[0801] The 12 Star Restaurant
└ posted on Thursday, 7 July 2016, by Novil
Sandra and Woo continues to include food in jokes dealing with completely unrelated topics. Someone should calculate whether Sandra and Woo or Garfield has more food related jokes. I believe it’ll be a close call.
- Sign: The world’s only 12 star restaurant
- Larisa: Here’s your grilled corn cob, cultivated without pesticides and prepared without artificial additives.
- Cloud: Excellent.
- Larisa: Also thank you very much for selecting our “Ram it down my throat!!” option.
- Cloud: Uhm, no, I’m pretty sure I didn’t order that.
- Larisa: May I also interest you in our special “Buy 3, get 2!” offer?
- Larisa: Kann ich Sie vielleicht auch noch für unser “Zahl 3, bekomm 2!”-Angebot begeistern?
- Cloud: GGRRRKL!!
- Sandra: Check, please!
![[0801] The 12 Star Restaurant](/comics/2016-07-07-0801-the-12-star-restaurant.png "[0801] The 12 Star Restaurant")
Also, I can’t wait for Novil to serve me some more political satire, cultivated without pesticides and prepared without artificial additives.
mhw wrote:
Well when you sign a contract with a partner any kind of change in such contract must be mutually agreed by both sides.
I would also immediately leave my chess club if everyone else decides to play volleyball. I have not signed to play volleyball and will not do it regardless of others.
And well… current EU is hardly the EEC British joined… they joined fort free trade… not for anything else, and current EU with all the bank regulation, quotas, norms… and unfair subventions throughout the “market” can not be considered free…
It was Thacher and essentially libertarians who signed on that promise… and we’ll those same people in Britain voted out because EEC/EU did not deliver.
It was hijacked on the way by socialist like Ashton, Junker, maoist Barroso, communist Mogheriny…
@ Paeris Kiran:
I don’t see what there would be to “protect”, if the living standards become the same, the taxes get the same, the minimum wages, the social rules, etc, all get the same.
Then, whether you produce in France, in Greece, in Poland, or wherever, it shouldn’t make any difference: People would get fair wages for fair work, and competition would be made on product quality, or product features, or price, but it wouldn’t artificially be unbalanced by having a country require his companies to pay 50% taxes, when another requires only 20% in total, for instance.
Also, I have absolutely no problem with foreigners coming to France to work, IF they get paid the same, and the labour taxes get paid in France too. But that’s not how the Bolkenstein directive works: Minimum wages apply, but the work taxes get paid in the original country, not in the country the worker works.
Oh, and about our prime minister: I don’t know why he suddenly took “offense” at this directive, considering the labor law he’s forced down on us (yep, France is only slightly less a dictatorship that the EU is, currently – theoretically, there SHOULD be more people opposing the current government, in the parliament, considering how the majority of the population is against that law. But nope, because of party politics and threats about not investing them for the next term, a lot chose to back the government in spite of the population hating them).
Manuel Valls (the PM), is probably more of a right-wing capitalist that some of the main “opposition” party, supposed to be more conservative. A bit like if a “Democrat” pushed Tea-Party agendas, to make a US-politics analogy.
Well, anyway, I sure hope the Brexit will either whip the EU into listening to the people, and becoming acceptably democratic, or “show the way” to other countries, in order for it to collapse by lack of members, so that we can build something better.
@ Paeris Kiran:
And to put it bluntly… the same thing was advertised when the central European countries were joining… economical union…
Not political one. Not a word about that when we head referendums about getting in… really we were just happy that after 300 years under Austrian rule, and 40 under socialist rule wee can finally decide things our way… now we again can not.
Just a nice promise of partnership and debate. Not about rules imposed from top and far away.
@ Paeris Kiran:
10/10. Nice trolling, about all those “left-wing bastards”.
I consider myself left-wing, and let me tell you, Barroso and the like feel to me like die-hard free-market fans, destroyers of Providence State, and creators of equal poverty for most people (and huge riches for a few exploiters, of course)
Kzwix wrote:
Well to put it bluntly… there is not enough money in the “east” for it to work out.
It would either mean a self destructive debt or taxes no one could afford to pay.
For example our taxes from property are very low… by necessity because only working way how to get a retirement security is owning a house/flat.
If german or French property taxes were introduced, half of the populace would have to sell the proprerty to pay them…
Plus the government’s would actually have to bee effective in collecting said tax… and we’ll Italy, Spain, Greece… tax evasion is national sport there, and state does not really pursue it.
Implementation of what you seek essentially would require quite a ruthless dictatorship.
Taxes in Greece were always high… Just very few people actually paid them… and even less were ever prosecuted for not paying them.
Kzwix wrote:
Well and I tell you that from country that enjoyed 40 years of communist rule, and “membership” in comecon where Soviets just had enough power to overvome anyone.
We consider those people too far left for our taste… We in the central Europe are rather fond of Thacher and Reagan… they got us rid of the left winged communist control.
