> needed to bolster counter-terrorism precautions ahead of the 2020 Tokyo Olympics
but:
> Under the bill, terrorist groups or criminal organizations could be punished for the planning of 277 crimes, which range from arson to copyright violation
Copyright violation? Seriously? Copyright violation is a terrorist act or a part of planning a terrorist act?
Right, but is finding copyright infringers really the best way to look for terrorists that may be attempting to attack the 2020 Olympics? I mean "counter-terrorism efforts for the 2020 Olympics" is the stated goal of this legislation.
Ah, back the in the MPAA hay-day when they still thought they had a chance:
> Motion Picture Association of America head Jack Valenti - a leader of Hollywood's fight against piracy - continued the terrorism theme in his written submission to the hearing.
> "September 11 changed the way Americans look at the world. It also changed the way American law enforcement looks at Intellectual Property crimes," wrote Valenti - borrowing from an November 2002 article in the Customs Service newsletter US Customs Today.
I mean, I'm aware of it, but can't understand why. It used to be they were at the forefront of new technology, but as with their isdn deployments, sometimes being too far ahead leads to dead ends like this one. It's quite an interesting phenomenon.
Having a tangible, beautiful object, often with additional art and conveniently readable and viewable extra information, a dead end?!
From where I sit, almost all the rest of the world are who went wrong, with impoverished, locked-in streaming services from businesses who take everything away the day you stop paying them, and dull audiofile-only downloads.
But we seem to agree that Abe declaring unauthorized CD copying preparation to terrorism is ludicrous...
It's worth noting that in Japan, copyright violation is a criminal offense rather than a civil offense and can constitute up to 10 years in prison.[1] Even downloading copyrighted materials is a criminal offense there.[2]
Suing doujinshi artists (or cosplayers, for that matter) for promoting the copyright holders' materials would be in bad taste and would likely drive fans away from the copyrighted material. Considering the reputational consequences and low "reasonable royalty" damages from suing individuals, copyright holders don't have much incentives to shut these conventions down.[1]
Copyright holders might not, but isn't one of the main distinctions between civil and criminal law that, in the latter case, the state can (and in theory is obliged to) prosecute criminal cases regardless of the copyright holder's thoughts?
In Japan, copyright law can't be enforced without the complaint of the rights holder.[1] If you have some spare time, I'd recommend reading the Copyright Law [2] for the powers that are legally provided to the rights holders and specifically, "Measures Against Infringement" [3]. They're quite fascinating.
Disclaimer: IANAL, much less a Japanese legal scholar.
Some IP holders do sue. Banpresto sued a group making parody footage of their flagship game because the group was immensely popular and was making $x00,000 per event.
Basically, as long as you aren't overly successful, they won't come after you.
I'll have to ask him again. He's a bit tech illiterate, so that might be it. Plus, being there as an ESL teacher you don't want to jeopardize your career with anyone finding out you torrent.
Doubt it. Lobbying influence varies from industry to industry. Both countries try to take extreme steps from time to time on copyright (see SOPA and PIPA attempts in the US), so I'm not sure if copyright lobbying in Japan is worse. I am sure that military, pharmaceutical, oil, and health insurance industry lobbying for example is worse in the US than in Japan.
The economy of Japan wasn't dubbed "Japan inc." for no reason. There was and still is high degree of coordination btwn govt and industry in Japan. See METI.
Lobbying doesn't even begin to describe the depth of corruption in Japan. Barriers between the state and industry are pretty thin at best. And this doesn't even get into the fact that Abe's party has long standing ties to organized crime itself.
The aftermath of Fukushima was a pretty clear demonstration of this, where Tepco and government officials teamed up with the yakuza to send their debtors, as well as rounded-up homeless people, to clean up contaminated sites:
I don't think so; it's a power grab by the (Abe) government, and yes, but to a much lesser extent, their corporate sponsors.
The (bogus and discredited) piracy-terrorism connection has been tried before in the USA and elsewhere; it never really catches on with the public, probably because it's self-evidently something that could only emerge via the anus of a corporate lobbyist.
