Bill to illegalize war...

Welcome to UKHIppy2764@2x.png

UKHippy is a long running online community and of likeminded people exploring all interpretations on what it means to be living an alternative lifestyle -- we welcome discussions on everything related to sustainability, the environment, alternative spirituality, music, festivals, politics and more -- membership of this website is free but supported by the community.

  • How should legislation be adjusted? 5

    1. Legalize Substances with a lower death toll than the army. (2) 40%
    2. Illegalize the army and any organization with a death toll higher than illegal substances. (2) 40%
    3. Both the army and all narcotic substances should be made illegal. (0) 0%
    4. The law is indeed fair and makes sense as it is. (0) 0%
    5. What do I care? I'm British! (1) 20%

    Well, this one could go to altered states as well, but my main point is political and has to do with UK current affairs more than anything else..


    Аccording to this here post in BBC News http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8427439.stm legal highs in the UK are now illegal because of ONE medical student's death in Brighton, presumably from a substance known as GBL combined with alcohol.


    This BBC News article http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8428802.stm clearly states that there's only been FOUR (4) verified fatalities GLOBALLY linked directly to GBL.


    So the UK government bans an entire range of substances based on ONE presumption of a death caused by a combination of a legal substance with a now-illegal one, and THREE verified cases GLOBALLY (the fourth verified case was the first ever in the UK and came after the ban).


    Without judging whether this is sane or not, we should accept it as the way decisions are made in the UK. After all, it could work to our benefit more than it could work against us.


    So, according to this BBC article http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8429196.stm there's TWO dead UK soldiers from FRIENDLY FIRE, within a week! This means the cause of their deaths was entirely within the UK armed forces, with no interference of any foreign military power.


    According to this BBC article http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/suffolk/8427386.stm ONE HUNDRED UK soldiers died in 2009 in Afghanistan.


    So, according to these findings, applying the same government formula, both WAR IN GENERAL and the UK ARMED FORCES pose a risk to the health of Britons (not to mention non-Britons) therefore should both be illegalized. So with effect from the 1st of January, I propose that we illegalize war and also illegalize the UK Armed Forces and prosecute anybody in POSSESSION of any affiliation with same organization.


    The findings prove a much larger number of deaths arising from war than from any legal high, or cannabis for that matter. The number of deaths of Britons linked to the UK Armed Forces alone is DOUBLE than the number of deaths of Britons from GBL alone, therefore there's double the necessity for laws forbidding the UK Armed Forces, their use, their possession or their sale.

  • You will find that there is already a legal frame work in place which will determine if one country going to war with another is legal or not. Legally war is seen as a last resort between two nation states and laws relating to that is governed by international laws and treaties.


    The laws relating to narcotics are only passed at a national level based on evidence by government medical advisers. The government have actually considered banning GBL for a long while.


    If we were as a nation to disband our own armed forces overnight it will leave us vulnerable to attack from rogue nations attacking us, even the possibility of a coup d'etat to displace our current system of government with a military dictatorship.

  • I'd like to see all the armies weapons locked away in a deep undergound bunker untill they where if ever needed to defend the country from being invaded.

    and you say what happens to all the soldiers ? re train them to be farmers that can produce the ways and maintain the ways for britain to grow everything that it is currently being imported from elsewhere.

  • You will find that there is already a legal frame work in place which will determine if one country going to war with another is legal or not. Legally war is seen as a last resort between two nation states and laws relating to that is governed by international laws and treaties.


    The laws relating to narcotics are only passed at a national level based on evidence by government medical advisers. The government have actually considered banning GBL for a long while.


    If we were as a nation to disband our own armed forces overnight it will leave us vulnerable to attack from rogue nations attacking us, even the possibility of a coup d'etat to displace our current system of government with a military dictatorship.


    Well, this is why I'm proposing that we don't just rely on international laws and treaties which are interpreted very differently depending on what the "desired outcome" is, but we create laws on a national level instead, banning war and the armed forces.


