Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2011 October 4

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

October 4

Getting Rid Of The Leading Parties

How would it be possible to get rid entirely of the Labour Party and the Conservative Party (and the LibDems)? Would it be possible to sue the Labour Party for putting us into the economic chaos we are in? And then to sue the ConDems for continuing it? KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 01:46, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Sure! Wage a revolution, then line them up against the wall! It's worked super well in the past to do that sort of thing. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:06, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I just want to clarify: I don't want to be totally flip here, but the idea that you would want to "get rid entirely" of two parties is to me pretty extreme, way beyond "throw them out of office at the next election, and let them wait a few years before trying again." Look, I think that the US Republican Party is responsible for a tremendous amount of domestic and international grief at the moment, and would love it if they were in less of a position to muck things up now, much less have mucked things up in the past. But I'd never want to get rid of them entirely. I disagree with most of their positions, but ousting all opponents from the political sphere is a recipe for madness, as history has shown again and again and again and again. There needs to be, to use a Star Wars aphorism, some balance in the Force. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:20, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Surely the problem isn't so much the parties, but the idiots who voted for them, and the slackers who didn't vote for anybody, let alone against them. I could be your next door neighbour. HiLo48 (talk) 02:22, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Either that or you have some alternative to democracy -- Q Chris (talk) 14:05, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Let me get this straight. If you vote for a major party, you're an idiot. But if you don't vote for anyone, you're a slacker. The only vote that gets your tick is a vote for a minor party, i.e. a party that has little or no chance of forming government and therefore little or no chance of making any changes. I certainly hope you don't impart this fantastic philosophy to your students, HiLo48. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 02:28, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I was trying to reflect KageTora's likely perspective. My own views are not necessarily those of the post :-) HiLo48 (talk) 03:06, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

In the last UK general election 35 % of the electorate did not vote. 70 % of them would have been sufficient to give a third party a larger vote than the Conservatives got. In other words, if the "slackers" had wanted to, they could have picked the winner of the election. 188.117.30.209 (talk) 04:54, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Regarding suing political parties: we do not supply legal advice, consult a solicitor. Regarding how to entirely get rid of a political party, normally this requires that a society no longer has a reason to have such a political party (or political parties in general). While the United Kingdom has a capitalist economy (per Marx's meaning), there will be a space or location for a party claiming to have a pro-capitalist, or capitalist compatible, economically "progressive" stance. Even if illegal, there would be a demand for such a party organisation. If you mean how could the Blair style Labour Party cease being relevant to parliamentary politics and the formation of majorities, look at how the old Labour party ceased being relevant: their electoral base hollowed out due to changes in working class consciousness, and a failure of the Party to remain relevant to an electoral vision of Labourite politics. (Hint: the Winter of Discontent was a decisive turning point for the British left and labourites, towards or against a modern vision of revolution). Similar requirements could be specified for the Liberal Democrats, or the Conservative Party, but I am far less familiar with party specific criticism. For the abolition of parties in general: National Government or, of course, the higher stage of socialism where government itself disappears. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:28, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I am an American, so I am not sure if UK citizens have to register for a party or how that happens, but in America it is always possible to be an "unaffiliated voter" or "decline to state" (this is often referred to as being "registered independent" but that is NOT the same thing) If everybody would just do that, your issue would be addressed.Greg Bard (talk) 03:29, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can tell under the British constitution, political parties are exactly the same as any other formal group of people: they would have to decide to disband themselves. A proposal to do just that has been put forwards by a candidate for leader of the Scottish Tories recently. So if the electorate of the UK wish another party to be elected, then another party would have to be created and gain enough votes. This may well happen. As for suing whoever got us into this mess, may I suggest you look at suing Lehman Brothers, or Sir Fred Goodwin, rather than the politicians who had to do the best they can to get us out of the mess the bankers had got us into? --TammyMoet (talk) 07:41, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

It's extremely rare for anyone in the UK to be able to vote for a political party in any form of election. You vote for an individual who you think will best represent the interests of you and others in your area. If, after the event, you don't think they did represent your interests very well, you call for them to resign and/or you vote for someone different, nominated by a different party or no party at all, next time around. Or, you mount a revolution. Political parties are just aggregations of like-minded people - I would think it's very debatable (I'm not a lawyer) whether they hold any corporate responsibility at all. In answer to Gregbard, no, you certainly do not have to cannot "register" for any party in the UK in any official way, and only a tiny minority of voters are members of any party. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:53, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the education. I certainly agree that the major parties are the problem, because inevitably they end up acting in the interest of the party, rather than the individual citizen. This is because parties are corporations and they further corporatism (even without being conscious of it.), The path is clear. Only elect candidates who profess no allegiance to any party. If you throw them all out via populism, there is no need to depend on any member of a party making a motion to dissolve their organization. Power to the people. Greg Bard (talk) 19:24, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence for your opinion that "major parties... inevitably... end up acting in the interest of the party, rather than the individual citizen. This is because parties are corporations and they further corporatism..."? The fact is that most people vote for one or other of the major parties in the UK because they are more likely to be able to implement the policies that people support than anyone else. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:26, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