But that's just the fat on the edges this new law, not the significant bit. This meat of it puts the Japanese government in a more American-style power position: surveillance, and prosecution of intent rather than actual deed.
A tangentially interesting part of this for me is: I work in Tokyo, and I ride my bike to work past the people pictured in the article. They are there, organized, obviously passionate (or at least engaged) in their political protest... but they are virtually all elderly. The picture in the article really is representative of what I see every day. 95% or more, 60+.
Why is that? Sure, retired people might have more free time, but... if only old people participate in your democracy, then your democracy is fucked.
World politics seems to be shifting to the right in almost all the major economies. It's quite depressing (to me).
Are any of the major economies moving to the left? Does anybody have a good understanding of why this is happening?
In this instance, it doesn't appear to be fear caused by domenstic terrorism. Japan suffered domestic terrorism in the past and the response seemed far more measured then.
The election that just happened in the UK seems to indicate that things are going the other way. Young voter turnout increased substantially, and they're way further to the left. That age gap seems to exist in the rest of Europe & the U.S. as well.
The increased young voter turnout is great. But the conservatives won, and are moving further and further to the right. Corybns own party have been trying to force him out. And to be honest, the Labour Party supposed some pretty right bill legislation (the IP Bill).
There maybe significant (and even growing) resistance. But it doesn't seem very effective at creating political change.
But the right wing voters continue to die off at a pretty decent rate every year. So as long as the young actually bother to vote, I don't think it'll be very long for this trend to reverse itself. A lot of "left" parties do seem to ultimately answer to corporate interests though.
It's possible. Or perhaps Corybn will be pushed out and the Labour party will take a more authoritarian stance again.
And even if Labour get in, they still voted the IP Bill in. So they are pro-surveillance. So overall, I can't be convinced that "things are looking positive" from an individual liberties point of view, in the UK. Is there anywhere it's looking positive?
Oh yeah I agree, from an individual liberties point of view, we're totally fucked...and hardly anyone seems to care because they're easily distracted by shiny things & identity politics.
At the same time, young people grow older, and people tend to become more conservative with age. Baby boomers used to smoke pot and rally for civil liberties. Then they got mortgages, kids, and cable TV.
As people live longer and birth rates stay low, young people are increasingly outnumbered by old people in many parts of the developed world. I suspect that this demographic change has a lot to do with the right turn that many countries seem to be making these days.
The extreme-left (think SJW, Antifa, etc), however, is pushing a lot of people to the right as a counter-reaction. I'm not sure if/how Obama's more centrist-left policies (minus the war stuff) influenced that move though.
I wouldn't even call them the extreme-left. I'd call them the crybaby left. I consider myself more politically to the left than many SJW friend/acquaintances that I know, but I'm also not a whiner that likes to participate in the oppression olympics.
I don't think we should think of this (and probably most other things) as left or right issue. Leaning toward the left in economic issues doesn't really predict what somebody will do about terrorism. We should just phrase it as pro-surveillance or not. Not left/right or liberal/conservative.
Then call it that way. For example I wouldn't call libertarians left wing but they would be on your side regarding surveillance. But they wouldn't be on your side about environmental regulations for example.
I can see this in many of the top economies, but is this true is all cases? China for example, seems to be doing well, but I can't really see that it's becoming less authoritarian.
China's social/political system is heavily authoritarian, but economically, in practice, it's quite laissez faire. The problem is when anything reaches scale in China the vultures in local government come in and try to get protection money.
They have been doing a lot recently to reduce this corruption and apparently have made good process. I don't doubt that social/political liberties will not improve in China but it's possible the business environment could further improve. Especially with the next president.
The only problem is the government created a very unstable economy with their massive spending projects after the financial crisis. And a lot of the wealthy people are rushing to get their money out instead of reinvesting it there and they are still very unfriendly to foreign capital (both human and financial).
Everyone uses populism to their ends. See occupy Wall Street. It's no surprise that organized labor (a secure vote for the left) broke with tradition and went anti globalization.
It's interesting to see the lower middle class once dependable voters for the left break right and likewise, upper middle class, once dependable voters for the right, break left. I'm glad that parties can no longer take their bases for granted.
