Liverpool FC Forum

by **heimdall** » Thu Dec 03, 2009 1:24 pm

SouthCoastShankly wrote:
woof woof ! wrote:
maypaxvobiscum wrote:yeah here we go that's one of the effect i was hoping to hear
i also heard pubs are closing down because they have a certain price to which they have to sell their alcohol while supermarkets are allowed to sell it much much cheaper hence the closures..

In the last year three pubs within' my immediate area have closed. Don't have any stats Maypax but I think one of the major reasons for pub closures is the ban on smoking . Most regular drinkers are also smokers who don't want to spend the evening knocking back a few pints and all the time gaspin' for a cig. City cente pubs will usually survive but yer surburban pubs that rely on the custom of the locals will struggle. Certainly me and the missus, both smokers, don't nip out for a drink at our "local" anymore.

I can understand that you choose not to go for a drink at your local due to the smoking ban, that is personal preference. But the closing of pubs cannot be simply put down to the smoking ban. In fact before the global recession hit and the smoking ban was still in place, pub closures were hardly seen. The smoking ban was not a factor for most peoples drinking habits.

The real reason for pub closures in the recession. Punters have chosen to drink at home, leaving a pub visit to a minimum.

Nope the real reason for pub closures which have been stedily happening for about 10 years is the increase in off trade alcohol sales, i.e supermarkets and offlicenses. People are buying their booze at supermarkets and drinking at home instead of going to the pub because it is much much cheaper, just look at some of the adverts on telly, a whole crate of Carlsberg/Carling etc for under a £10, it's a no brainer really but is a shame.

by **maypaxvobiscum** » Thu Dec 03, 2009 1:50 pm

couldnt that be because of EU's directive itself? after all, they had the powers to ban Red Bull.

by **JoeTerp** » Thu Dec 03, 2009 3:54 pm

maypaxvobiscum wrote:
JoeTerp wrote:I don't remember signing any social contract

the symbol represents Voluntaryism

there is nothing to sign Joe

Social contract describes a broad class of theories that try to explain the ways in which people form states and/or maintain social order. The notion of the social contract implies that the people give up some rights to a government or other authority in order to receive or maintain social order through the rule of law. It can also be thought of as an agreement by the governed on a set of rules by which they are governed.

The Myth of the Social Contract

by Alex Strekal
Sunday, January 6, 2008

One of the most erroneous political ideas is the notion of the social contract. The idea is that the legitimacy of a government is based on a social contract between the people and the government. In America, the constitution is supposed to be our social contract. But since no such "social contract" has ever been an actual voluntary contract among "the people", it cannot be said to have any genuine authority under any common sense standards of justice. None of us ever signed the document (and even when it was drafted, it was only signed by a tiny aristocracy of people). Rather, we are assumed to have implicitly "consented" to it merely for being born within the territory. This strikes me as incredibly unjust. A true contract requires explicit consent. However, the standard view of the social contract is that everyone implicitly agrees to it by simply living under a given government.

The idea of a contract that I never signed that binds me to the authority of the state from birth, is akin to slavery from birth. I never signed no stinking contract. How is it that I am binded by this document for merely being born within the territory? How is it that I am obligated to serve a particular band of men for merely being born within the territory? How can a document be self-enforcing? It cannot, it must be created and enforced by flesh and blood individual men. How can the law rule all on its own? It cannot. The rule of law is a concept meant to, or that at least functions to even without such intent, disguise what is really the rule of men. The state can not be contractual. If such an institution truly is contractual, it ceases to be a state in any rational definition of the word.

The Lockean view of sovereignty essentially boils down to the idea that as soon as the constitutional contract is broken by the government, it is no longer binding and the government therefore no longer has sovereignty. In fact, without realizing it, Locke throws a huge bone to anarchists, because no government in the history of mankind fits the criteria necessary for his social contract. He was indeed denounced by his detractors as being an anarchist, for they quite correctly realized that the implications of his theory of sovereignty would completely delegitimize all existing states. Under common sense standards of jurisprudence, and Lockean principles, the constitution literally is not a binding contract. Furthermore, even if we treat it as having once been binding, the government has long since reniged on its contractual obligations. Therefore, under the classical liberal theory of sovereignty, it (and the government that it spawned) has no legitimate authority.