That's why we don't like Proportional representation, even if it would be fairer to minority parties, ... ... and, of course, in the UK, you are at liberty to choose not to vote if that is your preference. You are also at liberty to complain bitterly about whatever government is then formed without your contribution. Are such liberties not permitted in your country, HiLo48? Dbfirs 08:33, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

We don't have the liberty not to vote. But the liberty to complain about the pollies who do get elected - most certainly. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 08:40, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear that you still have the second liberty. Derek Hatton's mad militants tried to withdraw it in Liverpool many years ago. I can understand the thinking behind the withdrawal of the first, but I hope it never happens here! Dbfirs 09:02, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Our founding fathers were of British stock and, like the UK, they didn't consider that voting ought to be compulsory, and so at Federation in 1901 there was nothing in the Constitution about voting being mandatory. It was only in 1924 that the change happened, but again, not on the initiative of either the government or even the opposition. It was a backbench senator from Tasmania who started the ball rolling in a private member's bill. Hardly anyone even spoke to the motion at all, and nobody objected, so it became law virtually overnight, without the slightest fanfare or controversy. The actual voters had no say in the matter. Attempts have been made to overturn the law since then, but all have been resisted with far more energy than was ever expended in putting the law in place in the first place. It is not on the platform of any of the major parties to abolish compulsory voting in Australia. See Electoral system of Australia # Compulsory voting for more details. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 09:20, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I didn't realise that you'd had the law for so long. I suppose when it has been there for all of living memory, it isn't a big deal for most Australian voters. Dbfirs 15:26, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

We know we're out of step with most of the world on this. Well, some of us know that, anyway. Having a different way is in itself no bad thing. I'd say most Australians are reasonably keen to have a say, and would probably vote most times even if they didn't have to. But maybe that's because it's become so ingrained in our psyches. The 1924 change was inspired by a record low voter turnout in the previous election, but travel and communications are vastly superior now. There are some who vote with resentment; and there are some who refuse to vote on principle, and cop a minor fine. Some of those would vote if only they didn't have to; some still wouldn't. There have been campaigns to get this law changed, but they all seem to fizzle out. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 18:38, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I know Jack knows this, but it's worth clarifying for others that the practical effect of the compulsory voting law is that you must turn up at a polling place, get your name crossed off the electoral roll in use that day, and be handed a ballot paper. At that point you have satisfied the legal requirements. What you then do with the ballot paper is up to you. Many suggestions have been made over the years. HiLo48 (talk) 20:46, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I don't know that, HiLo. Another quote: "It is commonly but wrongly claimed[8] that it is compulsory only to attend a polling place and have one's name checked against the electoral roll. In fact, Section 245 of the Electoral Act[9] says that "It shall be the duty of every elector to vote at each election... The Electoral Commissioner must, after polling day at each election, prepare for each Division a list of the names and addresses of the electors who appear to have failed to vote at the election." A voter who has their name crossed off but then refuses a ballot paper or is seen not to put the ballot in the ballot box may be recorded as having not voted.[3]" -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 10:20, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Well if you really want to get rid of all of them, there was this one fellow who had an idea about how to do it. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 6 Tishrei 5772 22:26, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

We Canadians nearly dumped our Conservative Party back in the 1993 federal election (down from 169 seats to 2), but they made a comeback. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:05, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

The Scots have been quite successful at getting rid of the Conservative Party, and in the recent elections to the Scottish parliament managed to get rid of a lot of Labour and Lib Dems too, leaving the Scottish National Party by far the largest. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:32, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Proposing to get rid of big parties is a bit like saying you'd like to get rid of any kind of general consensus that emerges, unites people and brings about change - good or bad. I think it's called 'democracy' or something.. 213.120.209.210 (talk) 12:09, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

People have been wanting to get rid of democracy ever since it was invented. Frustratingly, it endures. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 17:00, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Is not QUAN same as Kwan Yin?

http://www.circlesanctuary.org/circle/articles/pantheon/kuanyin.html

Goddess of fertility (children), compassion, mercy. Many names including "Mary of the Orient." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.74.217.177 (talk) 03:22, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Our article about her is Guanyin. Her name in Vietnamese is Quan Âm, is that what you mean?--Cam (talk) 03:27, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

The traditional (pre-Pinyin) spelling in English is probably Kuan-yin. By the way, in early Buddhism there seem to have been more male manifestations than female, and in strict Buddhist doctrine (as opposed to popular piety), it's not clear to me that the word "Goddess" is really appropriate... AnonMoos (talk) 14:13, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Depending on your line of thought, Kwan-Yin may be called a bodhisattva, rather than a goddess. --TammyMoet (talk) 15:38, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

class warfare

The poor and disabled were granted financial assistance by the State so they could afford unlimited analog telephone service, which the poor and disabled need to maintain communication with hospitals, doctors and other health care and welfare providers. Some Republican legislatures and governorships that sought deregulation, however, did not extend equivalent assistance from analog to digital communications service. State financial assistance therefore appears to be ending under telecommunications deregulation such that the poor and disabled can no longer afford the equivalent digital service. Is this an example of class warfare on the part of Republicans and the rich who desire to privatize as well as deregulate government so they won’t have to pay taxes? --DeeperQA (talk) 05:41, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