You see… the left and right is kind of question of national awareness… For example most people in my country would say there is no right wing in your country… even LePen politics would be ascribed as “left” here.
@ Paeris Kiran:
The way I see it, there is a full spectrum. Thatcher and Reagan are real Right-wing, market-almighty worshippers, and the Communists were at the opposite end of that spectrum. Or, rather, would have been if they had really applied the ideology they said to have.
However, “Communist” countries were dictatorships, much like China is now, or North Korea, with a few benefitting from the work of the many.
Now, you can have something in-between, that is, allow free enterprise, but put legal boundaries as to how low wages can go, or require that, above a certain threshold of wealth, people contribute more to the general well-being. That’s not asking for everybody to have exactly the same ammount of “not much”, that’s asking people who already have a lot to give a bit more. Asking those who already have a huge lot to give a bit part. That’s called “redistribution”.
As for what would, or wouldn’t work, you said that there wasn’t enough money in the east. I strongly disagree. I mean, is a Polish worker’s day’s work worth less than a French worker’s day’s work ? If both produce the same ammount of the same thing, with the same skill, their work is worth the very same, right ?
So, why should one be paid half what the other gets ? Why should food be half the price, there ? Commodities ? Buildings ? If you adjust the cost of living, and adjust the wages accordingly, it’s not a problem.
Also, money is merely a tool to allow a non-barter based economy. It doesn’t matter if there is “not enough” money now, money should represent services provided, wealth created, etc. Where is the problem, in creating more, as long as people keep accepting the same amount for the same things ? I mean, if you say that “from now on, the EU will multiply by ten the monetary mass”, and the economy doesn’t follow, then yes, foreign people will want more euros for the same services or products.
However, internally, as long as one euro buys you the same things, why would you require more money for the same job ? If you double the population, but keep the same money mass, then you have an average half the money per people than you had before. Double the amount of money, to match the increased production and consume needs, and it’s perfectly fine.
As for taxes, yes, in France, we do have high taxes. However, we also have high state-funded benefits, so it really balances out. If you have to pay the hospital, pay the school for your children, pay private companies for security, pay people to watch out for fires, pay mercenaries to guard the borders, pay an accounting company to handle all those billings and contracts, etc… Well, I’m pretty sure it would equate, roughly, to the same spendings than we have, here, covered by taxes.
Of course, some people stand to gain (those with a lot of kids, for instance), and some stand to lose (those who are never ill, who do not want children, etc), but, all in all, having a healthy country, where young people are educated, benefits us all. It’s the same with the police, fire brigade, army, public transportation, road building… such things DO benefit everybody, either directly or indirectly. So, why not make them public, non-profit based, and finance them through taxes ?
So, no, I don’t think it would be that difficult to create common rules which would apply to all member countries. But, for this, we need the people to be able to express themselves, and NOT have a few dictators deciding for us.
Xezlec wrote:
I suppose Deuxit is a considerably better name for it than Gerxit… XD
@ Lplus:
you were independent already. and now with this you lost your the freedom and oportunities the EU gives.
I found a recent interview with our prime-minister and current EU chairman Mark Rutte quite interesting. From his point of view, the EU should stick to a few core matters, and he’s trying to get it back to that, but he acknowledges that it’s a necessary change from within, and not one that happens instantly. Though he was glad to recently hear the Euro parliamentarians complain that there’s too little regulation to discuss. He considered that a success.
He however strongly condemned that certain British politicians have campaigned heavily for Brexit and when it causes a mess, they just leave politics and let the British people deal with the mess they helped cause.
Personally I think that Europe has had a bad focus on more regulation in previous years, but the tide is turning. In my opinion the Brexit campaign made it look like there were only two options: Stay in Europe and die by regulation suffocation, or leave Europe and recapture the glorious heydays of the British Empire (which proved to be a lie, at least in the short term.)
I think European citizens should keep in mind that Europe is a democracy, albeit one that is less directly voted for than the local government. In this I agree with Rutte that the local government should take care of most regulations (since it’s more democratical and more attuned to the local voters) and Europe should only work on the main things like inter-country relations, human rights, inter-country environmental issues, etc.
In the end, the option that was not highlighted sufficiently during the Brexit campaigns is that as a European citizen, you can change Europe from within, by electing the right politicians to the job. (Or become one yourself if you’re really crazy.)
@ Kzwix:
Thank you for your insightful commentary. Generally when we hear of the French in relation to Europe on Dutch Television it is because they are setting fire to their own country because they refuse to retire aged 67.
It makes us think the French are just lazy, because we already retire at 67, and by the time I reach retirement age, in about 50 years I expect that to about 75 years of age.
It’s good to have a reminder that not all people in France are stereotypical revolutionaries.
(Of course I know they’re not. I have some very hard working French friends.)
@ Arent:
It was also about prominent Conservatives trying to gain power.