The book "The Forth Revolution" [1] has a really good history of how the size of the state has exploded globally since the 1950s. The push for greater and greater power has been a global phenomenon. It has continue almost unabated, the rhetoric of the right such as Reagan/Thatcher in the 1980s was merely a small blip in the hockey stick growth.
> The first revolution was the rise of the European nation-state after the Peace of Westphalia; the second was the late-18th- and 19th-century turn toward individual rights and accountable government; the third was the creation of the modern welfare state. Each revolution improved the state’s ability to provide order and deliver vital services while still fostering innovation. But as democratic publics demanded more and more, the state promised more and more, eventually overextending itself. In Revolution 3.5, Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan tried, but failed, to shrink the state.
The second half of the book is less good where it predicts the eventual shrinking of the state towards an efficient Singapore-esque limited government (aka the fourth revolution). But they make very good observations about the current state where individual liberties are continually diminished, innovation is crippled, widespread government inefficiency is the norm ("94% of government IT projects failed in last decade"), budgets are bloated, and the economic growth needed to support social services stalls.
The cause may simply be that whenever a crisis happens everyone calls for something to be done, then laws get passed, regardless if they are effective or not (see: terrorism, drugs, etc) as well as the thousands of small regulations over business every time someone gets hurt or dies or were merely pushed through by incumbents protecting their market share. Combine that with constant crises over a couple decades and you have quite the large administrative state.
But I think it may be more simply the result of the "The Iron Law of Bureaucracy" [2]. As organizations mature, without push-back, administrators end up taking over every aspect of an organization (happened at universities too) and the administrators favourite thing to do is creating new rules requiring more administrators. Which is how you end up with so many government agencies that they don't even know how many exist in the US [3].
The growth of the modern state is hardly a partisan issue, at least not in practice.
Growth in administration won't be stopped by right-wing privatization, it's a consequence of trying to make an efficient organization. "Efficiency" means firing everyone who you can measure is doing a bad job, but the administrators either are the ones measuring, or have a job that nobody understands and so can't be measured.
"As the networking accelerates humanity into a spherically embracing, spontaneous union, yesterday's locally autonomous, self-preoccupied governments are left in the exclusive control of yesterday's most selfishly successful and entrenched minorities.
The present U.S.A. 1982 administration was elected by the votes of only one-seventh of the U.S. population and it spent $170 million — more than five times the money raised by their opponents — to buy their victory. The networks' people, aware that a U.S. presidency costs $50 million, a senatorship $10 million, and a representative's seat $5 million, observe that the TV era governments are corrupt, wherefore they spontaneously abhor and abstain from further voting.
Gradually discovering that the networking abandonment of the voting booth was the true cause of their claimed "overwhelming majority," the incumbent administration, fearful of a potential rejective voting tidal wave of the inter-networked world people, will probably try in vain to block networking. Because networking is apolitical and amorphous, it has no "cells" to be attacked, as did the communism of former decades. The fearful sovereign nation politicos will find that trying to arrest networking is like trying to arrest the waves of the ocean."
First I'll say that surveillance is a consensus among people in power no matter how you slice it. It is, depending on your perspective 1) about governments expanding government power, something the powerful in government always want or 2) about defending against terrorism, something everyone wants.
I'll give you my perspective on your question as someone fairly left of center, so take it with a grain of salt. Or take it as God's truth, whatever you fancy.
People, inevitably inexorably being strangled to death by the neoliberal free market capitalist economic system which has controlled nearly every western government since the 80s, are struggling and striking out for anything that will save them. People often turn to extremism and fascism of all stripes in situations like that. They become more extreme, because the status quo is a slow and painful death so anything that seems like it will bring change is good. When you are drowning you don't worry too much about the kind of boat that's offering to pull you up, you just climb onto it. Even if that boat is a slave ship.