While greed does certainly play a part in trying to avoid paying any taxes, or prevent taxes from going into anything but those that benefit the large-scale corporations directly, I wouldn't quite go as far as to regard it as deliberate, organized, and malevolent attempts by such entities to oppress a social class (except in certain clear-cut cases of bigotry). That way lies conspiracy theories and tinfoil hats. More likely, it's just an intrinsic inability to grasp the big picture. Evident in the way that for most of those kinds of people, "small government" means "bigass military".-- Obsidi♠n Soul 06:12, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I do disagree Obsidian, there is active class warfare going on, though it's not the poor vs the middle vs the rich, it's more the top 0.001% vs the bottom 99.999% and the bottom don't even realize what's going on. They're too busy watching TV to realize over a third of total new income in the last 30 years goes to the top 1%. The highest income bracket in the "progressive" tax system doesn't even come close to rich people, and the highest tax rate has been massively cut down recently. In 1963 the highest tax rate was 90%, now it's so low that after tax breaks and loopholes those who make $70 million and more per year pay an effective tax rate similar to those who make $70k per year. Wanna run for president to change the system, well everyone can run for president, it only costs $700million to win. You can't mark time or achievements, without active resistance society will regress to virtual serfdom through thousands of small steps. It only makes sense that those with power to change society change society to benefit themselves. While a coal mine owner lobbies successfully against carbon taxes and a tobacco company lobbies against health warnings and taxes on tobacco, and both put out studies which show climate change as false, and tobacco good for the economy (don't have to pay pensions to dead smokers) respectively, ALL businesses lobby on behalf on the corporations and their rich owners for lower corporate taxes and lower capital gains and income taxes for the uber-rich. So yes, cuts to programs for those least advantaged is class warfare. Public awareness (talk) 09:58, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

But the question here is motivation. The aims of those lobby groups are personal gain rather than malice for the lower social strata. They still do what they can to appease them with empty comforts (like you mentioned, TV), as they do need their services still. They don't make those billions by slaving on their own after all. Keeping the lower 99% stupid and happy is good for business. But yeah, it is rather organized, sadly. The extent of their power is more apparent in the banana republics than in their home countries. Ah dystopia... LOL. Tomorrow: The Sprawl.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 10:32, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I have to disagree with DeeperQA and Public awareness. Republican legislatures aren't the embodiment of the bourgeoisie's goals, nor are Democrat legislatures, nor are Labour—each demonstrates attempts to hegemonise social power by the bourgeoisie, none are direct representatives as with 19th century bourgeois parties. As such the bourgeoisie proper, Public awareness's 99.999%, shift their support between all the parties in bourgeois parliament, relying on the regular action of electoral backlash to ensure that the then "necessary" Democrat actions get passed, and that later the then "necessary" Republican measures get passed: all legislatures enforce class war upon the working class. For those with a hope for "progressive" Democrats or Labourites, you could do worse than to read RW Connell & TH Irving, Class structure in Australian history who provide an excellent example of how Labor governs: yet again in the interests of the bourgeoisie, but occasionally by repressing the working class by buying it out instead of directly assaulting it. Public awareness' schema of class warfare being simply the bourgeoisie operating through parliament is simplistic to say the least. For a very long time, and certainly since Braverman, workplace based analyses have drawn out the role of non-owning management in the direct and most brutal class warfare: the workplace fight over the managers right to manage versus proletarian self-management. Many believe this indicates that there is a third class position in capitalism, in Poulantzas' crude terms a "new petits bourgeois," in the Ehrenreich's formulation a professional-managerial class. Therefore, for people who follow the actual nature of class conflict in the workplace, there may be conflicts other than bourgeois:proletarian. This finding would indicate that there are differences in interest between the bourgeoisie and their management, such as Veblen's technocratic analysis of the position of engineers in the Fordist factory. —Providing free phones to the poor was part of the class warfare function of the welfare state, in producing "happy healthy workers," removing such access is another part of the cycle of class warfare. Reading Mario Tronti or Sergio Bologna on this ought to help. A good group to read in English is the group Solidarity (UK). The workplace is always the central moment of class struggle, not parliament. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:36, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I was being simplistic, I could write a book on contemporary class warfare. Both parties get the majority of their funding from businesses and the rich, so while the vary slightly, all possible winning parties are pro-rich people. Republicans may take away your cheaper phone service and this is obvious as you once had it, but Democrats will keep away your free post-secondary education, keep health care costly and privately owned, and would never suggest Co-determination. The middle non-owning management is hardly a separate group, they are simply a Sheep dog, the owner controls them just as much as the owner controls the sheep. Of course the influence is not just on government, they actively influence your thoughts - Necessary Illusions... the rich use media to form your image of how society should be, an image that suits them. "The workplace is always the central moment of class struggle, not parliament.", for a revolution yes, but parliament is where the thousand little battle happen, capital gains taxes aren't being slowly cut with input from workers, gifts to the rich happen in parliament. Public awareness (talk) 20:22, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