Right, the restaurant is the EU, Cloud France, Sandra the UK, and Larissa as- Germany? Brussels? then there’s the fact that ‘getting corncobbed’ is a euphemism for having stuff shoved up the backside . . . Plenty of people go on about Brexit being a mistake, but is it? Really? “Oh, it hurts now, but trust me, in the long run it’ll work out.” “Yeah, getting a little tired of that ‘long run’ talk, especially since I don’t see the maitre d’ suffering any. ” I wonder who Woo would be in this scenario- Iceland? Norway? Funny thing, Iceland for being hundreds of miles away from the European continent is still more European than the the UK!
@ Kzwix:
It is only question who does the dictating to those who do not agree… that is in the end the main issue – who gets into power and forces others to accept it.
really for those who do not agree there is little difference wheather there is one dictator, of the “democratic majority” forces on the decision.
You see, for me “democracy” simply means dictatorship of the majority, and as such should be extremly limited in power – in general state should be limited and weak and generaly under control of citizens, not the other way round. (and to say it – it should have absolutely no tie with the “economy” what so ever – contatcs between industry (and by private sector in short) with politicians should be as low as possible, so one does not get chance to influence the other.
And as far as “security” goes… I see videos from Paris new Years… how many cars the mobs there burn each year? those is private property! property people paid for and worked for…. yet it is destroyed with police just watching a mob of malcontent destroy it…
My choise would be to order police to shoot such mob down because I consider protection of private property of taxpaying citizens the main reason for state´s existence. Just thieves, a vandals, nothing worth saving.
How much of stuff gets destroyed when some of your “unions” (after government the second most influenced institutions connected to organized crime) make protests?
I have absolutely no will or taste to tolerate such vandalism and chaos… so what does the state do to prevent this? supposedoly it uses social system to bribe a lot of the people not to do it… the problem is that each and every year this people want more… (equally as mafia “protection” money increases each and every single year… and why they always demand more? because they can and get their way)
and “people with lot of children would benefit”… sure… Europe right now has about 25 milion unemployed people officialy, and anthoer 10-15 milking the system on “social” benefits, rather than unemployment benefits…
People who often have education, but the education is practically worhtless… noone needs what those people studied… there is little market for historians and sociologist… (there is some but not that much… there is of course short supply for welders, electricians, mathematicians, engeniers… but those areas are beyond most people ability to learn)
for every other species on this planet same situation has but one name… “OVERPOPULATION”
Europe does not need people with lot of children to benefit… that would in essence only increase the problem… more kids, more unemployment in the future… in fact having lot of kids should be discouraged. (and consequently immigration should be also discouraged but for a selective individual basis… of people who have skills that are needed… a mass of people comming in… (something that EU also wanted to shove down throat of everyone) is completly opposite of what Europe needs.
Too many such people are already here, and not just migrants but a lot of “locals” who have wasted years and years in education they will not have use for in their life anyway.
Refocus from quantity to quality is required… and selective quality to be sure… so called “humanity studies” are indeed nice, but realisticaly only about 5 PHD level historians are needed per 10 million people.
Medical doctors are in short supply however… but far less people wants to study that… Maybe a reorietation in what is government funded education and what is not would be in order first…
I am not against existence of government in principle… I consider it a necessary evil, (but evil nonless) but it should be limited.
And well – the problem with growing prizes is… they can´t grow in the east… people do not have money to pay the higher prices… (another problem really is – people from the “west” are kind of putting prizes up here, because the flats and stuff are cheap by your standards… but we can not afford them…
We had a protection that protected us from likes of you buying it… but it expired 5 years ago… and now the prices go up, and salaries not…
100 000 EUR is aflat here… a flat it would take me about 35 years of mortage to pay… if the prices go up, I will not afford it…
Local bussineses can not increase salaries because there would be noone to pay the prices that grow up…
hell in fact quite a lot of bussinesses are going out of job because they were already on the edge and our brilliant finance minister ordered every single pub to buy connection to the internet and electronic evidence of every snacker they sell… overall it is minor expense compared to lasers I build… but shops are closing down already around me… they simply say if they increase the price, people will not shop there….
and well that is kind of the point… in my country people always go to shop to cheapest place. Go for lowest repairman (or fix things ourselves) just yesterday (we had public holiday) I spent 2 hours fixing toilet… not because I could not afford someone to do it… but because it seemed ludicrous to me to pay 20 eur what I can easily do alone. But it was actully quite relaxing to do something I do not need to think about.
elessal wrote:
Well if you think of it… British actually did not have the one big freedom of movement…
Britain actually can not be part of Schengen space at the moment anyway – because to move in Schengen space you need to carry an ID and if policemen ask you need to show him the ID…
In Britain noone is actually obligated to even own any form of ID card… We are all tracked by birth numbers (“east”) or social insurance numbers (West) and we are obligated to have a permanet place of stay logged with the governments…
(Well that was also a grudge I had against governments and EU in generall…. they annoy us with this identification and residence torture, send us bills for collecting waste… even newborns usually have received a form to register for waste disposal before they get out of hospital…
but after that governments permit unregistered people, with no IDs, no residence I have mandatory to receive letters from government for whatever reasons, to just wander around my country?
