Teachers don't care about students, they only care about themselves.

Students are a lazy shower of bastards and if they gave up an evening in the pub they could afford their fees.

Old people should just fuck off and die, they're a burden on everyone.

Public sector workers have a job for life and a decent pension, there are too many of them and most are shite at their jobs.

Private sector workers are lazy, stupid bastards and it's no wonder multinationals cannot get out of here fast enough.

Single mothers: slappers, should be sterilised without their knowledge anytime one of them visits a hospital.

Foreigners bring down the price of labour and facilitate exporting it elsewhere, they shouldn't be let into the country to begin with.

It's the voters fault, they elect the same wankers again and again and again...

Yada, yada, yada...

Feel free to add to my list, it's very far from being exhausted.

Brilliant policy I must say. Cohesiveness is a dangerous commodity in a faux-democracy like ours. Of course, cohesiveness will happen at a point in our current troubles. The only problem being that it might be too late to ensure that our current situation doesn't repeat itself in the future.

What about sacrifice? What about the greater good?

I say we start by sacrificing Sir (my bollocks) Tony O'Reilly. We can get back that €2 billion he made out of the sale of my natural resources, and give it to Biffo, to shut him up for a while - he's beginning to give me a very bad headache. We could then split the rest of his plunder between ourselves.

Then we work our way down the rich list. Yeah! The few must suffer for the many. I'm not advocating the killing of these pariahs. I'm advocating the enactment of out Constitution. Our Constitution allows for the setting aside of private property rights, in the face of a public exigency.

Have we become so entrenched in our acceptance of our enslavement that it's unthinkable that we cast aside our chains?

Are we as a nation, institutionalised?

The less said about the starving blacks the better, bloody cheek expecting our money...

Some people over on p.ie seem to get a particularly special thrill out of the overseas aid cuts, unfortunately they seem to be the majority...

Hermes wrote:

I'm advocating the enactment of out Constitution. Our Constitution allows for the setting aside of private property rights, in the face of a public exigency.

You say this as if it were a simple procedure. The Constitution, like in many situations, recognises competing rights, the right to freedom of expression but also the right to the protection of a good name being another example.

The Constitution equally, and expressly, recognises the right to hold private property under Article 43. The article prohibits laws which attempt to abolish private property though in certain circumstances the State may delimit these rights with a view to reconciling their exercise with the exigencies of the common good. Our Constitution does not allow for the setting aside of private property rights, merely the delimitation of such rights. Any legislative move which seeks, on a general basis, to set aside private property rights would likely be held repugnant to the Constitution by the Supreme Court. Any move on an individual, or sectoral, basis is likely to be challenged Constitutionally and tests such as proportionality would be examined by the Supreme Court.

johnfás wrote:

Hermes wrote:

I'm advocating the enactment of out Constitution. Our Constitution allows for the setting aside of private property rights, in the face of a public exigency.

You say this as if it were a simple procedure. The Constitution, like in many situations, recognises competing rights. The Constitution equally, and expressly, recognises the right to hold private property under Article 43. The article prohibits laws which attempt to abolish private property though in certain circumstances the State may delimit these rights with a view to reconciling their exercise with the exigencies of the common good. Our Constitution does not allow for the setting aside of private property rights, merely the delimitation of such rights. Any legislative move which seeks, on a general basis, to set aside private property rights would likely be held repugnant to the Constitution by the Supreme Court. Any move on an individual basis is likely to be challenged Constitutionally and test such as proportionality would be examined by the Supreme Court.

Correct. But the delimititation mark is defined by the poorest member of our society. Unless you wish to argue that the poor are in a position whereby our State is acting unconstitutionally to leave them there?

Let's have Anto signing on. Well within the bounds.

Ah Hermes - its just 2 sides of the same coin

In the late 90's when I came home here on holidays all I got from friends of mine in the Public Services was constant whinging about the stratospheric salaries that were on offer in the private sector and how they were missing out - begrudgery is in the Irish Genes.

I have no problem with the Public Sector folks - if i wanted to join - I could have in that regard - it just wasn't for me - good luck to them.

At the same time - the Government is the biggest enterprise in the state and Im a shareholder as opposed to an employee and the simple fact of the matter is that the state is racking up massive losses (expenditure minus income will lead to a 25 billion deficit at least this year alone and the only way of bridging this gap is to borrow from our children and grandchildren, raise taxes or cut expenditure.

It will have to be a combination of all 3 - there is no way around this - if we were really serious about this - we would borrow for investment in infrastructure, retraining and upskilling and seed capital for startup industry - raise taxation all around by about 20% - its about the future folks and 15% cutback in the size of the public services, primarly by eliminating all government agencies and cutting out as much middle management as possible or a paycut across the board in the Public services.

There is no easy way out of this - there is no massive wealth in the private sector to be tapped - most of the that "wealth" was tied up in property valuations and equity -property valuations must be very questionable now and for most folks it was an illusion to allow them to borrow money - borrowings which have to be paid back and the markets are in the tank - very little in cash which is the reason the banks are in so much trouble now.