    We could even have a committee of medical advisers on war and the armed forces, who would collect evidence and do a risk assessment. Then we could set the "nationally acceptable threshold levels of fatalities" and any activity or organization or substance or anything that exceeds that would be banned. Anything below would be legal. To make it fair, we would have to re-work our legal system to abide by these newly formed thresholds. This means that we ban a bit here, we legalize a bit there, and then we're left with something we should all be happy with, that poses little to no risk to the population.


    As for your last statement, I would say this is debatable. I would say that it is definitely not the UK armed forces that "all these terrorists out there in their little rogue states" are afraid of. Actually, the UK armed forces are quite powerless compared to those of other nations, who have much greater numbers (due in part to several years of mandatory military participation for all males in several nations that do not take human rights seriously), much more battlefield experience (nations that have been in direct threat from their neighboring rogue states) and do not feel any need to abide by no-nuclear-weapons or no-biological-weapons agreements. The UK relies much more on the military power of its allies rather than its own. The "allies" on their part do not care much about the UK military power, the reason they would support us is our political and economical position, which is directly beneficial for our military allies. Therefore even if we were to decide to ban our own armed forces, we would still have the same amount of protection from our allies as they would hate to lose the political and economical benefits that we provide them with.


    Last but not least, I do not believe that the threat of "attack from rogue nations" exists. Not here, not now. It would take decades, if not centuries, and tremendous political changes in many countries for such a threat to be realistic.


    As for the coup from our own military, totally impossible. Our military is decorational. It is not very strong and the only power it has is the killing potential. Our allies on the other hand only see the political and economical power of the UK as beneficial. Therefore they would instantly interfere and preserve our current system, sans-army if this is what we decide to do. Of course, everyone previously involved in the illegal armed forces would have to choose between being imprisoned or sent abroad to continue their military career in an allied country where it would be legal to do so.


    Of course, you will find that there are actually countries with no military that are much better off in that domain than the ones that do have it. The people stay safer, studies have shown. Less deaths. Isn't that what we're after?

  • and you say what happens to all the soldiers ? re train them to be farmers that can produce the ways and maintain the ways for britain to grow everything that it is currently being imported from elsewhere.


    This is an absolutely amazing idea! Thanks Dan! We could have Military Detox centers that would help former military people to overcome their problem and be part of society again, quite similar to Drug Detox in a way. Give them video-games and a shooting range for a brief period of time, reducing the dose as the therapy progresses, aiming to cure their violent tendencies. Then have a training program aiming to release them as skilled workers in farming. Excellent!


    Of course, since we respect human rights, in the same way that we allow Britons to smoke weed in the Netherlands and even move there if they wish, we should allow our former soldiers to go abroad and keep on being soldiers where laws allow them to do so.

  • why thank you Jim

    I really like the way you think about stuff and create solutions for the stupidity that the rulers of this country pays people to do or the way the rulers of this country doesn't ban the production & importing of stuff that is clearly killing society.

  • won't illegalising war just push it underground and make it more abusive and dangerous, because we can't control what's happening as easily? :p

    we reenact Noah's ancient drama, but in reverse, like a film running backwards, the animals exiting

  • won't illegalising war just push it underground and make it more abusive and dangerous, because we can't control what's happening as easily? :p


    Ummm.....


    You're good, you're hired!


    On a more serious note, for a start I somehow doubt that war can be made much worse than it is (and has always been). Then again, I'm only proposing a law on a national level. Therefore we would ban war in Britain or coming from Britain. So Britain would not be part of the global war scene. The war scene would still be alive and kicking without us and nothing (apart from legislation) would stop addicted Britons from becoming illegal mercenaries and carrying out missions abroad, but they would not be able to do that in the name of all of us. So this is our gain. These few people would probably be very abusive and dangerous, but at least they would be operating on an individual level and would not have much power to cause extensive damage. Their actions would be considered crimes in the UK so as soon as they are found out they would face legal consequences and eventually we would be able to eliminate them (much like the government will no-doubt do with benefit fraud).. We can hunt them down like Garry Glitter! We can even coin the term "Warphiles" to describe them and bribe the media to have a bit of a frenzy about this..!


