Snoopy wrote:
The problem can only be solved byde-industrializing or technology.
I can’t even imagine the first one. And the second one costs mega bucks.
De-Industrializing means also de-populizing as people have to eat = work to make money. And apart: Having been many times to parts of Eastern Europe in Winter, de-industrializing = return to pre-industrialized technology won’t help the climate: Burning wood in winter to heat rooms will cause de-forestation and lots of smoke. And that is only the beginning.
Technology: Hell yes and we are doing it, only those people don’t see or don’t want to reckognize what has been achieved already, as to them, nothing will ever be enough.
Those who feel that violence will solve problems need to be put in their places. Also because they are actually damaging the case for improved technologies and give the fight against environmental waste and issues a very bad name.
Silvaire wrote:
Obviously the “activists versus ruling class” ideology is itself the main problem, it’s childish nonsense.
It’s no ideology, and it’s not a real problem. The real problem is the governments/authorities/UN whatever, identifying a problem (CO2 pollution, global warming), pretending to do something about it, but no measurable results whatsoever can be seen, despite regular people changing their lives (more or less).
Now, grounding all biz-jets won’t change a thing regarding the real problem, but that some people feel something is terribly wrong when the rich can just keep on polluting simply because they have money? You don’t need to be a genius to get the cause and relation for these nicely re-colored biz-jets. In the grand scale of things, the activists/criminals are a sign of a healthy society. The acceptance of biz-jets flying around polluting, when others don’t, is not. Of course it’s not “right” to destroy other people’s property, but in this case it doesn’t really upset me either. The other alternative is more upsetting. It wouldn’t upset me if they were sent to jail for some months either for that matter, the law is the law. I’m sure all politicians simply closes their eyes, keep their hands far, far away from that matter and hope it will go away (which is a bit upsetting).
arj1 wrote:
activists in London for example attack fully electric SUV, deflating tyres etc
They obviously aren’t all the sharpest knives in the drawer (not regarding technology, and not regarding how they anticipate others will react to their actions), just like the girl and guy I mentioned who was convicted and sent to jail by the way, and at the same time has become a persona non grata among the activists also.
I think perhaps Scandinavians have a slightly different view on this. The tendency and willingness to show the finger to all kinds of authorities (political or material) is deeply engrained in the culture. The viking law was such that if a King or an Earl became too powerful vs the society around, it was every person’s right and duty to kill him. This doesn’t exactly make a very stable society 
, but it’s true freedom, at least if you are on the right side of the axe We have moved away from killing people (most of us at least ) , but the underlying sentiment is fully there. These activists show the finger to both “the rich” and the established authority. Kind of funny actually
Once again I find myself in agreement with what LeSving writes.
Peter usually puts this down to “envy”. Whether or not he is right in that doesn’t really matter in the end as there is ample evidence from social science that large differences in wealth and in particular flaunting of excessive wealth is detrimental to society as a whole.
is detrimental to society
Only via destabilising it, and envy is the principal mechanism. What else could it be if “flauting” is the main component?
Excessive wealth isn’t really a problem unless you have a situation where a few people own say 90% of the land and exploit that to the significant detriment of the rest. That is the mediaeval feudal model and while it exists in much of the 3rd World, we don’t have it in Europe anymore (despite popular allegations, like “10% own 90% of the land” which may be true for all I care but it hardly matters economically because land doesn’t make much money).
@LeSving wrote:
I think perhaps Scandinavians have a slightly different view on this. The tendency and willingness to show the finger to all kinds of authorities (political or material) is deeply engrained in the culture. The viking law was such that if a King or an Earl became too powerful vs the society around, it was every person’s right and duty to kill him. This doesn’t exactly make a very stable society , but it’s true freedom, at least if you are on the right side of the axe We have moved away from killing people (most of us at least ) , but the underlying sentiment is fully there. These activists show the finger to both “the rich” and the established authority. Kind of funny actually
You certainly have a point, but I’m afraid this tradition doesn’t really work in today’s society anymore. Think of other countries with the same traditions, such as Australia, where it may have to do with the very origins of white Australian population, or the United States, where this distrust is written into the constitution in the form of right to bear arms, originally promulgated to protect the nation against a potential rogue government. Despite this, both countries are socially conservative to the extreme. Even in Scandinavia, there is a trend towards the nanny state and “protecting people against themselves” – think of the overreaching actions of Barnevernet in Norway or Ylva Johansson’s attacks on privacy in Sweden. How come the moderate and reasonable attitude fails to prevail at elections, and only the radical activists are showing the finger to the authority?