An analysis on the basis of "business and the rich" isn't a class analysis. On the point of "the rich" the average Australian income is 2.2 times the minimum waged income, a white collar working class household in Sydney, or a mining family up the Hunter, or a family of firefighters, could easily earn as a household 8 times the minimum waged income. These internal disparities within the working class are greater than the income disparities inside Hungary in the 1950s between income earners and the AVO/AVH political and border police. The Hungarians concretely, and a number of other analysts (including Milovan Djilas) believed the Hungarian situation to be a class distinction. The Australian situation is at best a distinction between different "stratum"—as our Leninist friends describe it—of the working class: the working class in general and the "labour aristocracy". When talking with people, they understand "rich" based on their own situation, sometimes as little as twice their own income makes someone rich subjectively. (A similar case with business, I'd gesture at co-operatives as an example of firms that don't display such rampantly bourgeois behaviour).

As far as the debate on new classes—Andy Anderson makes the case quite concretely in his The Enemy is Middle Class about the managerial section of British society in the late 1970s and early 1980s. "The owner controls [management] just as much as the owner controls the sheep," is a somewhat fatalistic metaphor given that the aim of most class analysis is to note the points for working class self-emancipation. As far as instances of "biting the hand," we can point to Veblen's analysis of the class distinction (interest in throughput maximisation versus interest in value maximisation) and note the overengineering of civil projects in the 1940s-1960s (Snowy Hydro and Melbourne's Sewer System come to mind, I've read the pamphlet advocating engineering over profit in relation to the sewer system issued by leading professional engineers). We could also point to the authors of core free software projects, such as the linux kernel; and the fact that corporate sponsorship of engineering is being conducted. There is, of course, the vast areas of independent competence controlled by medical professionals, and the difference between, for example, drug culture pushed by bourgeois institutions, versus the much more immediate corruption of the Deep sleep therapy projects, or the lobotomy therapy movement. And, of course, there's Djilas' analysis of the Soviet elite as being non-value maximising. All quite pertinent when I've never been directly repressed by a bourgeois in my working life, but only by their non-owning employees. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:05, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, some Australians are richer than others, and some Australians' jobs are to manage other Australians, but this does not mean there are two groups, two classes. All non-owners ride the same subway, go to the same bars, and go to the same theaters to see movies, their children go to the same schools, though many can not afford university, their children mix, date, and marry. The very rich own helicopters and jets, drink 200 year old cognac at exclusive bars, and have true home theaters. The rich were educated at Harvard, their children will go to Harvard, their children will likely marry the children of fellow rich people. The poor class has opinions on issues and vote, the rich create the issues, control the breadth of the debate, and use their wealth to influence the poor on how to feel about the issue. I don't know what a "fatalistic metaphor" is but here's another one; I own a nail, I own a hammer, I use the hammer to beat the nail into place, the nail resents the hammer, stupid nail. Public awareness (talk) 05:07, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

And the petits bourgeois and small capitalists drink at the same pubs. But yet there is a class difference. Class is about the relations of production not the standard of living or culture. This isn't about rich and poor, but about who does what and how at work. This isn't about rich and poor, but about worker, boss and owner. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:03, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Well maybe during Marx's time, but a manager today is just as much a wage slave as any other worker in my mind and the only active class warfare going on, where a group clearly tries to make their position better than if there was a veil of ignorance, is the richest 0.1% against everyone else. Public awareness (talk) 07:45, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Or perhaps as recently as the 1920s wrt Veblen's analysis of the engineers. Or the 1940s to 1960s wrt the Johnston-Forrest tendency's analysis of US production. Or the 1950s wrt Djilas' analysis of the nomenklatura. Or the Autonomist analysis of the 1950s-1980s. Or the Socialisme ou Barbarie / Solidarity (UK) analysis of the 1950s-1980s. Or Andy Anderson's analysis of Britain in the 1980s. Or the post-Fordist workplace analyses of the 1980s-2010s. Workplace sociology emphasises the fact that local bastards fuck us workers over. This has been concretely reinforced in my working life, in part through industrial injuries as a result of local management. The very real class war I've experienced has been over working through lunch fifteen minutes late on a daily basis, bad machines, and workflows resulting in crippling permanent injuries, stress, the "power to hire and fire" as the still apt IWW analysis states. All of these contests have been about non-owning management at very local levels. Once, at a summit protest I viewed a helicopter landing members of the bourgeoisie at a casino. In day to day life, from the Prices and Incomes Accord to the bastard who gave me RSI when I was 19, it has been non-owning management who have fucked me in their own class interest. While there are critical analyses that deal with non-owning management as fundamentally aligned with the bourgeoisie on a non-class (hegemonic) basis, such as Erik Olan Wright these tend away from relations of production and towards Weberian class-as-stratum, and thus lose their predictive power about revolution. (Leninist shibboleths which avoid proof in practice have been discarded here). Discounting the actual productive terrain as experienced is what left many Leninists isolated from the actual environment of production in the 1940s and 1950s, correspondingly, the relationships of work are what transformed many Leninists (both CP and Trotskyite) towards the workers control position in Fordism. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:37, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