Freedom for them? I want egual freedom in my home… but I am local, I work, I pay taxes… I do not matter… to the politicians… they focus on the “poor refugees” even when they have plenty of own in equaly misserable situation…
Funny… A yearly cost of 1 refugee in our country is about 80000 EUR… average retirement pension of person for a year who has worked for 35 years is about 4500EUR…
Oh yeah… I am “very glad” priorities of my government… (which btw is calling itself a “left centre”)
I think one of the bigger problems in Brexit reporting is most people trying to simplify everything into extremes such as “The British want to leave.”
In reality, it’s more accurate to say that the people of Britain are about 50/50 on whether or not we stay or leave. From the various news that I’ve seen, a lot of the populace in other EU countries also want to leave. The big difference I’m actually seeing between Britain and the other EU countries is that at least in Britain we were given a chance to vote – something that the citizens of other EU countries are still begging for.
If anything, the post-referendum has edged me more toward the leave camp than I was previous (although I’m still pretty much borderline). Seeing Junkers state that he would make an example of the UK to scare the rest of the EU citizenry away from leaving just rubs me up the wrong way. Junkers was basically making an outright declaration that the EU will rule by fear if necessary, and I certainly don’t want to live under any regime that considers it acceptable to treat its citizens in such a way.
As a Leave voter, I know exactly what this comic is about:
It’s a comedy sketch by Sandra, Cloud and Larisa about poor services and a 12 star restaurant.
I’m sure Novil was trying to deliver a joke than spark a debate in comments, or very least want us to think more on both sides of the matter than stay one sided to our votes. So can’t we put our Brexit debates by the door and enjoy the comic?
@ RJoeLurk:
“Actually it’s pretty clear from an objective standpoint that leaving the EU is worse than staying.”
You just are picking the things you think are more important, and deciding that what you value is the ‘objective’ truth of what everyone should value. That is Collectivist and supremely arrogant. Someone who values British sovereignty more will be against staying in the EU for example, while someone who values economic and cultural integration will be for staying in the EU. But you cannot say that the things you value more thus prove it is ‘objectively’ better to stay in the EU. That would be like arguing that coffee is objectively better than tea because of X, when X will just be your preference for coffee that you after the fact think everyone should value like you do.
Well done. Well done indeed
@ GnarlyDoug:
Ah… that reminded me of gret old gem…
“Value” has no meaning other than in relationship to living beings. The value of a thing is always relative to a particular person, is completely personal and different in quantity for each living human — “market value” is a fiction, merely a rough guess at the average of personal values, all of which must be quantitatively different or trade would be impossible. … This very personal relationship, “value”, has two factors for a human being: first, what he can do with a thing, its use to him… and second, what he must do to get it, its cost to him. There is an old song which asserts that “the best things in life are free”. Not true! Utterly false! This was the tragic fallacy which brought on the decadence and collapse of the democracies of the twentieth century; those noble experiments failed because the people had been led to believe that they could simply vote for whatever they wanted… and get it, without toil, without sweat, without tears. … I fancy that the poet who wrote that song meant to imply that the best things in life must be purchased other than with money — which is true — just as the literal meaning of his words is false. The best things in life are beyond money; their price is agony and sweat and devotion . . . and the price demanded for the most precious of all things in life is life itself — ultimate cost for perfect value.”
Lt. Col. Jean V. Dubois (Ret.), pp. 93-94 (Starship Troopers, Robert A. Heinlein 1959)
Sorry Novil,
but I don’t like political stuff being forced down my throat … literally. While I enjoy political remarks and subtle hints, S&W is not a political comic and should not try to be. It’s not even particularly funny without any political background and IMO does not represent the charakter’s traits either (Sandra not caring about Cloud, Larisa being crazy AND talkative beyond reason, Cloud inable to fight back).
Regards and holding out for monday
Tbh I don’t care about the politics of it, as far as I’m concerned Britain has changed mafia bosses, but we’re still under the mafia. As long as there’s humans in the mix, the political system wok
will continue to involve sausage that you really don’t want to see being made.
On a slightly selfish note it does annoy me that science funding is getting screwed up by this. It’ll sort itself out in a few years but there’s a lot of young researchers whose careers are going to be messed up by this in the meantime all because of some posh boys playing power games.
Mxax-Ai wrote:
*rolls eyes*
Nothing is being literally or figuratively shoved down our throats buy SandW.
I doubt this will turn into ‘Doonesbury’. I laughed and then read the news, so good strip IMO.
Political commentary… yeah, I’m done. Check please.
As the rule 34 element Grows….
Mxax-Ai wrote:
Well, and if Cloud fight back and attacks a girl? (especially the crazy one? :D)
Basically I can take it as this way.
