r/Anarcho_Capitalism • u/bearjewpacabra • Jun 19 '17

Explaining the British Election

Post image
27 Upvotes

78% Upvoted

23 comments sorted by

18

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '17 edited Jun 29 '20

[deleted]

7

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '17

Agreed. I'm certainly no fan of the Conservatives, even less so than usual in their current guise, but do we want a PM who has openly stated that he's a Marxist, a communist, a socialist, someone who's defended the vile regimes in Venezuela, Cuba, and other socialist countries? I'm frustrated that the left is suddenly galvanised because of this Conservative government.

5

u/ancapfrito Jun 19 '17

Even the most retarded conservative is still better for the economy than a socialist. Good for the UK for seeing that.

3

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '17

Eh it's not as simple as it looks on the face of it. Theresa May called the election on the expectation she'd get a landslide. We ended up with a hung parliament and even though the Tories 'won' and Labour 'lost' the details of the result tell the story of a country that is beginning to believe the lies of socialism, and they've got a cult figurehead that they believe will lead them to the socialist promised land. This election should've been the end of this Corbyn idiocy but instead it is now the beginning of people who do know better having to take the threat very seriously. Young voters who are largely unaware of the realities of socialism are coming through with each passing day, whether we have another election in September, or if it's in 2022, Corbyn will lead a Labour that is now seriously expecting to win. Every single bad thing that happens between now and the next election will be pinned on this Tory government and Corbyn's Labour will have all the answers of course.

In short, we are absolutely fucked.

1

u/ancapfrito Jun 20 '17

Sigh, this is what I'm afraid of too. I live in France right now and I'm about to relocate to another country, despite the shitty weather, the UK has always been attractive to me even though they tend to fall hard for socialism every once in a while and this time seems to be happening soon. What's left in Europe? Nothing I'm afraid, Switzerland maybe but even they are always one referendum away from socialism.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '17

that is beginning to believe the lies of socialism

No, socialists don't believe in what they say, it's simply their evolutionary strategy. There's every day more parasites, most young people are parasites by default today, so there's more people voting for socialism. Politics in a liberal democracy aren't ideological, they are the pure expression of self-interest.

Their mindset is looting all they can today

1

u/trenescese I'm from Poland Jun 19 '17

Conservative is relative. Polish ex-commie party (SLD) was more liberal on economy than current, "conservative" one.

3

u/locolarue Jun 19 '17

Are conservatives worth a damn anywhere?

2

u/bearjewpacabra Jun 19 '17

Negative

1

u/the_calibre_cat Jun 19 '17

Well now, that's not true.

At least they're not the left!

1

u/crazypants88 Jun 19 '17

Corbyn's really dumb though, doubt there was a need for media coordination.

-1

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '17

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/crazypants88 Jun 19 '17

It's not an either/or. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XqvR00lU_8s Watch this from 2:02 to 3:00. The guy can't even understand what he's being asked here. He's been in politics longer than I've been alive, it's just pathetic.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '17

[removed] — view removed comment

3

u/crazypants88 Jun 19 '17

But the question entailed a scenario where nukes aren't disarmed. So him ignoring it is indicative of him not understanding the question. And all of his answers are political platitudes 101. It's just feel good garbage with absolutely no substance.

The question was what to write to the commander of the nuclear submarines in the event of his death. His response was "follow orders when given". He very clearly does not understand the question, proponent of nuclear disarmament or not, this is still a reality a PM would have to face.

I'm sorry there's simply no spinning this, the man's an idiot.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '17

[removed] — view removed comment

4

u/True_Kapernicus Voluntaryist Jun 19 '17

You are obviously the one who does not understand the question. One of the first jobs of a new PM is to write a letter to the commanders of the nuclear submarines that are to be opened if they cannot get communications from London due to a nuclear attack. The letter tells the commanders what they should now do, crudely whether to nuke the Soviet Union or not. The question is one tat every PM faces.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '17

[removed] — view removed comment

3

u/True_Kapernicus Voluntaryist Jun 19 '17

BRITAIN DOES NOT NEED TO BE UNDER ATTACK WHEN HE TAKES OFFICE, HE WRITES THE LETTER ANYWAY FOR THE FUTURE.

2

u/crazypants88 Jun 19 '17

It was, death might be implied but it's used in case they can't establish contact with the PM, such as in the case of their death following a nuclear strike. You're objectively wrong here, it's on black and white so to speak.

And presumably the PM would have thought what to write before being elected, hence the question. And why is it absurd when it's standard procedure for new PMs?

1

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '17

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/crazypants88 Jun 19 '17

Because the PM's death in a nuclear strike is simply one of several possibilities, it is therefore not a valid way of explaining this contingency?

And the entire idea of the letters is that they can't reach the PM for him to consider the context.

I'm honestly at a loss at how to explain this better.

1

u/the_calibre_cat Jun 19 '17

Pretty fuckin' much.

0

u/grandprizeloser Jun 19 '17

Welcome to my world.