You should get a job as a manager. You would realize it's the same as other work; you have things to do and you get a part of the wealth you created back just like anyother job. You had a shitty manager, but that manager was merely a man working for someone with capital to get a job done. You need to see it is the man at the very top alone who creates the system. To complain that managers are keeping you down is a kin to complaining that a police officer is holding you down for enforcing the law. The cop doesn't make the laws he enforces, he's just a cog in the machine controlled by a few people at the top. Public awareness (talk) 09:16, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

If you're willing to produce an apologia for the police then I'm afraid I'll have to stop participating this discussion, as our moral systems are incompatible. I'd recommend reading some IWW history, particularly Melvyn Dubofsky's, if you want to understand why I'm no longer able to continue this discussion with you. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:38, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I realized that awhile ago, you're very closedminded. I hope you think on that and know I'm not trying to insult you, just letting you know. Public awareness (talk) 20:34, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

If you want to talk about income disparities as a key determining factor in the structure of contemporary society, feel free to do so. It doesn't relate particularly well to the two hundred year discourse on social class, and the already established technical meanings embedded in the terminology mean that if you want to use social class to talk about income inequality then you're going to be facing a long series of definitional discussions at the front of the argument. If you want to theorise in terms of income disparity, the Gini coefficient is often used here; but, arguments revolving around income disparity rarely lead to a conclusion that those in control of social wealth ought to be displaced from their position. Moreover, most people who believe that those who control the social wealth ought to be displaced, tend to discuss this in terms of social class as relations of production. There is a dense a cohesive body of ideas that discuss the relationships between production, class and social revolution; the two best known and most influential segments of this literature are the Marxist and anarchist literatures. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:41, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Fordism is a useful idea here, the kind of capitalism when workers are provided with stuff that helps them be good consumers. Now that period has gone and the welfare state is rolled back. Fifelfoo, if you have a minute, could you cast your eyes over that article and see if you can suggest any improvements? Since you are interested in the area. Cheers. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:35, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

There is one further point to consider: analog telephone services were expensive in the past, its digital version are affordable for even the poorest. On the top of that, some places even offer free access to internet, so everyone who wants to be connected, also will be connected. Wikiweek (talk) 14:28, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

The idea behind deregulation is to do away with State control over rates. The problem is that phones are a necessity. Telecommunications companies can charge whatever they agree with each other to charge. All State assistance does is to compensate the poor for government charges like taxes and fees to lower their costs. Before deregulation corporations could not take advantage of State assistance and charge the poor more. Under deregulation they can. This is the logic for not providing State assistance to the poor under deregulation. The problem now is that the poor can not afford a phone under deregulation, much less internet and TV, without sacrificing proper nutrition, education, living conditions, etc. Under deregulation there is no reason for Telecommunications industry be concerned about the poor or maybe even the economy since they have control over a necesity rather than the State. --DeeperQA (talk) 21:18, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Though currently regulation is still in place which makes "agree[ing] with each other [what] to charge" illegal, Conspiracy (civil). Though the rich are trying and succeeding at getting the poor to hate these types of laws too. Public awareness (talk) 21:40, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Not in the State of Florida which was deregulated in July. --DeeperQA (talk) 22:13, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

It's federal law, not state. If you could prove 2 or more telecommunication companies came together to price-fix you can sue and win big. Public awareness (talk) 22:45, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

You're kidding right? All you have to do is to look at cellphone coverage maps to realize telecommunications corporations are cooperating for the purpose of fixing prices. Look up Wimax and FTE and you will find a great many more that just two corporations buying up licenses to spread costs and then to share segments to create a network they all share - for fixed prices. No chance of being one of the crowd and offering lower prices as in conventional corporate competition. Additional service make possible high levels of service and equipment the rich can enjoy but not basic unlimited service which the poor and disabled need but which is not offered at a price they can afford. --DeeperQA (talk) 00:37, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Anti-trust, anti-competetive, and price-fixing laws do change by industry, so read up, collect data and see if there is evidence of collusion. Price fixing isn't rare as the benefits are huge and businesses believe they can get away with it without people realizing. Public awareness (talk) 07:45, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

The Time Travellers Novel

Are there any other Doctor Who books similar to The Time Travellers by Simon Guerrier, by that I mean an alternate timeline/universe that is created/erased by time travel. Scotius (talk) 10:39, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I can't answer your question because I haven't read any Doctor Who books, but the plot reminds me of Asimov's The End of Eternity. Dbfirs 06:59, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Grand Boubou

Do men in Niger, Mauritania, Chad and Mali wear the Grand Boubou? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.34.189 (talk) 15:29, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Islamic men in those countries do during formal occasions. There are female versions of the Boubou in Mali as well. -- kainaw™ 15:41, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

What country has killed the most people?