What about the idea that the constitution gives us our rights? It does no such thing. Rights are natural. You have them regaurdless of wether or not the law recognizes them. If the 2nd amendment was not in the bill of rights, you would still have a right of self-defense. It would not be legally recognized, but you will still have that right. This is the Lockean-style view of natural rights. You have them by virtue of being a human being. Constitutions do not give you your rights, they can only legally recognize them. Rights do not come from governments or laws, they come from human nature itself. All the government can do at best is abstain from violating your rights. In the Lockean view, governments and laws may be instituted in the name of securing these rights, but they are not where they derive from.

Thomas Jefferson said it best: "A free people claim their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate." -- Thomas Jefferson

From a practical standpoint, the constitution already has been shown to not work. It was defied almost from day one and the post-civil-war federal government, and especially the post WWI federal government, essentially has little to no resemblance to the document_ The constitution already has failed, so I don't see the logic in trying the exact same thing again. Clearly, the document can either be interpreted in a manner that implies the opposite of its original intent or meaning, or outright defied anyways. The document was flawed in the first place (not to mention that it was expansive in comparison to the document that preceded it, namely the AOC).

What about the content of the constitution? While it has been argued ad nauseum that it's "original intent" (or, to take a somewhat more strong stance, the "original meaning" of the words in themselves) was to limit the government's powers, the document itself contains plenty of "loopholes" and vague language that can easily be construed (and have been so construed) to grant expansive powers not intended or apparent within the plain language. The "general welfare" clausecomes to mind most of all. It has been used to justify practically anything the government does, for "general welfare" is a loaded, subjective and arbitrary term. Who's welfare, and what exactly is welfare? Who will define this for us? "The supreme court", you answer? What kind of limit on government is this, that it may define its own powers arbitrarily and at whim?

Not only can the constitution not work and has been empirically shown to not have worked, but it cannot be ethically justified to begin with

link

by **LFC2007** » Thu Dec 03, 2009 4:01 pm

loopyliverpool wrote:Pub closures are down to the recession and pub chains charging their Landlords excessive rents and making them buy certain beers which they also overcharge them for. As far as I am aware it has nothing to do with the EU. A Landlord on the radio the other day said he had his pub company come and clear him out of everything he possessed - his locals all clubbed together and gave him the necessarys to continue trading - cutlery, tables, glasses etc. He was left to buy his own beer and he found he was getting it for less than half the price he was paying to the pub chain company. There is no doubt that the recession is also a factor but greedy pub chains can also be cited!

Correct.

by **heimdall** » Thu Dec 03, 2009 5:41 pm

LFC2007 wrote:
loopyliverpool wrote:Pub closures are down to the recession and pub chains charging their Landlords excessive rents and making them buy certain beers which they also overcharge them for. As far as I am aware it has nothing to do with the EU. A Landlord on the radio the other day said he had his pub company come and clear him out of everything he possessed - his locals all clubbed together and gave him the necessarys to continue trading - cutlery, tables, glasses etc. He was left to buy his own beer and he found he was getting it for less than half the price he was paying to the pub chain company. There is no doubt that the recession is also a factor but greedy pub chains can also be cited!

Correct.

hmm doesn't quite explain why the independent pubs are also struggling though does it?

by **LFC2007** » Fri Dec 04, 2009 2:47 am

heimdall wrote:hmm doesn't quite explain why the independent pubs are also struggling though does it?