By all means - squeeze the rich until the pips squeak - but you will get getting very little

Hermes wrote:

Correct. But the delimititation mark is defined by the poorest member of our society.

Says who? This is a personal judgement. An admirable one perhaps but do you have any evidence that the Supreme Court would agree with you?

The delimitation mark is likely to be one which is proportionate, and not overbearing, given the circumstance in which the State finds itself. What is proportionate is an interesting question, but it is not readily definable.

johnfás wrote:

Hermes wrote:

Correct. But the delimititation mark is defined by the poorest member of our society.

Says who? This is a personal judgement. An admirable one perhaps but do you have any evidence that the Supreme Court would agree with you?

The delimitation mark is likely to be one which is proportionate, and not overbearing, given the circumstance in which the State finds itself. What is proportionate is an interesting question, but it is not readily definable.

It's hardly a personal judgement. Here's the Irish text, which as you know is the supreme version in the event of a dispute:

43.2.1 wrote:

Ach admhaíonn an Stát gur cuí, sa chomhdhaonnacht shibhialta, oibriú na gceart atá luaite sna forálachta sin romhainn den Airteagal seo a rialú de réir bunrialachta an chirt chomhdhaonnaigh

The literal translation of 43.2.1:

43.2.1 wrote:

But the State acknowledges that it is fitting, in civil society, to regulate the operation of the rights which are mentioned in the forgoing provisions of this Article in accordance with the basic rules of social justice.

Social justice demands that people are entitled to the basic human needs.

On top of that, let's see how well Anto does in his Supreme Court Challenge, whilst paying for it with the dole.

Who's Anto ? Supreme Court Challenge with the dole ?

johnfás wrote:

Hermes wrote:

I'm advocating the enactment of out Constitution. Our Constitution allows for the setting aside of private property rights, in the face of a public exigency.

You say this as if it were a simple procedure. The Constitution, like in many situations, recognises competing rights, the right to freedom of expression but also the right to the protection of a good name being another example.

The Constitution equally, and expressly, recognises the right to hold private property under Article 43. The article prohibits laws which attempt to abolish private property though in certain circumstances the State may delimit these rights with a view to reconciling their exercise with the exigencies of the common good. Our Constitution does not allow for the setting aside of private property rights, merely the delimitation of such rights. Any legislative move which seeks, on a general basis, to set aside private property rights would likely be held repugnant to the Constitution by the Supreme Court. Any move on an individual, or sectoral, basis is likely to be challenged Constitutionally and tests such as proportionality would be examined by the Supreme Court.

We have plenty of powers to tax people.

We do, but we don't have plenty of powers to seize private property.

johnfás wrote:

We do, but we don't have plenty of powers to seize private property.

Yes we do: we have Compulsory Purchase Orders.

cactus flower wrote:

johnfás wrote:

We do, but we don't have plenty of powers to seize private property.

Yes we do: we have Compulsory Purchase Orders.

Yes, when it is done so in a proportionate manner - as I outlined above. Hence my usage of the word plenty.

The Constitution recognises competing rights. They balance them by means of proportionality and necessity. One can challenge unnecessary compulsory purchase orders on Constitutional grounds.

johnfás wrote:

You say this as if it were a simple procedure. The
Constitution, like in many situations, recognises competing rights, the
right to freedom of expression but also the right to the protection of
a good name being another example.

The Constitution equally,
and expressly, recognises the right to hold private property under
Article 43. The article prohibits laws which attempt to abolish private
property though in certain circumstances the State may delimit
these rights with a view to reconciling their exercise with the
exigencies of the common good. Our Constitution does not allow for the setting aside of private property rights, merely the delimitation
of such rights. Any legislative move which seeks, on a general basis,
to set aside private property rights would likely be held repugnant to
the Constitution by the Supreme Court. Any move on an individual, or
sectoral, basis is likely to be challenged Constitutionally and tests
such as proportionality would be examined by the Supreme Court.

johnfás wrote:

Hermes wrote:

Correct. But the delimititation mark is defined by the poorest member of our society.

Says who? This is a personal judgement. An admirable one perhaps but do you have any evidence that the Supreme Court would agree with you?

The delimitation mark is likely to be one which is proportionate, and not overbearing, given the circumstance in which the State finds itself. What is proportionate is an interesting question, but it is not readily definable.

But law is not necessarily justice, johnfás, though it strives to be. No doubt Hermes was speaking about what he thinks to be just and not what he thinks the law to be. Hermes is as entitled to his own interpretation of the values enshrined in our Constitution as the judges of the Supreme Court are to theirs, though of course he is not entitled to attribute the same amount of force to his. The idea that the interpretation of a court of law when it comes to moral and social issues can ever be objectively correct has long been opposed by many. I am not sure if Hermes is a Marxist but his argument certainly seems akin to that of a Marxist; namely, that the law exists to protect the ruling classes from the ruled classes. Though I wouldn't agree with that argument in its entirety, it certainly has a considerable amount of force behind it.