Sandra = UK
Cloud = France
Larisa = EU Commission
The EU commission comes up with with laws that the Reps of the major countries vote for, however, the Reps DO NOT have the power to change or remove a law that passes, if it turns out the law hurts countries more than not having the law, the countries affected, even if a majority, cannot start a vote to have the law changed/removed. Only the commission can decide to bring up a law to be changed or removed, you can request the commission to look at the law, but that is all, a request. If the commission decides NOT to change the law, the nations reps are powerless.
It’s nothing like the house or representatives, the senate or anything america has. laws can be challenged and brought up to be changed. The EU’s laws once passed are set in stone, until the people in charge “The commission” decides to change them.
@ Paeris Kiran:
Paeris Kiran wrote:
Seriously, do they have a massive international crime syndicate actively murdering and raping and literally making no effort to hide it because they got more powerful than the government? Because if that’s happening on such a blatant and large scale in Eastern Europe rather than just the Middle East, that’s honestly terrifying. These refugees, when they’re really refugees, actually are trying to escape from certain death because they refused to murder and rape alongside ISIS (or are prime targets for murder and rape according to ISIS.) I will say that there probably are people taking advantage of the situation for cheap immigration, but there are also plenty who are just trying to not be a subject of the most vile dictatorship we’ve seen in a long time, and forcing those poor buggers to be ISISed is just wrong.
The_Squished_Elf wrote:
I have no qualm about them comming in principle – but the second they cross borders – our governments should force them to be subject of every single law and regulation we have, demand them to pay every single thing we have to pay for.
I have no problem with other people visiting my home, I have no problem of giving helping hand to someone who needs it.
but what I demand is that visitor completly and utterly submits to rules of the house he is visiting. If anyone violates such rules he deserves to be thrown out without even smallest appology.
The second a refugee crosses a border he should get into line to register, get identification and he should also get bills for every service that is mandatory by law for residence. And he should acknowlege local law and fully and utterly submit to it.
Gentlemen!!! Behold!!! CORN!!!
@ Terion:
Well, to be fair, I’m left-wing AND think that we should retire way earlier than 67. Or, rather, that we shouldn’t have to work that long, especially in physically tiring jobs, or in delicate jobs. I mean, would you really like your airliner pilot to be an old man, with all the added risks that go with it ? Would you want surgery carried by elderly doctors, with unsteady hands and low sight ?
Plus, mechanization and automation allow a lot of work to be done without human intervention. The current system, where we consider unemployed people failures, or parasites (even if they ARE looking for a job) is very good for employers, as it allows them to keep lower wages (at least, on easy-to-fill positions), as they can always use the “if you don’t like it, someone else will” argument.
Plus, jobless people care more about day-to-day survival, and less about other things (like, say, politics…). So, really, the current situation benefits those in situations of power, and helps maintain the status-quo.
Now, however, while we already automate a lot of tasks, we could automate even more. And that would create even more “unemployment”. So, we can keep the current system, and have a few people invest in automation, and reap the benefits, privately, laying off workers, and getting companies that become more and more profitable, always for the same few, or we could have those improvements get public, and have them improve the whole society, meaning that we could redistribute the productivity gains to all the population, and not just to a happy few.
I’m not saying we should deny the inventors and visionaries any credit. But we need to strike a careful balance between innovation incentive and public benefits. And, right now, unfortunately, most laws are geared towards “self-interest”, instead of public interest. Look at the patent office rules, at software patents, at patents on naturally-occurring genes… or even at artistic property rules, in fact.
Look at the comic “Tintin”: The author is long dead, but still, there is a foundation taking care of its patrimonial rights, and making very sure that money is made out of his works. Same with the “Journal d’Anne Franck”, for instance, or with the “Happy Birthday” song, which only came into “public domain” a few weeks ago.
We have a huge potential to create a better living for everybody, but we let selfish people confiscate progress, and turn it into private wealth sources, much like some people will dam a river and keep its water to themselves, dessicating the below lands.
Also, we could redistribute the work that needs doing, and have people work globally as much, but in a shared way (so, instead of having, say, 80% of the population working 100% of the time, we could have 100% of the population working 80%). Now, of course, this is over-simplified, and some jobs wouldn’t be easily “sharable”, but still: The time freed would mean more productivity in the time actually spent working, less time spent “hunting wellfare recipients”, better health, better mood, etc.
And that’s not even a “left-wing” fantasy, as some companies already make people work 4 days per week, instead of 5 days per week. They DID note an increase in productivity (per hour worked), in work conditions, in mood, less medical leaves, etc…
So, really, it is not a matter of “not wanting to work”, it’s much more of a matter of wanting to work in a fair way, and not be exploited more and more by the same powerful people.
And this is about as funny as… discovering that one of the banknotes in your wallet is counterfeit and you can’t remember where you got it from.
So the stuff is less nutritious and more likely to be covered in parasite eggs? Good to know!
Larisa Used Corn Cob.
It’s Super Effective!
@ Paeris Kiran:
Quoting: […]You see, for me “democracy” simply means dictatorship of the majority[…]
You’re absolutely right, here. Democracy is giving the power to the people, and, as such, if a majority of people desires something, then they will get it, even if morally wrong. For instance, let me earn my Godwin point by mentioning Jews (or Muslims, or Gays, or… really, any minority).