Not sure if this can be answered, but I'm gona throw it out there anyway. ScienceApe (talk) 17:57, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

China? The Great leap forward killed upwards of 40 million Hot Stop talk-contribs 18:01, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

It may be possible to answer if reworded. A country cannot kill anyone. The government body of a country can institute a law or policy that may directly or indirectly lead to a person's death. So, you want to know which government body has been responsible for the deaths of the most people, right? Then, you need to define responsibility. If a government doesn't require earthquake-resistant housing and thousands of people die in an earthquake, is the government body responsible? Perhaps you want to refine it to be which government body directly ordered the death of the most people - avoiding endless discussion of what government could or should have done to prevent deaths (ie: there was a lot the Chinese government could have done to prevent deaths in the Great Leap Forward). -- kainaw™ 18:07, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

This could easily degenerate into debate, since it is not at all clear how to assign responsibility for deaths that occurred in the various Cold War proxy wars or their aftermath, such as the Cambodian genocide. Another issue is whether European colonial powers can be blamed for the likely tens of millions of deaths of indigenous Americans after the arrival of Europeans due to the spread of diseases to which they had no resistance. Apart from these issues, the government of China is a strong contender, as is that of Germany, if you consider civilians and military personnel it killed during the two world wars (including the Holocaust), plus deaths it caused in earlier wars such as the Franco-Prussian War or the Herero and Namaqua genocide and other colonial wars. Note that few demographic specialists accept numbers killed during the Great Leap Forward much higher than 30 million, and the number may have been as low as 16 million, though of course that is still horrific. Marco polo (talk) 18:17, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

You may be able to find useful information at List of wars and anthropogenic disasters by death toll. —Akrabbim^talk 18:22, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Even if you try to fudge the factors, China is going to be hard to beat. If for nothing else, because they have had a large percentage of the world's population for so long. Googlemeister (talk) 18:35, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

That in itself means nothing. Their culture could have abhorred killing. By your reasoning, China is automatically the world beater in any field of activity you care to name, but that is demonstrably not the case. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 19:17, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Sure, if their culture abhorred killing. But their culture did not. You have Qin's wars of unification, the Yellow Turban Rebellion, the Wu Hu uprising, and the Goguryeo–Sui Wars, the An Lushan Rebellion (Which killed an estimated 36 million in the 8th century). All of these examples involved China inflicting 100,000 or more casualties, and none of these examples are in the last 1200 years. If you want to argue that the Chinese empires became pacifists then and stayed that way for more then a millennium, go ahead, but it is not reality. Googlemeister (talk) 19:43, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

But you've changed your tune now. You said "if for nothing else", which means that the sole thing that is considered is the population, and all other evidence is set aside. Now, you're bringing in that other evidence, the evidence that you previously said didn't matter because the population alone told the story. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 20:20, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

First, you need to stop putting words in my mouth. I said China was a good candidate for that reason, not that they were guaranteed to be at the top. Statistically speaking, if you are around more people, more people are going to be negatively impacted by you. You bring up the straw man argument that the Chinese are all pacifists, but since when has that been true of any large scale culture? Googlemeister (talk) 13:25, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

We're discussing the exact words you used. Maybe we have different understandings of what "if for nothing else" means. I don't disagree with the proposition that the Chinese have had a massive negative impact, probably more than any other culture. That's because (a) large scale cultures always have negative impacts, and (b) they've had more people than any other country for a long time. You can't ignore the first part of the argument and pretend it is solely about their numbers. But that is precisely what you do when you say "If for nothing else, because they have had a large percentage of the world's population for so long". But my initial refutation of this was clumsily worded too, so I guess we're square now. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 19:56, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

If we count all deaths of the WWI and WWII as provoked by Germany, then it's difficult to top this number. Otherwise, Germany is still the top killer by some millions. Wikiweek (talk) 20:40, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I would still go with China... simply becuase it has been around for thousands of years longer than any other country in the world, and has thus had more time to kill people. Even if more people are killed on an annual basis in other countries, the ones killed in China add up over time. Blueboar (talk) 22:19, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Killing million of people is not that common as you might believe. Neither were the technical means there not the ideology to justify it. Quest09 (talk) 23:49, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

China is an area not a nation, the PRC is 62 years old and to say it is the heir of China would make the Republic of China quite mad at you. Whether you include famines or not, I would say the British Empire certainly is one of the top nations for killing the most people. There were numerous major farmines in areas they ruled, like Ireland and India. Their contributions to the deadly colonizations of the Americas, Africa, the middle east, and South Asia adds up fast. England is almost 1100 years old and has fought countless wars and battles. While some could be seen as not their fault as they were not the aggressor, they certainly were the aggressor in many wars, List of wars involving England, Military history of the United Kingdom, and you can add a few tens of thousands for Capital punishment in the United Kingdom. Public awareness (talk) 01:37, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

