Glasgow by video conferencing, are cars really needed or just a luxury. ( just thinking  )

Gonnagle.

My wife and I tried to take the kids to Legoland last year by train - it's perhaps an hour long trip by car, and it took us nearly six hours each way by public transport, and that was accepting the later start than we'd have wanted because of the time the bus left town. As the world is constructed now, cars are a necessity.

Could they be a luxury? Perhaps, but it's difficult to see how - unless we densely pack people in, then having everything in someone's life within walking or cycling distance isn't viable, and we don't all want to live in massive conurbations.

O.

For me not to have a car just wouldn't work. It's three miles to a corner shop, eight to school and an outpatients visit to the nearest hospital requires an overnight stay in a hotel if attempted by public transport.

I suppose one possibility would be some kind of car pool.

[Jack Knave]

I know nothing about these Republican activities.  Perhaps you could enlighten me about their views and strength and   resources, and the danger they pose.  What have they done, compared, for example, to ISIS?

The Republican party in the US are, in the main (and particularly the 'Tea Party' movement within it): pro-Gun; anti-abortion in all instances; in favour of the state paying for (Christian) faith-based education; de-facto religious tests for public office; the right to discriminate against homosexuals; the conversion of the military to Christian fighting force; military agitation.

They already have access to nuclear weapons, as well as the best funded military in the world with some of the most advanced weapons platforms available. At the same time they are unrelentingly pro-Israel in a fragmented middle-Eastern situation, anti-science reality deniers on the education and environmental front and jingoistic cheerleaders for American protectionism economically.

In India we see the beginnings of a similar Hindu fundamentalism as Narendra Mohdi's associates replace the leadership of the secular institutions of India with Hindutva hard-liners whilst maintaining an official silence over the increase in anti-secular criminal activities in the form of murders, violent attacks and threats.

When the world's two largest democracies are in danger of being taken over by religious fundamentalist nut-jobs, the fact that Isis persists outside of any official channels in a relatively small, poor, badly-equipped area of the middle-East is important, but not the most significant threat to world peace.

O.

This highlights something that has come to mind that inspired my OP. That not only do I feel there are more conflicts in the world than usual but that they are more intense and near to the edge of total chaos; all out mayhem. That things are more polarized and fanatical and for those involved more desperate. Even for us relatively well off westerners the political and social situations in the US and the EU are starting to crack up as people become more and more dissatisfied with how the ruling elites are lining their own pockets to the visible detriment and increase in poverty of the people and their daily lives.

[Outrider]

This highlights something that has come to mind that inspired my OP. That not only do I feel there are more conflicts in the world than usual but that they are more intense and near to the edge of total chaos; all out mayhem. That things are more polarized and fanatical and for those involved more desperate. Even for us relatively well off westerners the political and social situations in the US and the EU are starting to crack up as people become more and more dissatisfied with how the ruling elites are lining their own pockets to the visible detriment and increase in poverty of the people and their daily lives.

There aren't more conflicts, there is just more reporting of them, and they involve a significantly smaller proportion of the population; partly this is due to the advances in the machinery of warfare, but mainly it's because the move from authoritarian power-structures (such as the Prussian or British Empires) to democratic structures means that the personnel losses of wide-spread warfare are no longer acceptable to most of the major players.

This is why theocratic states and religiously motivated organisations are such a worry - what they lack in technological capacity and economic might they make up for with deluded absolute commitment and a leadership structure that can implement totalitarian means. Thankfully they are, for the moment, few and far between, but when they hijack democratic processes - as we see with the Hindu fundamentalists in power in India and the Christian fundamentalists seeking the Republican vote in the US - then we have a worrying combination.

We aren't in deep just yet, but the potential is there unless we can keep political, economic and military power separate from religious sentiment.

O.

[Jack Knave]

This highlights something that has come to mind that inspired my OP. That not only do I feel there are more conflicts in the world than usual but that they are more intense and near to the edge of total chaos; all out mayhem. That things are more polarized and fanatical and for those involved more desperate. Even for us relatively well off westerners the political and social situations in the US and the EU are starting to crack up as people become more and more dissatisfied with how the ruling elites are lining their own pockets to the visible detriment and increase in poverty of the people and their daily lives.

There aren't more conflicts, there is just more reporting of them, and they involve a significantly smaller proportion of the population; partly this is due to the advances in the machinery of warfare, but mainly it's because the move from authoritarian power-structures (such as the Prussian or British Empires) to democratic structures means that the personnel losses of wide-spread warfare are no longer acceptable to most of the major players.