There are many more leased/tenanted pubs than there are freehouses and from everything I know and have read, the decline in trade is particularly acute where the former arrangement exists. It's obvious that in a general economic downturn the survival of Britain's pubs will be heavily dependent on their ability to adapt, and the arrangements and behaviour of pubcos toward their lessees tends to be much more restrictive than complementary in that respect. It's too simple to explain the long-term decline in trade simply by account of these arrangements, but I feel that it is a very significant factor.

by **woof woof !** » Fri Dec 04, 2009 11:23 am

SouthCoastShankly wrote:I can understand that you choose not to go for a drink at your local due to the smoking ban, that is personal preference. But the closing of pubs cannot be simply put down to the smoking ban. In fact before the global recession hit and the smoking ban was still in place, pub closures were hardly seen. The smoking ban was not a factor for most peoples drinking habits.

The real reason for pub closures in the recession. Punters have chosen to drink at home, leaving a pub visit to a minimum.

the closing of pubs cannot be simply put down to the smoking ban

You're probably right, I just happen to think it was a significant factor.

Me and the missus plus several friends went out to the pub a least once a week, when the ban came in we didn't immediately stop going, we could still sit outside weather permitting, but the frequency gradually diminshed until finally 8 of the 10 regulars just stopped going at all (the 2 that continued were non smokers but we'll call that conincidence), it had nothing to do with the recession or our personal economics, we just got fed up of not being able to have a smoke with our beer.

by **heimdall** » Fri Dec 04, 2009 11:45 am

LFC2007 wrote:
heimdall wrote:hmm doesn't quite explain why the independent pubs are also struggling though does it?

There are many more leased/tenanted pubs than there are freehouses and from everything I know and have read, the decline in trade is particularly acute where the former arrangement exists. It's obvious that in a general economic downturn the survival of Britain's pubs will be heavily dependent on their ability to adapt, and the arrangements and behaviour of pubcos toward their lessees tends to be much more restrictive than complementary in that respect. It's too simple to explain the long-term decline in trade simply by account of these arrangements, but I feel that it is a very significant factor.

As you all now I used to be involved with Carlsberg so I do kind of know what I'm talking about for once. The decline in pubs, which btw started well before the recession, is almost directly related to the increase in offtrade (supermarkets and off licenses). There, end of discussion.

by **maypaxvobiscum** » Fri Dec 04, 2009 1:38 pm

so Heimdall, does that make my statement and the video posted about how EU had an effect on the closure true?

btw, thats a very good article by Joe. i came across it before but never paid attention. and the Locke that is being spoken of there is John Locke right?

by **JoeTerp** » Fri Dec 04, 2009 4:03 pm

yes but not the lost character

by **LFC2007** » Fri Dec 04, 2009 5:20 pm

heimdall wrote:As you all now I used to be involved with Carlsberg so I do kind of know what I'm talking about for once. The decline in pubs, which btw started well before the recession, is almost directly related to the increase in offtrade (supermarkets and off licenses). There, end of discussion.

And, as everyone knows, Rafa is involved with elite level football so he does kind of know what he's talking about.

BTW, is the 'for once' an acknowledgment that you've been talking b0llocks the rest of the time?

by **heimdall** » Fri Dec 04, 2009 5:22 pm

LFC2007 wrote:
heimdall wrote:As you all now I used to be involved with Carlsberg so I do kind of know what I'm talking about for once. The decline in pubs, which btw started well before the recession, is almost directly related to the increase in offtrade (supermarkets and off licenses). There, end of discussion.

And, as everyone knows, Rafa is involved with elite level football so he does kind of know what he's talking about

Shame he doesn't prove it then. He certainly has an astonishing knowledge of substandard players and playing incorrect systems, I'll give him that.

by **LFC2007** » Fri Dec 04, 2009 5:28 pm

heimdall wrote:Shame he doesn't prove it then. He certainly has an astonishing knowledge of substandard players and playing incorrect systems, I'll give him that.

I'm sure he'll take note

Now, if you think the decline in pub trade can be explained simply by looking at the price of supermarket or 'offtrade' booze, you ought to think again.

Liverpool FC Forum

The european union - And uk's sovereignty

Who is online