Peter wrote:
despite popular allegations, like “10% own 90% of the land” which may be true for all I care but it hardly matters economically because land doesn’t make much money
No, but it is true that the “richer get richer, and the poorer gets poorer”. If it’s land or factories or stocks or bitcoin doesn’t really matter. 300 years ago only land had value, not so today. Anyway, I don’t think this is what bugs the activists. It’s more that this becomes blatantly obvious when someone can pollute as if there were no tomorrow, and that someone happened to be rich people with biz-jets (as well as climate “activist” politicians for that matter). At the same time thew average joe have to see their freedoms shrink, everything getting more expensive etc.
The rich will always get richer, for all sorts of good and bad reasons, which is why all of us live in socialist countries
Peter wrote:
The rich will always get richer, for all sorts of good and bad reasons,
It is not at all always the case. It has certainly been the case for the last few decades – in particular with the rise of large IT related companies – but that is a rather new development.
Again, a complex topic, but to start with most of the population will always be poor due to lack of enterprise, laziness, etc. That is why we live in socialist countries and taxation is used for wealth redistribution.
A lot of people don’t accept this but it is a self evident fact. In communism this is addressed by making almost everybody equally poor. The result is a system which the lazy love, but it is unstable because you still have the few % who have enterprise and a “get up and go” and they are hard to suppress. They express their enterprise by various channels involving corruption. The western system is much more stable because enterprise is allowed (within very broad bounds).
The above had never actually changed but became more defined from roughly the Bolshevik revolution onwards; say 100 years ago.
The root of the vandalism discussed here is in the non acceptance of the above as inevitable.
As the old saying goes: if you are 20 and not a communist, you don’t have a heart, and if you are 40 and a communist, you don’t have a brain. The bizjet vandals are in the 1st category. I knew many such at university (was immune to all the communist sh*it due to Czech origin) and had to quietly laugh when meeting them at the 25 year reunion (2000) and all had turned into firm capitalists.
Thank you Cobalt, that’s an excellent resource. A couple more graphs of interest.
Disqualification and excusal decrease with higher income, but deferral increases. This would follow that higher earners view their time as more important, and defer. However, you only get one deferral, so some of these may still be excused the second time around.
Quick correction for inflation:
2007 = 2023
<£10k = <£18k (~minimum wage)
£10k-£19k = £18k-£33k
£20k-£34k = £33k-£60k
£35k-£49k = £60k-£86k
£50k-£64k = £86k-£112k
>£65k = >£112k (~highest income tax band)
(The actual questionnaire asked for household income, so these figures possibly averaged with a spouse).
On occupation the largest group is clearly professionals. This might not be representative, as only 3 courts were canvassed, and they were all in reasonably affluent cities. The categories are also quite large; self-employed could fit into almost any of them. Professionals work in a more structured environment and are more likely to have paid time off for jury service?
The conclusion states: “the study found that the self-employed served in close proportion to their representation in the population”.
I’m not against jury duty in principle; in fact I’d probably enjoy it. However, running a small business, being out of the office for 2+ weeks at short notice isn’t an option. I love what I do, so unlike the majority of the population it wouldn’t be a holiday
In fact, 4 close family members all had jury summons in a short period of a few years.
Purely anecdotal, from an acquaintance who sat on a jury a decade or so ago. The first trial finished quickly, so they were asked, “who has to be at work next Monday? We’ve got a nice complicated rape coming up and that’ll be 2 months minimum”. Obviously that jury was self-selected based on employment responsibility and opinion on sexual violence.
…
Coming back to the vandalism, a high-profile prosecution of the vandals would only create more publicity (most likely negative for the victims), and substantial cost to the public purse.
Comparatively, does Scandinavia feel less strongly on property rights than, say, UK/US? Genuine question.