    The most important thing is that they would not be able to freely operate domestically. Since they would have the legal option of doing what they wish by moving permanently abroad, I don't see what the incentive would be in staying here and trying to do it.

  • Illegalize the army and any organization with a death toll higher than illegal substances.


    Though if we could make war illegal, that would be better

    "Going to Starbucks for coffee is like going to prison for sex. You know you're going to get it, but it's going to be rough."

  • On a more serious note, for a start I somehow doubt that war can be made much worse than it is (and has always been). Then again, I'm only proposing a law on a national level. Therefore we would ban war in Britain or coming from Britain. So Britain would not be part of the global war scene. The war scene would still be alive and kicking without us and nothing (apart from legislation) would stop addicted Britons from becoming illegal mercenaries and carrying out missions abroad, but they would not be able to do that in the name of all of us. So this is our gain. These few people would probably be very abusive and dangerous, but at least they would be operating on an individual level and would not have much power to cause extensive damage. Their actions would be considered crimes in the UK so as soon as they are found out they would face legal consequences and eventually we would be able to eliminate them (much like the government will no-doubt do with benefit fraud).. We can hunt them down like Garry Glitter! We can even coin the term "Warphiles" to describe them and bribe the media to have a bit of a frenzy about this..!


    I have to say that is a rather judgemental statement you have made there, how do you know that these people are 'very abusive and dangerous'? There are lots of reasons why somebody would want to go to war or fight, just look at the reasons why people are recruited into terrorist organisations. They are not recruited into those organisations because they are abusive and dangerous, they are recruited because they believe (or sometimes brainwashed to believe) in something that the organisation can offer.


    As I say the legal frame work already exists on an international level, the UK just needs to sign treaties on an international level to make it known that it is a neutral country. If war in Europe were to happen we would have an influx of refugees as the UK would then be recognised as a safe haven. If whoever is invading the rest of Europe doesn't recognise the neutrality of Europe and decides to invade, then we will be in a whole heap of shit. Just because we are safe now doesn't mean we won't be in the future.

  • I have to say that is a rather judgemental statement you have made there, how do you know that these people are 'very abusive and dangerous'? There are lots of reasons why somebody would want to go to war or fight, just look at the reasons why people are recruited into terrorist organisations. They are not recruited into those organisations because they are abusive and dangerous, they are recruited because they believe (or sometimes brainwashed to believe) in something that the organisation can offer.


    As I say the legal frame work already exists on an international level, the UK just needs to sign treaties on an international level to make it known that it is a neutral country. If war in Europe were to happen we would have an influx of refugees as the UK would then be recognised as a safe haven. If whoever is invading the rest of Europe doesn't recognise the neutrality of Europe and decides to invade, then we will be in a whole heap of shit. Just because we are safe now doesn't mean we won't be in the future.


    I was just trying to be a politician here, just saying that anyone who does anything outside the law is bound to be at least abusive and dangerous. As with drug dealers, who are of course abusive and dangerous while alcohol and tobacco dealers never are of course since they're doing it legally, so they're bound to be good people!


    Fucking hell man, try to raise that point about people recruited into terrorist organizations not being abusive or dangerous while being interrogated by counter-terrorist plod and you'll have a nice ending...! :plod:: :osama:


    Ok, the international framework would be my Plan B, but I was trying to pass a revolutionary law here! There are countries with national-level laws that ban armed forces or any kind of military involvement. They tend to have fewer problems than we do, at least on that matter.


    My whole point is that we should balance our national legislation by employing equal standards for what should be allowed or not, depending on actual scientific evidence. Banning the military or allowing drugs are both extreme examples demonstrating that the current legal system makes absolutely no sense to me.

