Myth of Overcrowded Britain
- This topic has 105 replies, 14 voices, and was last updated 6 years, 9 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Worth a quick read on Malthusian doom and gloomhttps://uk.reuters.com/article/us-usa-immigration-breakingviews/breakingviews-hadas-malthus-condorcet-and-shithole-economics-idUKKBN1F61UVCan't say i have heard of this Condorcet chap. I'll try and follow up on him later.
Condorcet wrote some important stuff:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet%27s_jury_theoremThe Jury theorem provides a theoretical unerpinning for democracy. He developed:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet_methodA voting system that although complicated to explain, does uphold the majority criterion while allowing ranked choice voting and avoiding spoilers. he also was responsible for:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet_criterion
Quote:The Condorcet candidate (a.k.a. Condorcet winner) is the person who would win a two-candidate election against each of the other candidates in a plurality vote.[1][2] For a set of candidates, the Condorcet winner is always the same regardless of the voting system in question. A voting system satisfies the Condorcet criterion (English: /kɒndɔːrˈseɪ/) if it always chooses the Condorcet winner when one exists.And the Concorcet Paradoxhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet_paradoxIs important to us and any social choice theory…
moderator1 wrote:alanjjohnstone wrote:Quote:you decide who you want here.Our moderator is very even-handed, Ike.I think every member of the forum has been warned to stick to the topic and desist from personal comments. I know. I have been suspended a fair number of times. Vin, i believe, holds the record. Despite holding political views that i sometimes find offensive and which have the potential consequence of providing support for the nastiest of people, this discussion list abides by its guidelines https://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum-rules-and-guidelinesI think how we deal with those who break the rules of the forum, in a little way, reflects our response of how we consider rules inside socialism will operate.
Actually, its not Vin who holds the record, he's had 3 suspensions. In fact its LBird with 5 suspensions.The rule of thumb on the forum is the first breach of the rules draws my attention but I rarely take action. The second breach means I automatically post a reminder that a breach has occurred. Further breaches of any of the rules by the same offender means a 1st warning is posted. After the 3rd and final warning a 30 day cooling off period is actioned. If a breach occurs during this period its an automatic suspension – the length of which depends on the seriousness of the breach and the past record of the offender. For example, LBird got suspended for 60 days on his last breach due to him failing to get the message that the rules are there for a purpose so as to enable and encourage discussion and not further argumentation. I only action indefinite suspensions on spammers and those who make threats of violence.
Surely this post is off topic (breach of Rule 1) and queries a moderation decision (breach of rule 14). Thankfully I’m not taking it upon myself to chastise Mod 1. I would never chastise, that would be a breach of rule 14. In line with rule 15, I may send a PM to the moderator about this, but rest assured, I will not post it on the forum, because that would be a breach of rule 15 and woe is on the face of those who breach rule 15. So sayeth the lord (AKA Mod 1)
If the SPGB had guns there'd be no-one writing in here. All of which goes – rather neatly – to show that I was right. Far too many fucking people. What Ike said.
Just to re-phrase the assertion to reflect the actual point of dissension" Far too many fucking other people…"
alanjjohnstone wrote:Just to re-phrase the assertion to reflect the actual point of dissension" Far too many fucking other people…"Or possibly too many other people fucking!
Bijou Drains wrote:I would never chastise, that would be a breach of rule 14.Nor would I but I was still suspended for it
alanjjohnstone wrote:Just to re-phrase the assertion to reflect the actual point of dissension" Far too many fucking other people…"'Other' is extraneous. Isn't there a rule about misquoting masquerading as rephrasing? If not, we'd better make one up immediately. There's just too many people. Look, even in the hallowed microcosm of this forum where maybe twenty people contribute in a regular and suitably religious fashion, it just takes one Vincent with his threats of violence that he was once capable of visiting on his opponents to demonstrate how impractical socialism is. Imagine this forum with twenty thousand contributors. One thousand of whom are Vin Marratty. Form 'F', anyone?
Reminder: 7. You are free to express your views candidly and forcefully provided you remain civil. Do not use the forums to send abuse, threats, personal insults or attacks, or purposely inflammatory remarks (trolling). Do not respond to such messages.8. Do not register or operate more than one account without first obtaining permission from the moderators. Do not share your password with others or allow anyone else to use your account. Do not use your account to post messages on behalf of any suspended user, without prior permission from the moderators.
MightyY, i think my original post #65 made it very clear that the "other" was an addition and that there was no intention to mislead or misattribute.
alanjjohnstone wrote:Just to re-phrase the assertion to reflect the actual point of dissension" Far too many fucking other people…"For me, the issue is the quality of people. I believe there are different human types and that these types tend to assort into different social systems. Socialism favours people who lean towards mass psychology, collectivism and conformism. That is not the type of person I am. Probably we would be better off with less people. Nature is out of balance, and I believe Man is part of Nature, not above it, and any sound social theory/system has to regard Man within his ecology. This in turn leads to a nationalistic view of things. As I would have it, there is no necessary contradiction between a worker understanding capitalism and socialism and at the same time being concerned for his parochial environment. My argument here is not entirely in contradiction to socialism, I merely point out that in reality such a system must work in line with what I see as Nature, including human nature.
Ike Pettigrew wrote:For me, the issue is the quality of people. I believe there are different human types and that these types tend to assort into different social systems. Socialism favours people who lean towards mass psychology, collectivism and conformism. That is not the type of person I am.Reminder: 7. You are free to express your views candidly and forcefully provided you remain civil. Do not use the forums to send abuse, threats, personal insults or attacks, or purposely inflammatory remarks (trolling). Do not respond to such messages.
I think this is related a bit to this topichttp://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-42903144[quoted]The agricultural revolution saw people cleared from land in the Lowlands, Highlands and Islands and Aberdeenshire in the 18th and 19th centuries…Community Land Scotland wants to see the land repopulated and for nearby remaining communities to be given greater powers to be able to do that.[/quoted]Not so overcrowded, after all, it seems. Perhaps, a study of the various moors in England and Wales might come up with a similar situation.
TheMightyYoghourt wrote:Look, even in the hallowed microcosm of this forum where maybe twenty people contribute in a regular and suitably religious fashion, it just takes one Vincent with his threats of violence that he was once capable of visiting on his opponents to demonstrate how impractical socialism is. Imagine this forum with twenty thousand contributors. One thousand of whom are Vin Marratty. Form 'F', anyone?Can you offer any proof for this? I have never committed any act of violence and anyone who knows me would testify to that.You are a coward hiding behind a silly psuedonymI again remind the Party that it is open to prosecution for Libel.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.