I'm not a marxist, I'm an anarchist.

What I'm talking of is well within the powers of the State. For instance, Biffo can change taxes, he can mess with pensions, he can bail out leaky banks and developer buddies, and he can rip medical cards from old people.

Anto O'Reilly could be CPOed, but CPOs are not really appropriate for what I've got in mind. After all with a CPO you're supposed to pay for what you seize.

Nope, not CPOs. Biffo will have to bring in fresh legislation. Quite simple too, even he'll understand it. It's a new tax. We'll call it the 'anyone who's got a billion or more in assets is about to lose it' tax. So, in the instance of Anto, it's quite simple to apply. Simply calculate his liquid worth and add in the value of his assets. Then subtract €200 and present him with the result as a tax bill. He'll not have enough liquid cash (€200 doesn't go as far as it used to these days) to cover the bill owed on whatever properties and business he owns, so it's simply a matter of calling in the bailifs to seize those. Anto can then sign on and possibly, if he qualifies, he can apply for retraining or upskilling at his local FÁS office. He'll most certainly have to register with FÁS before he's allowed to sign on anyway.

Now, we've loads of national debt. Easy peasy. We enact legislation to say that we need all our land and property and that foreign investors/banks and all shapes of parasites out there can go fuck themselves. Then we open up negotiations between countries that'll follow our lead and trade with them for food and other necessities. Venezuala would make a good partner here too.

We'll have a tough first year. But after that, we'll be growing enough to feed ourselves. In the meantime, we can declare Ireland a patent free zone and start to backward engineer medicines etc. and manufacture those too.

End of 'crisis.' That's the beauty and nature of sovereignty for you.

Hermes wrote:

I'm not a marxist, I'm an anarchist.

What I'm talking of is well within the powers of the State. For instance, Biffo can change taxes, he can mess with pensions, he can bail out leaky banks and developer buddies, and he can rip medical cards from old people.

Anto O'Reilly could be CPOed, but CPOs are not really appropriate for what I've got in mind. After all with a CPO you're supposed to pay for what you seize.

Nope, not CPOs. Biffo will have to bring in fresh legislation. Quite simple too, even he'll understand it. It's a new tax. We'll call it the 'anyone who's got a billion or more in assets is about to lose it' tax. So, in the instance of Anto, it's quite simple to apply. Simply calculate his liquid worth and add in the value of his assets. Then subtract €200 and present him with the result as a tax bill. He'll not have enough liquid cash (€200 doesn't go as far as it used to these days) to cover the bill owed on whatever properties and business he owns, so it's simply a matter of calling in the bailifs to seize those. Anto can then sign on and possibly, if he qualifies, he can apply for retraining or upskilling at his local FÁS office. He'll most certainly have to register with FÁS before he's allowed to sign on anyway.

Now, we've loads of national debt. Easy peasy. We enact legislation to say that we need all our land and property and that foreign investors/banks and all shapes of parasites out there can go fuck themselves. Then we open up negotiations between countries that'll follow our lead and trade with them for food and other necessities. Venezuala would make a good partner here too.

We'll have a tough first year. But after that, we'll be growing enough to feed ourselves. In the meantime, we can declare Ireland a patent free zone and start to backward engineer medicines etc. and manufacture those too.

End of 'crisis.' That's the beauty and nature of sovereignty for you.

All your Birthdays eh! Hermes.
Even so, I wouldn't buy the cake just yet, there are still only about 7 of you and 4. odd million of us. Mind you the 7 are very well educated, I'll give you that, excellent examples of our capitalist funded education system.

Life is very educational. I've heard the most unexpected people come up with the most radical suggestions in the last few days.

All my birthdays and then some. Aim high and allow for the drop as they say.

I think there are a lot more than 7 and the figure grows daily. I think it fair to say that those who take no part in our political system, those who don't vote, would be more likely to side with my argument than with the capitalist one. Together, I'd be willing to bet, we'd make up more than the figure that voted our current government into power. A lot more. And that's without considering those too young to vote. Don't need to be over 18 to share a philosophy and a vision, do you.

Hermes wrote:

All my birthdays and then some. Aim high and allow for the drop as they say.

I think there are a lot more than 7 and the figure grows daily. I think it fair to say that those who take no part in our political system, those who don't vote, would be more likely to side with my argument that with the capitalist one. Together, I'd be willing to bet, we'd make up more than the figure that voted our current government into power. A lot more. And that's without considering those too young to vote. Don't need to be over 18 to share a philosophy and a vision, do you.

Or a riot, lucky old you.
I don't think you're right on the numbers though, I think if you discount the teachers and push never comes to shove there, there'll only be yer man who brings his dog to meetings left

It has never required the government to do divide and backbite in this country. That's why it took 700 years.

I do not begrudge Anto his billions and if he does not want to give it to blacks, starving or otherwise, that is his business. I do begrudge him being given sweatheart deals on oil as aledged. I thought mineral rights belonged to the state/people