This is why theocratic states and religiously motivated organisations are such a worry - what they lack in technological capacity and economic might they make up for with deluded absolute commitment and a leadership structure that can implement totalitarian means. Thankfully they are, for the moment, few and far between, but when they hijack democratic processes - as we see with the Hindu fundamentalists in power in India and the Christian fundamentalists seeking the Republican vote in the US - then we have a worrying combination.

We aren't in deep just yet, but the potential is there unless we can keep political, economic and military power separate from religious sentiment.

O.

You see no possible flashpoints with the dissatisfaction with the political system in the west, which has put all its eggs in the failing Neo-Liberal basket case? This not being an isolated factor but something that could break the camels back with other disharmonies that are rocking the boat - the EU is not looking good and is starting to crack at the seams.

[jakswan]

You see no possible flashpoints with the dissatisfaction with the political system in the west, which has put all its eggs in the failing Neo-Liberal basket case? This not being an isolated factor but something that could break the camels back with other disharmonies that are rocking the boat - the EU is not looking good and is starting to crack at the seams.

Should we return to the 1950s much better then?

[Outrider]

You see no possible flashpoints with the dissatisfaction with the political system in the west, which has put all its eggs in the failing Neo-Liberal basket case?

I see flash-points, but I also see a much better-educated populace with much less centralised and authoritarian regimes - the flashes you'll get from those flashpoints will be much more measured. That 'neo-liberal' situation means that power is now divided between the corporate and political sectors, again reducing the potential for an absolute warfare situation.

This not being an isolated factor but something that could break the camels back with other disharmonies that are rocking the boat - the EU is not looking good and is starting to crack at the seams.

The EU is not starting to crack at the seams, it's undergoing a change due to outside influences and will adapt to a new norm. People within the EU are going to have to realise that Europe is not the be-all and end-all that it used to be.

O.

[Jack Knave]

You see no possible flashpoints with the dissatisfaction with the political system in the west, which has put all its eggs in the failing Neo-Liberal basket case? This not being an isolated factor but something that could break the camels back with other disharmonies that are rocking the boat - the EU is not looking good and is starting to crack at the seams.

Should we return to the 1950s much better then?

That comment makes no sense. Who mentioned going back in time?

[Jack Knave]

You see no possible flashpoints with the dissatisfaction with the political system in the west, which has put all its eggs in the failing Neo-Liberal basket case?

I see flash-points, but I also see a much better-educated populace with much less centralised and authoritarian regimes - the flashes you'll get from those flashpoints will be much more measured. That 'neo-liberal' situation means that power is now divided between the corporate and political sectors, again reducing the potential for an absolute warfare situation.

"...less centralised and authoritarian regimes..." - How come, everywhere you look they are there; EU, USA, China, Russia...

It is because it is now, or will be, a class war between the people and the elites the flashpoints won't be measured; more like French Revolution.

Neo-Liberalism is corporatism and the politicians are in league with them, not a power base opposing them.

This not being an isolated factor but something that could break the camels back with other disharmonies that are rocking the boat - the EU is not looking good and is starting to crack at the seams.

The EU is not starting to crack at the seams, it's undergoing a change due to outside influences and will adapt to a new norm. People within the EU are going to have to realise that Europe is not the be-all and end-all that it used to be.

O.

The EU does not do adapt, not adequate adaptation, only just enough to kick the can down the road - a mere sticking plaster on a major wound.

[Outrider]

"...less centralised and authoritarian regimes..." - How come, everywhere you look they are there; EU, USA, China, Russia...

You think the EU is more authoritarian than it Europe was fifty years ago? You think the USA is centralised and authoritarian with the constant assault on Federal laws by State legislatures? You China is more authoritarian? Russia hasn't improved, significantly, but it's certainly no more authoritarian or centralised.

Neo-Liberalism is corporatism and the politicians are in league with them, not a power base opposing them.

It's in danger of becoming that way - certainly in the US that's a case that could be made - but it's not there world-wide yet by any stretch.

The EU is not starting to crack at the seams, it's undergoing a change due to outside influences and will adapt to a new norm. People within the EU are going to have to realise that Europe is not the be-all and end-all that it used to be.

The EU does not do adapt, not adequate adaptation, only just enough to kick the can down the road - a mere sticking plaster on a major wound.

