WAKE UP CANADA!!!
(media.kotakuinaction2.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (39)
sorted by:
I'm not even close to an expert , but didn't WWII England have quite a few restrictions like curfews, rationing, and some lockdowns as part of their war time efforts. I'm familiar with the propaganda phrases like "loose lips sink ships" that one might construe as attempts to limit speech.
I think there is a difference between wartime emergencies, with external threats, and civil emergencies where the restrictions are punishments.
Huge difference. If bombs were being dropped on my city for weeks on end I would completely understand needing some harsh restrictions.
Churchill's regime was not good and barely distinguishable from FDR or Hitler. Many wartime restrictions, such as rationing, would continue will into the 50s.
Yeah, because the country was bombed to shit after meddling into a war that no one was prepared for. You don't just, after the war, bounce back to pre-war standards. It takes time to rebuild things.
Government rationing removes any incentive for the market to produce the rationed goods. It's purely about fostering dependency as a means of control. Price controls have a 4000 year history of failure in materialist terms.
When there is no market, you can't expect it to produce anything. The usual capitalistic incentives only work when there is time for the market to react and re-organise. During war time there is no such time. If you let the free market dictate everything, the capitalists would've sided with Hitler because it would be more profitable and less costly to side with the more likely victor (and Hitler would've won if the rest of the developed world hadn't banded together to strike back). The US was already supplying Nazi Germany with steel and trucks and had absolutely no trouble in doing that because there was more money to be made in this war machine.
????
What are you even talking about?
The war was a good excuse for the fabian's to escalate their power. Churchill implemented the agenda of socialists and laid the foundations for the dissolution of the empire. He had to be bailed out financially prior to his asecension to power, which made him owned by progressives.
Made up nonsense. Churchill campaigned hard - even most people sympathetic to him say too hard - against socialism in 1945.
Yes and one could argue those things are an infringement on personal freedoms and should be avoided. I'm not sure if it's actually unconstitutional in the UK, however.
As far as the US is concerned, there's the possibility of martial law but it's well regulated by the fact that the citizenry is extremely well armed and they generally know it's not a good idea to do it, let along maintain it too long, without legitimizing reasons.
There's a delicate balance to it, sometimes restrictions via martial law are actually legitimate and it's a good idea. Imo that's best regulated by having a dangerous populace like the US has. It's a hard thing to argue when the restrictions are too much, so the best course of action is to have it subject to the will of the people, and backed by arms.
The UK's unwritten constitution is worth the paper its printed on.