You'd have to determine the British culpability for the famines, though. They were not responsible for potato blight. They could, arguably, have done better in famine relief. THe question is how much beter (or worse) would any of the famine areas have been absent the British - that gets you the marginal causation amount. All of that doesn't seem directly comparible with, for instance, Stalin' gulags. Ditto "the deadly colonizations of the Americas" which, IIRC, the Spanish had heavy involvement in. Ton what extent are they responsible for the spread of disease, in a time when understanding of disease vectors was for the mpost part completely absent. So, good try, but ultimately, a fail. --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:08, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Strike and apologize. Public awareness (talk) 20:54, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

OK... if you want to get technical... I will amend my answer to "Imperial China". But my point still stands... simple scales of time, population, and size all argue in favor of it killing far more people than any other nation. Blueboar (talk) 02:46, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Get out the soapbox. This is a vague and ill-defined debate generator, and not at all an appropriate question for the Reference Desk. Prepare for extensive pointless nationalistic debate and ranting. The thread should be collapsed and the farce ended. Edison (talk) 04:46, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

You also unilaterally collapsed my question about American exceptionalism, although that time, you offered no justification whatsoever. That question did not become a "debate generator" or lead to "extensive pointless nationalistic debate and ranting". This question also has not become a "debate generator", nor has it led to "extensive pointless nationalistic debate and ranting". The only pointless ranting here is your own attempt to shut down legitimate questions. --140.180.16.144 (talk) 18:54, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Another reason it's almost impossible to answer: most of the deaths in wars before the 20th century were due to disease (although some of these diseases resulted from infected battlefield wounds); most of the deaths caused by Mao and Stalin were due to famine/starvation/cold rather than direct killing; many of the deaths in the Nazi concentration camps were due to disease and starvation. Were these deaths inflicted by nature or humans? Similarly, is the USA responsible for the millions dying needlessly of famine and treatable diseases in Africa? Only if you restrict this question to people who were deliberately and directly killed could you get a meaningful answer. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:41, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Some more questions:

• Germany starts WWII, the Allies storm into Germany, and a German citizen is killed by them (it's war, after all). Who's to blame for that death? The Allies, who fired the gun, or Germany, for starting it all?
• What about armies with soldiers of many nationalities, or military alliances? Do we count all deaths for the country in command? Do we count soldier by soldier? Because if all the deaths caused by the Axis were attributed to Germany, then that would mean that the other Axis did not kill anyone
• What about the soldiers killed by their own military leaders, for things such as treason, mutiny or desertion? Do we count them as if the country killed them?
• What about prisoners or captured people who commit suicide to avoid capture or interrogation? Do they count as killed? Because the army may had not killed them but just kept them prisoners (or not, but after the suicide the point is moot) Cambalachero (talk) 19:17, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Steve Jobs's Free Tuition, Room, and Board

According to this, Jobs went to Reed College and, upon it being discovered that he had paid no tuition nor could he afford to, he went to the Dean of students and persuaded him to let Mr. Jobs attend without paying at all. I am very curious whether the Dean paid the amounts due himself, or if he just made the bills go away with a discretionary flick of his pen (is it within a Dean's discretion to flat-out give free room and board and tuition to a person lucky enough to be persuasive and charismatic?). The fact that he dropped out after only one semester is immaterial. One semester of free tuition, room, and board is not nothing, quite the opposite. 20.137.18.53 (talk) 18:40, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Colleges typically can offer scholarships for promising students. It's probably within a Dean's power to arrange for a special scholarship occasionally, if not directly, then by pulling some strings. It probably was even easier in the mid 70s, when Jobs went to college. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:30, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Just by my gut feeling I'm inclined to agree with the statement "It probably was even easier in the mid 70s, when Jobs went to college." But what are the actual reasons you hypothesize that big exceptions like this only get rarer and harder to get? I don't see why bureaucracies then would be less purely packed with people who don't give a shit about greatly giving to someone else without receiving something equal or greater in value than they are today.198.228.194.67 (talk) 20:41, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

The bureaucrats are just as heartless, but now they're terrified of being sued because they did a favor for a promising student but that student was White/Black/Green/Jewish/Muslim/Little-Endian and not for my son/daughter who is a terrible student but is deserving for some reason that will get the court to take the case even if it's fairly obvious I'll lose. The school doesn't want the bad publicity or the legal headaches, so it's very much "by the book." SDY (talk) 22:33, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

. This is a Reference Desk. Please do not guess. Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:16, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

As someone who knows quite a few people who have been on the financial aid/admissions side of things... SDY's conversation is not how it works. At all. - -Mr.98 (talk) 01:37, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Mr98, since you have a few good sources more credible than my gut, I'd love to hear if they have more evidence-based estimates on the change in likelihood of someone being able to walk into the Dean of Students' office (who they don't already know), befriend them, and get them to give you an all-free semester in the mid-70s vs today, and if that likelihood has gone down, mostly because of what?198.228.195.4 (talk) 13:14, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

It would probably depend a lot on the institution, but I don't actually see it as impossible. As for likely, I don't know how likely it was in the 1970s either. Let's take for granted that Jobs was an exceptional person and that some of that was probably clear even then. Deans have considerable sway in general — one of their main roles is "fixing" things of this nature, even today.