There IS a risk that majority would vote laws that would be unfair to those minorities (taking their possessions, deporting them, killing them, or painting them in fluorescent pink, whatever). But can you say the risk is non-existant with any other form of government ? To take my earlier point, with Nazi germany, I don’t believe the Nazi party had an absolute majority, at least at the beggining. However, the government, which was NOT pushed by more than half the citizens, DID commit a lot of crimes.
There are xenophobic governments all around the world, pushing unfair laws all the time agains people whose only crime was to move from a dangerous place where they were starving, or shot at, or otherwise in danger, to a place they thought safer, better. And yet, they get deported, parked in camps, watched as they drown trying to cross the sea (maybe, even, get murdered – there has been a story about an Italian coast-guard ship sinking a migrant boat, less than a year ago, I believe)…
So, yes, a government, ANY kind of government, can take evil decisions. Even a limited government, who would only have control of, say, the police, justice, and the army, could very well cause mayhem.
BUT, look at what would happen WITHOUT any government, or without laws: The “law of the jungle”, law of the strongest. We would see individuals able to protect themselves, individuals unable to (who either get lucky, and un-noticed, or mugged, raped, killed, etc.), individuals preying on the weak, etc.
The definition of anarchy, in fact, as it is the lack of government, law, and any kind of order.
But, anarchy doesn’t last, because most people hate that (usually, because they do know that, individually, they are unfit to survive). So, you’d see new power structures emerge, groups, clans, families, tribes… and, even if those would not be countries, you’d find the very same functions there, a decision organ (be that a “chief”, a “council”, or the whole of the group), a defensive function (just like the army: after all, the point is to be safe from enemies without), a judicial function (the point being to be safe from enemies within), etc.
So, your opinion on governments being dangerous is utterly true, but, unfortunately, we cannot get a safe society without such a power structure. What we CAN do, however, is ensure that this power is never in the hands of a few, in the hope that it is never in the hands of some madmen (or madwomen, heh, I don’t discriminate), and that collectively, we will NEVER (or as little as can be) act in an unfair, immoral way.
I’d rather have a benevolent dictator, myself, but the problem with that is that, even if we did choose the right person, we would have not guarantee about the next person to take the job, and… well, you know, dictators aren’t easy to take out of office once there. Hence, the need for democracy (lest you need a bloody revolution – bloody being the key word, here).
So, with that huge part about government out of the way, I wish to address your fear of government involvement in economics. Let’s say that the government does NOT involve itself in economics. At all. How would it get financed, for starters ? Any tax IS economic involvement (income tax ? or property tax ? benefits tax ? Each of those will lower the income of some economic entity, be it a person or a company, and, thus, meddle with economy). That would mean no tariffs, no minimum wages (meaning that, if you neither have the money to start your own business, nor other income, you might be forced, in order to be able to eat, to accept whatever someone will choose to offer you. Fancy working for a pound of stale bread per day ? Beats starving to death, right ? And what if someone else, even more desperate, accepts 0.8 pound of stale bread per day ? Should he put you out of a job ?
Now, nature. After all, if there are no laws, there, why not make the most profit, while destroying the whole place ? Why not pollute the water, if it’s cheaper ? They’ll just sell the land a bit cheaper later, to someone who does’nt need the water, and move to another place.
What about human exploitation ? Child labor ? Prostitution ? Child prostitution ? Organ selling ? After all, they all have an economic value, seeing how people are ready to pay for these things. Wouldn’t forbidding them go against the free market ? After all, if children are ready to work 10 hours a day in order not to starve, who is the government to judge ?
As for protecting private property, there again, you are right. I do think people destroying other people’s property without good reason are wrong. I think that people hurling rocks at cops, or sending molotov cocktails on them, are wrong. But cops shouldn’t use violence against peaceful protesters, as they’ve been seen doing (shooting flash-balls, or circlement-breaking grenades, at unarmed, peaceful civilians, for instance, or hitting them with their tonfas, using tear gas grenades, or high-pressure water cannons, etc.). That’s just as unlegitimate.
And just because some people do use loopholes in the legal system to further their own goals and pass other laws to keep themselves in power, doesn’t mean that the people should stay at home as instructed by the people in positions of power.
As for Unions, you’re partially right. One could say that their blocking some factory is an abuse of power. They should not be able to block another people’s property. BUT, should the owner be able to abuse his power, and throw thousands of people into unemployment, or lower unilaterally job conditions, just to make more money (usually, on already profitable companies) ? I don’t think so.
A company is not just a place to make money, it’s a social construct. It’s a thing people work in, work for, believe in, commit themselves to, and, ultimately, something they are bound to, at least, in the current system. If, in a snap of your fingers, you can jeopardize the lives of thousands of workers, make them lose sleep on how they will be able to afford to pay for their rent (or loan repayment), food, utilities, clothes, and so on, without them having committed any fault in their work, and without the company being in trouble, don’t you hold a little too much power ? You were talking about governments having too much power, well, guess what, they’re not the only ones.