It's a conservative organisation, but then most large organisations are - that doesn't mean that it's not changing, and that conservatism gives a stability that allows investment and market-confidence whilst still pioneering human rights legislation, health and safety law, personal liberty, neo-liberal socialism...

O.

[jakswan]

That comment makes no sense. Who mentioned going back in time?

The narrative that is coming from you is things are terrible and getting worse. I think at any time in history you could make that case by cherry picking events, so was it ever thus.

In the meantime living standards rise etc.

[Jack Knave]

"...less centralised and authoritarian regimes..." - How come, everywhere you look they are there; EU, USA, China, Russia...

You think the EU is more authoritarian than it Europe was fifty years ago? You think the USA is centralised and authoritarian with the constant assault on Federal laws by State legislatures? You China is more authoritarian? Russia hasn't improved, significantly, but it's certainly no more authoritarian or centralised.

It isn't the old style of authoritarianism, they know that doesn't work if carried out at the outset. It is the one where power and wealth is stealthily sucked towards an elite group, and once that is acquired then the rougher style can be implemented. The ever closer union of the EU is such a thing and is a move to a Soviet Union style 2.0.

Your 'more than' gesture and suggestion is a flawed relative posturing. The issue is about what is the right set up or arrangement, not some inane comparison of situations.

Neo-Liberalism is corporatism and the politicians are in league with them, not a power base opposing them.

It's in danger of becoming that way - certainly in the US that's a case that could be made - but it's not there world-wide yet by any stretch.

I wouldn't agree, the EU is there, and this is what globalisation is all about which is basically a US and allies policy.

The EU is not starting to crack at the seams, it's undergoing a change due to outside influences and will adapt to a new norm. People within the EU are going to have to realise that Europe is not the be-all and end-all that it used to be.

The EU does not do adapt, not adequate adaptation, only just enough to kick the can down the road - a mere sticking plaster on a major wound.

It's a conservative organisation, but then most large organisations are - that doesn't mean that it's not changing, and that conservatism gives a stability that allows investment and market-confidence whilst still pioneering human rights legislation, health and safety law, personal liberty, neo-liberal socialism...[/quote]
They can't change direction from their ever closer union and what has been set in stone by their Treaties. And all these are focused on corporatism, a system for the elites to rule the rest; central planning or a Soviet style feudalism.

[Jack Knave]

That comment makes no sense. Who mentioned going back in time?

The narrative that is coming from you is things are terrible and getting worse. I think at any time in history you could make that case by cherry picking events, so was it ever thus.

In the meantime living standards rise etc.

No. It is about having your "eyes wide open" and seeing how things are going.

Rising living standards for who?

[jakswan]

That comment makes no sense. Who mentioned going back in time?

The narrative that is coming from you is things are terrible and getting worse. I think at any time in history you could make that case by cherry picking events, so was it ever thus.

In the meantime living standards rise etc.

No. It is about having your "eyes wide open" and seeing how things are going.

Rising living standards for who?

<insert rhetoric only comeback here>

In the UK living standards have risen

[Jack Knave]

That comment makes no sense. Who mentioned going back in time?

The narrative that is coming from you is things are terrible and getting worse. I think at any time in history you could make that case by cherry picking events, so was it ever thus.

In the meantime living standards rise etc.

No. It is about having your "eyes wide open" and seeing how things are going.

Rising living standards for who?

<insert rhetoric only comeback here>

In the UK living standards have risen

What's all this jibber-jabber, Jaks?

[jakswan]

What's all this jibber-jabber, Jaks?

I asked a simple question.

[Outrider]

It isn't the old style of authoritarianism, they know that doesn't work if carried out at the outset. It is the one where power and wealth is stealthily sucked towards an elite group, and once that is acquired then the rougher style can be implemented.

That ebb and flow of power and money is politics and economics at work - the rest is just rank paranoia.

The ever closer union of the EU is such a thing and is a move to a Soviet Union style 2.0.

That's not even rank paranoia, that's an application for a tin-foil hat and a single-sleeved heavy-duty jacket with extra buckles.

Your 'more than' gesture and suggestion is a flawed relative posturing.

Given the topic is whether things are worse or better than they used to be, how is that the case?

The issue is about what is the right set up or arrangement, not some inane comparison of situations.