But in terms of real sources. The biggest change in the situation between now and then is that the cost per student of higher education is much, much higher than it was in the 1970s. In 1976 (just to pick a year I could find easy numbers for), a semester's tuition at Reed was $1,940, and room and board would have been $775. That's around $10,400 in present currency. By contrast, a semester at Reed today costs $21,270 with room and board adding another $5,525. So that's a real increase in price of 250% in what it means for a university to give a student a free pass for a semester (and, as various scary graphs attest, the rise in tuition across the board is potentially even more elsewhere, other than Reed). If your gut perception is that university belts have been tightening since the 1970s, this is my understanding of things as well. The reasons for this are many-folded, but my understanding is that the universities lost a considerable amount of government funding starting in the 1970s, and that ended up driving a lot of other trends as well.

Still, a relatively rich university (which Reed is) has within its means to grant a few students exceptions without worrying about it much. They are not, I am fairly sure, worried about being sued by other students — they are allowed to give scholarships to whomever they please. One student does not a trend make, and without a trend there is no conceivable legal redress.

So, again, I think I would conclude with the following: there might be some chance that this sort of situation was "more likely" in the 1970s, if only because the costs of tuition were lower then. But even then I think the Jobs situation was exceptional then, and would be exceptional now. Not impossible, but exceptional. You would have to be a pretty clever kid to sweet talk a dean into an on-the-spot need-based fellowship. But I'm sure it has happened before and since, now and then. I've met a few kids who would probably have been slick enough to pull it off during my time in higher education. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:48, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

can a supplier cancel a booked event to give the venue to another party

46.7.86.248 (talk) 21:27, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Is there a written contract? Has any money exchanged hands to reserve the venue? Blueboar (talk) 21:35, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

You probably want to know if it's legal. Unfortunately, the RD does not provide legal advise. It's impossible to know without reading the contract and knowing in what jurisdiction you are. 88.14.195.104 (talk) 21:58, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

The question is, can the reservation contract be assigned to a third party. Unless it says it can't, then it probably can, but how about asking the venue instead of the reference desk? 69.171.160.19 (talk) 07:38, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

This has happened many times - sometimes in famous situations such as when the Super Bowl was moved and some automotive conference had to be bumped. -- kainaw™ 13:09, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

What are the historical reasons that make the Bronx to be one of NYC's outer boroughs like Queens, Brooklyn, & Staten Island?

Let me summarize what I understand from reading history. Before 1874, NYC covered only Manhattan Island. In 1844, the West Bronx was annexed to NYC, and then all the areas east of the Bronx River were annexed to NYC in 1895. The Bronx first assumed a distinct legal identity when it became a borough of Greater New York in 1898. What became the Bronx in 1898 was annexed to New York City before the other "outer boroughs," and was seen as an integral part of New York City. In the late 19th century, many people in the area listed their address as "City" after their street address. The Bronx was part of New York County from 1898 to 1914. In January 1, 1914, the Bronx County that we know today was created. By the way, I also learned that the Manhattan street grid was extended to the Bronx. So historically speaking, why is the Bronx part of the outer boroughs despite the fact that it was part of the historical, original NYC? When and why did people start considering the Bronx to be one of the 4 outer boroughs? Willminator (talk) 21:32, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

"Outer Borough" is not an official term, it's mostly a geographic usage (although there is a cultural snobbery side to it as well)... Geographically, Manhattan is more or less in the center of New York City, so you travel in to Manhattan, and out to The Bronx, Queens, Brooklyn and Staten Island. Blueboar (talk) 22:05, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Willminator, if you're looking for a good geographic history of NYC, then this category at commons: [1] has a lot of cool maps that may help tell the story. --Jayron32 22:24, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

First, political boundaries don't always define people's mental maps. I think even during the brief period when what is now western Bronx was part of New York City and other outer boroughs were not, that the island of Manhattan, or maybe Manhattan south of 59th Street, retained a certain special status as the "real" city. Since there were no boroughs, it was not an "outer borough", but it was certainly an outlying district. Second, only the western Bronx was part of New York City before 1898, and it had previously been part of Westchester County. With the annexation of the eastern Bronx from Westchester in 1898, western Bronx was reunited with a region with which it had deeper historical ties than Manhattan, and with which it shared the status of being across the Harlem River from Manhattan. These two parts, combined in the borough of the Bronx, then shared the status of an outer borough. Marco polo (talk) 00:26, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Here's a reference to the Bronx as an "outer borough" in 1912: [2]. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:11, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Got something of an RFC to come here. Not sure why though. :p I think BlueBoar and Marco Polo covered it quite well. Most of us think of Manhattan as being the actual city proper. Usually, when people from the NY metropolitain area say the City, they are referring to Manhattan. It is the center of commerce and culture. The other boroughs are mostly residential (and to some extent suburban, except for BX) with a few things here and there to see. No offence to my bros in Queens or the good people in Brooklyn (Staten Island, eh, and Bronx, eh). Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 7 Tishrei 5772 21:07, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Take it as a compliment that people out here need you _Edit: [always]. :-) Willminator (talk) 21:22, 5 October 2011 (UTC)