So, if you put a system where everyone gets enough, even without working, to eat, live in a decent place, get clothes, basic services, etc, then ok, throwing people out on a whim is acceptable. Because they’ll still have the means to live.
However, if, by doing so, you threaten them with death (yes, people DO die in the street, at much younger ages than they’d reach if they had proper food, housing, and the like), well, you can’t expect them to just look at you with sad puppy eyes and leave you to your increased profits, now, can you ?
It’s a shame to have to say it, but human people are NOT tools to be used and discarded at will. They should not be letf to rot just because someone is marginally better, or cheaper, or whatever.
I have absolutely no will or taste to tolerate such vandalism and chaos… so what does the state do to prevent this? supposedoly it uses social system to bribe a lot of the people not to do it… the problem is that each and every year this people want more… (equally as mafia “protection” money increases each and every single year… and why they always demand more? because they can and get their way)
and “people with lot of children would benefit”… sure… Europe right now has about 25 milion unemployed people officialy, and anthoer 10-15 milking the system on “social” benefits, rather than unemployment benefits…
People who often have education, but the education is practically worhtless… noone needs what those people studied… there is little market for historians and sociologist… (there is some but not that much… there is of course short supply for welders, electricians, mathematicians, engeniers… but those areas are beyond most people ability to learn)
for every other species on this planet same situation has but one name… “OVERPOPULATION”
Europe does not need people with lot of children to benefit… that would in essence only increase the problem… more kids, more unemployment in the future… in fact having lot of kids should be discouraged. (and consequently immigration should be also discouraged but for a selective individual basis… of people who have skills that are needed… a mass of people comming in… (something that EU also wanted to shove down throat of everyone) is completly opposite of what Europe needs.
Too many such people are already here, and not just migrants but a lot of “locals” who have wasted years and years in education they will not have use for in their life anyway.
Refocus from quantity to quality is required… and selective quality to be sure… so called “humanity studies” are indeed nice, but realisticaly only about 5 PHD level historians are needed per 10 million people.
Medical doctors are in short supply however… but far less people wants to study that… Maybe a reorietation in what is government funded education and what is not would be in order first…
I am not against existence of government in principle… I consider it a necessary evil, (but evil nonless) but it should be limited.
And well – the problem with growing prizes is… they can´t grow in the east… people do not have money to pay the higher prices… (another problem really is – people from the “west” are kind of putting prizes up here, because the flats and stuff are cheap by your standards… but we can not afford them…
We had a protection that protected us from likes of you buying it… but it expired 5 years ago… and now the prices go up, and salaries not…
100 000 EUR is aflat here… a flat it would take me about 35 years of mortage to pay… if the prices go up, I will not afford it…
Local bussineses can not increase salaries because there would be noone to pay the prices that grow up…
hell in fact quite a lot of bussinesses are going out of job because they were already on the edge and our brilliant finance minister ordered every single pub to buy connection to the internet and electronic evidence of every snacker they sell… overall it is minor expense compared to lasers I build… but shops are closing down already around me… they simply say if they increase the price, people will not shop there….
and well that is kind of the point… in my country people always go to shop to cheapest place. Go for lowest repairman (or fix things ourselves) just yesterday (we had public holiday) I spent 2 hours fixing toilet… not because I could not afford someone to do it… but because it seemed ludicrous to me to pay 20 eur what I can easily do alone. But it was actully quite relaxing to do something I do not need to think about.
@ Paeris Kiran:
I didn’t see your take on overpopulation. I utterly agree with you, there, and think we should have degressive child benefits (like, max value for the first child, so that any couple can have at least one, no matter how poor, then half value for the second, then nothing for subsequent children, you want more, you pay for them yourself). These policies were activated after WWII, to help repopulate, but, as most politicians think only in terms of “increasing GDP”, they were kept – more children, so more work to do, etc… plus, it helps being a “bigger” country (at least, population-wise) than the neighbor, in case of a war, it means more soldiers, etc.
But, nowadays, we should revoke that policy, as the planet is already over-populated, as it is (and it causes the destruction of countless natural species, vegetal and animal).
As for raising prices, you misunderstood my point: If you double the money on any bank account in the country (like, you no longer have 10.000 euros, you now have 20.000 euros. Tadaa !), double the wages (not a problem, as there is now twice the money), double the prices, etc, you will no longer have prices “half those of west europe”. That’s merely economic adaptation, and either it comes “naturally”, but causes an unbalance in the meantime, or it can be done artificially, by way of a law. I used a factor of two for the purposes of the demonstration, but, what really is needed is 3.7, let it be 3.7, for instance, or whatever the real figure is.
But prices wouldn’t be enough, we need to unify taxes to a common level (I’m not saying we should all use a French like model, but we DEFINITELY should use the SAME model, because, else, it creates a distortion in competition), unify job regulations, etc.