And the set-up, whilst not perfect, is reasonably good - certainly better than it used to be, and better than it is in genuinely authoritarian piss-holes around the world.

I wouldn't agree, the EU is there, and this is what globalisation is all about which is basically a US and allies policy.

No, it's a corporate policy, and it's starting to develop resistance because it's no longer serving the majority.

They can't change direction from their ever closer union and what has been set in stone by their Treaties. And all these are focused on corporatism, a system for the elites to rule the rest; central planning or a Soviet style feudalism.

Central planning - or, depending on how you look at it, co-operationg - isn't intrinsically bad. Tax reform is sorely needed, and a focus shifted to public works co-operation rather than military or financial, but the structure is in place to do that. The application is lacking at the moment, but the structure is more than adequate.

O.

[Jack Knave]

What's all this jibber-jabber, Jaks?

I asked a simple question.

Your question didn't logically follow from what was being said and so made no sense.

But to just to try and keep you quiet, the EU, and blocs like that, are out of date; yesterdays news.

[jakswan]

What's all this jibber-jabber, Jaks?

I asked a simple question.

Your question didn't logically follow from what was being said and so made no sense.

But to just to try and keep you quiet, the EU, and blocs like that, are out of date; yesterdays news.

In your opinion, others are available.

[Jack Knave]

It isn't the old style of authoritarianism, they know that doesn't work if carried out at the outset. It is the one where power and wealth is stealthily sucked towards an elite group, and once that is acquired then the rougher style can be implemented.

That ebb and flow of power and money is politics and economics at work - the rest is just rank paranoia.

That was the plan from day one of the EU project to gradually centralize all the power because they knew that trying to bring in wholesale a soviet style top down planning would enrage the people as they wouldn't accept that. So it has been a drip, drip, drip affair of ever closer union, whereby each generation would, they hoped, take it for granted that that was how life was suppose to be.

The ever closer union of the EU is such a thing and is a move to a Soviet Union style 2.0.

That's not even rank paranoia, that's an application for a tin-foil hat and a single-sleeved heavy-duty jacket with extra buckles.

More like you haven't done your homework and are very naïve.

Your 'more than' gesture and suggestion is a flawed relative posturing.

Given the topic is whether things are worse or better than they used to be, how is that the case?

The OP is more aimed at conflicts and wars as oppose to political power centres but I take your point. I wouldn't agree. As I have explained above the method used to day by them is this power by stealth and steady aggregation. TTIP highlights this now that the people at the top of the EU are playing to the US tune, almost. It may look fine on the surface but below this our rights have been hollowed out.

The issue is about what is the right set up or arrangement, not some inane comparison of situations.

And the set-up, whilst not perfect, is reasonably good - certainly better than it used to be, and better than it is in genuinely authoritarian piss-holes around the world.

It is not good because it is to top heavy with power concentrated in a relative few elites. This is sometimes referred to as corporatism.

I wouldn't agree, the EU is there, and this is what globalisation is all about which is basically a US and allies policy.

No, it's a corporate policy, and it's starting to develop resistance because it's no longer serving the majority.

But as I said it is backed by the politicians. It is the people who are resisting not the politicians at the top. Also, you seem to be back tracking because if things are pretty good as you say why are their groups now pushing back on what you say is a relatively better situation today?

They can't change direction from their ever closer union and what has been set in stone by their Treaties. And all these are focused on corporatism, a system for the elites to rule the rest; central planning or a Soviet style feudalism.

Central planning - or, depending on how you look at it, co-operationg - isn't intrinsically bad. Tax reform is sorely needed, and a focus shifted to public works co-operation rather than military or financial, but the structure is in place to do that. The application is lacking at the moment, but the structure is more than adequate.

All, or most, ideologies aren't intrinsically bad i.e. in theory. It is the application of them and the foibles of human nature, that is, greed.

You aren't going to get tax reform because the corporatists are pulling the strings and they don't want to pay any tax. They don't want to give the people a good life but would wish to move to a feudal type system, therefore, no real public works. And therefore, the structure isn't in place to do that. Application is pretty much non-existent and dwindling. Remember, the Nazis put in a lot of infrastructure and look how well that went....

[Jack Knave]

What's all this jibber-jabber, Jaks?

I asked a simple question.

Your question didn't logically follow from what was being said and so made no sense.

But to just to try and keep you quiet, the EU, and blocs like that, are out of date; yesterdays news.

In your opinion, others are available.

And this is true for you, too.