  • If they make WAR illegal and all the weapons associated with it illegal...would it not also mean people like Coyote and myself giving up our Bows,Arrows,Swords,Axes and knives ?...after all they are used in warfare too...and would we be accused of being equipped for war ? (even though I only collect them because I like sharp pointy things and some were used in ritual magick in the days when I was prone to wave a sword around a circle)

  • And if you make war illegal, who will police and enforce this; presumably they will have weapons "just in case"....

    "The only rules that really matter are these: what a man can do and what a man can't do."

  • If they make WAR illegal and all the weapons associated with it illegal...would it not also mean people like Coyote and myself giving up our Bows,Arrows,Swords,Axes and knives ?...after all they are used in warfare too...and would we be accused of being equipped for war ? (even though I only collect them because I like sharp pointy things and some were used in ritual magick in the days when I was prone to wave a sword around a circle)


    No, not at all.. Why give up weapons? To the contrary, weapon ownership should be legal. Schooling should include weapon education and we should try to make sure people are responsible with them.


    I think people should be allowed to keep there swords for self defence.

    bows and arrows for hunting.


    Exactly!


    And if you make war illegal, who will police and enforce this; presumably they will have weapons "just in case"....


    The people! All of us.

  • What makes you think "the people" are up to the task?


    Well, if they're not, they still have a few days until the 1st of January.. In the worst case, I can grant a deferment for a few months until they all prepare themselves...


    After all, this is a law we're talking about. What makes you think that "the people" are any more ready for any of the other laws that get passed? We're just following the trend here.. We can't be THAT revolutionary all at once! Some things will still have to remain as they are. There's a lot of things in a legal system that are up to "the people", irrelevant of whether the people are ready or not..

  • Well, if they're not, they still have a few days until the 1st of January.. In the worst case, I can grant a deferment for a few months until they all prepare themselves...


    After all, this is a law we're talking about. What makes you think that "the people" are any more ready for any of the other laws that get passed? We're just following the trend here.. We can't be THAT revolutionary all at once! Some things will still have to remain as they are. There's a lot of things in a legal system that are up to "the people", irrelevant of whether the people are ready or not..


    This would be the same people so many of whom watch Eastenders....... :whistle:

    "The only rules that really matter are these: what a man can do and what a man can't do."

  • so the plan is to get rid of the army, give everyone guns and tell us to enforce peace on each other?
    best idea since that one about invading russia :P

    we reenact Noah's ancient drama, but in reverse, like a film running backwards, the animals exiting

  • I know you didn't , I just felt like saying that. silly me.

    the point I know Jim's trying to get across on this whole thread is that british law should be based on logic.

    so if one thing the country allows causes this much harm to the population and is legal then something that causes alot less harm should be legal or vice versa.

    base laws on the harm they do to society/human life and not who might not profit finacially.

    just apply propper mr spok from start trek logic to it.

  • so if one thing the country allows causes this much harm to the population and is legal then something that causes alot less harm should be legal or vice versa.


    It is a logic that is completely flawed if you think about it. If you were to apply that logic you would ban cars, electricity and so on.....


    It is impossible to base the law on such logic as it will criminalise everybody. Recreational drugs need to be controlled because of the negative impact they have to society in general. It is not just a case of a few reported deaths, it is also the impact on health of which the cost ultimately has to come from the tax payer. The law needs to weigh the benefits of something to the country against the negative effect it may have. Cars kill more people than GBL, but cars are much more economically useful than GBL. Banning drugs is much easier for governments to do because the negative impacts of doing so is much less.


    To bring in an act of parliament overnight is impossible, in order to do that there needs to be special powers in place and is totally undemocratic. It takes months, sometimes years for an act to be passed. It needs to go through several hearings in both the house of commons and the house of lords. Amendments need to be made and the whole thing needs to be voted on a long time before the queen can put her signature to it. You can even look at what acts of parliament are going through at the moment and if you see a problem you can then write to your MP where it will be discussed in parliament and maybe changed.