Yeah, it would be a huge work, but what we’re talking about is unifying countries. If we do NOT want them to be united, if we wish to keep separate regulations, then maybe we shouldn’t have free trade and open borders, anyway, as these different models can’t coexist without causing a lot of unbalance. It’s a bit like a water lock: Boats can navigate before the gates, and can navigate after the gates. But the level is adapted by the lock.
If you merely remove the lock, you’ll cause a massive flow of water from the upper level to the lower level, wreaking havoc in its path, UNLESS both levels are more or less the same when you remove it.
@ Rothide:
Honestly, I’m French, but, although the beret somewhat could indicate “French”, his shirt shouts “Greece” to me. It looks a bit like their flag, in my opinion (plus, they had it even worse than us, or than Spain)
@ nicktyrong:
Nope, the parasite eggs more than compensate in protein weight 😛
Oh no! Larissa was really Shover Robot all along! The Space Robots have come to protect us from the terrible secret of space!
Mystic Monkey wrote:
Thank you, someone with sense around here. I don’t read webcomic to whistand a political flamewar. Or at least not this one.
Kzwix wrote:
*gag* *cough*
Needs more butter!
My interpretation is the following,
Larissa represents the EU and their legislation, mainly agricultural ones as trade has been the priority of the EU, therefor represented by the Corn Cob.
Member-states who vote against certain legislation may still see that legislation enforced even if they voted against it. In most cases EU legislation is there to keep things more simple, avoid having strike> 28 27 different regulations and replacing it with a single one which benefits trade.
How ever, the states that votes against will feel as though it is forced down their throat Shown in Panel 2 where Cloud, dressed as Greece is about to become familiar with. Greece entered the EU mainly as a way to ensure stability and democracy in southern Europe at the time of the cold war. Greece at that time in heated arguments with Turkey was a big risk for the EU but the EU wanted to pull in Greece, mainly for historical reasons. Enlisting the Country of Plato in the EU was seen as a desired relic to the member states.
Greece was greeted as a member even though levels of corruption were high, the State was inefficient with collecting taxes and had a.lax public administration. The high corruption also came into play when Greece joined the EURO 20 years later, they fudged up their numbers and the state that shouldn’t have been, was now a part of the single market currency. Greece’s role still paid off and got Spain and Portugal to join the EU and the EURO.
Once Greece needed to play catch up with the other EU member states how ever, the Greek population quickly realized they were getting pulled into something they were not ready for, or even agreed with. Which explains Cloud’s reply to Larissa.
Sandra, representing Britain realizes that she could end up in the same boat gets anxious and wishes to leave.
Let me guess; The punchline is, in the next comic, they’ll leave the restaurant and realise they should have stayed. At least, I HOPE that ends up being the punchline! Otherwise, Novil clearly does not understand Brexit at all.
Kzwix wrote:
Well that is kind of the point… even if we assume the multiplication you say… then well… problem kind of is… most of the old people do not have enough accumulated for it to make difference…
people who have a lot acumulated would get insane boost of resources compared to people who are each month running close to nill. That would be a destructive inflation…
Something like that happened in Weimar republic and brought Hitler to power… in fact – it would be actually far safer to cut costs and salaries on your side. In this societal respect – deflation is much safer than inflation.
Trust me – my country has been through quite a few monetary reforms in last century… and never ever it went on well. I suspect that nowadays any politican who would propose such a thing would get thrown out of window of his office (We have a nice term for it… a “defenestration” (When we did it first time, we got Hussian rebelions who started to refuse influence of catholic church… second one was relatively minor and incosequential… the third one essentialy was the spark of 30-year war…
Invoking fourth would be traditional.)
Mount C wrote:
Well, I guess they could say they should have stayend and bashed the waiter to a small blue cube to make sure she does what the guests do no matter what he himself wishes to do.
after all she is there to serve the customer wishes…
If that is the punchline I would agree with that.
These may be of interest:
http://www.wnyc.org/story/on-the-media-2016-07-01/
http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/mediawatch/audio/201806336/brexit-media-from-a-to-zz-top
@ nekomata:
nekomata wrote:
nekomata wrote:
I refer you to my post in the other forum. However, I’ll copy the relevant bit of that piece:
I’ve always found that the best arguments for staying in are given by the leave side. The Brexitiers say that we can leave and then get a better deal from the EU. They go on to say that if we don’t get a better deal then it shows that there’s something wrong with it. If anyone has imagined themselves in the position of the EU and/or the other member states, they will see what a flawed argument that is. Imagine this: You are part of a club that members have to pay into and for that members get benefits (including voting rights). This club wants to encourage more people to enroll. One member leaves and demands a better deal. Do you give it to them? If you say “no” then why should the EU? If you say “yes” then tell me why anyone would remain in your club?
Novil, is there anyway that we can turn off video ads, please? I’m only on a old laptop so my browser more or less locks up once a video starts playing. The only reason I’m able to type at the moment is because I deliberately crashed the Adobe Flash player plugin.