    IMHO If you were to bring in an act of parliament to disband the armed forces you need a very convincing argument to get it through the parliamentary process.


  • To bring in an act of parliament overnight is impossible, in order to do that there needs to be special powers in place and is totally undemocratic. It takes months, sometimes years for an act to be passed. It needs to go through several hearings in both the house of commons and the house of lords. Amendments need to be made and the whole thing needs to be voted on a long time before the queen can put her signature to it. You can even look at what acts of parliament are going through at the moment and if you see a problem you can then write to your MP where it will be discussed in parliament and maybe changed.


    IMHO If you were to bring in an act of parliament to disband the armed forces you need a very convincing argument to get it through the parliamentary process.


    Actually, its a lot easier than you think. It is technically illegal for us to have a standing army in the UK without yearly assent from Parlaiment - which they give "automatically" (as in it is never contested) in actuality but it is still necessary.


    Fail to re-issue this permission and the standing army of the UK becomes disbanded overnight :)

    "The only rules that really matter are these: what a man can do and what a man can't do."

  • Actually, its a lot easier than you think. It is technically illegal for us to have a standing army in the UK without yearly assent from Parlaiment - which they give "automatically" (as in it is never contested) in actuality but it is still necessary.


    Fail to re-issue this permission and the standing army of the UK becomes disbanded overnight :)


    I never knew that, you learn something new every day :)


    I am sure though that it would be complicated by matters such as needing a majority vote or something.

  • I would happilly see cars be removed ! and replaced by high quality eco friendly effiecent free public transport.

    things don't change becasue to many people are getting rich from the ways things are now wether this is fucking people up or sorting them out. the clever ones at the top of the wealth pile know they get rich from the positive and negative, win win situation for them.


  • Exactly! Thanks Dan!


    Actually, its a lot easier than you think. It is technically illegal for us to have a standing army in the UK without yearly assent from Parlaiment - which they give "automatically" (as in it is never contested) in actuality but it is still necessary.


    Fail to re-issue this permission and the standing army of the UK becomes disbanded overnight :)


    See? Not that hard after all!


    It is a logic that is completely flawed if you think about it. If you were to apply that logic you would ban cars, electricity and so on.....


    It is impossible to base the law on such logic as it will criminalise everybody. Recreational drugs need to be controlled because of the negative impact they have to society in general. It is not just a case of a few reported deaths, it is also the impact on health of which the cost ultimately has to come from the tax payer. The law needs to weigh the benefits of something to the country against the negative effect it may have. Cars kill more people than GBL, but cars are much more economically useful than GBL. Banning drugs is much easier for governments to do because the negative impacts of doing so is much less.


    This is only if you see things from the "ban everything you possibly can" perspective.. How about a "not ban anything if you can possibly help it" perspective? Loads of things kill. If you can't ban all of them, then the next logical step is to allow all of them. As Dan said, laws are not made because WE are ALL going to benefit, they are made because VERY FEW on the top of the wealth pile are going to benefit, and they will make sure they "sponsor" the governments to keep on passing such laws. The armed forces and war in general has never helped a single simpleton. Then why do they keep on happening? Probably to benefit the pocket of a small handful or already-rich people. I would like to see this change and laws to be passed for the benefit of all the people living in a country, equally. The wealth and resources of the world are enough to ensure EVERYONE has more than enough to survive perfectly well, if these are properly and equally distributed. What is actually happening though is that wealth is concentrated in very few hands, and resources are entirely controlled by these few hands as a result of their wealth. There is a tremendous amount of inequality, mirrored by legal systems as well. Immigration control and borders add to the problem. Everything does. We're not doing much to help ourselves really, we're just observing the "powerful" as they dictate our lives, what we're allowed or not allowed to do, even how loud we're allowed to be while having an orgasm...


    Well, enjoy...