Leftists have seen some success recently when they drop the ridiculous affectation of 'reasonable centrism and compromise' (centrism is only ever reasonable to people for whom the status quo is working, almost by definition), stop focusing on race/gender to the exclusion of class, and present real, radical, explicit and understandable changes to improve the lives of voters: Corbyn, Sanders, even Melenchon have all had encouraging and very high levels of success relative to expectations and the recent past, though they are mentioned in the order of their absolute success (Corbyn, topping the list, won a huge number of seats, the largest increase in labor vote share since 1945, caused a hung parliament which is pushing the Tories to make an uneasy alliance with an extremist group).
But these movements are still beginning and have a lot of work to do; they diametrically oppose the entrenched order explicitly (for the ultrawealthy, a Muslim ban is gauche and unbecoming of their senses of civility and properness; nationalizing private industry to take it from robber barons or providing healthcare for the poor is a very assault on their power/way of life), so they receive no support from above.
As others said, it's not a left vs right thing. Traditionally it would have been more of a left thing, but now there is no correlation.
As to why in general a move to sovereignty it's a long delayed reaction to neoliberal economics and globalization as we have reached what might colloquially be called peak globalism as people (working class) see it as a net negative on their lives.
Right next door to Japan, South Korea just impeached a right-wing President and elected a left-wing guy instead. The new President has vowed to strip domestic surveillance powers from NIS (national intelligence service), the Korean counterpart to CIA.
Last year, members of three opposition parties collectively filibustered an anti-terrorism bill (granting more domestic surveillance powers to NIS) for 192 hours and 27 minutes, setting a world record by a wide margin. Although the ruling party eventually forced the bill through, the media spotlight on the filibuster helped the opposition grab a lot more seats in the general election shortly afterward. The impeachment ten months later could not have happened without the new balance of power caused by that filibuster.
I don't think surveillance has ever been such a consequential issue in the mainstream politics of any other country so far. So if anyone is in a mood to try a bit less surveillance on its own people, I think South Korea just might be.
Just because you don't like something doesn't mean its symptomatic of the opposition party. Looking at the history of left wing governments (such as China and the Soviet Union), I'd say this is a swing to the left.
Plenty of right wingers have been on your wrong side as well: Mussolini, Pinochet, Marcos...
This isn't about left and right, it's a power grab. Any leader of any political party can fall to the temptation of a power grab regardless of their professed ideology.
There has been a wave of populist right in the west, but it seems to be ending (see recent France, UK elections). Japan has not been affected much. They have their far right, but it's not growing. Japanese politics has been conservative and controlled by large business interests for decades, and I see this as just an other part of that. There is a left in Japan, but they focus more issues like the military, not copyright and state surveillance.
"Are any of the major economies moving to the left?"
The recent UK election is a bit hopeful in this regard.
The Conservatives weren't beaten outright by Labour, but performed so poorly that one of the architects of their campaign "suggested the party changed its name to the Workers Party or Conservative Workers Party ... He told BBC Newsnight "And I think that we have to actually build our policies based on five pillars - we should be a real modern trade union movement for the British people - five pillars of workers' rights, workers' jobs and skills, workers' wages, workers' welfare and workers' services."
Abe is decidedly full of... no surprises. You know exactly his agenda and what he intends to do. And you get the media at his feet, which says a lot about "free press" in Japan.
Isn't Abe a conservative. Why is it that "small government" politicians always seem to be for more surveillance?
At least it would be nice if they dealt with the well known problem of organized crime in Japan, but I doubt it will be used for anything like that - just more screwing over the little guy.
Even American conservatives haven't actually been in favor of small government for a very, very long time. Roughly 40 to 50 years as a majority position (some of them still lie and pretend they are of course; they always flake when it comes to actions & votes).
George W. Bush nearly doubled Federal Government spending and built numerous massive new bureaucracy agencies. Reagan before him did likewise in regards to spending. They're almost all big government conservatives now, the only question is what they spend on.
There few conservatives in the US holding the political position of cutting government spending, and almost none in favor of cutting entitlements. The tiny wing of the Republican party that actually favors the free market heavily, is irrelevant and has zero power or influence.
I'm unfamiliar with japanese politics, but does the Liberal Democratic Party in japan promise small government at all? After all, Abenomics involved increased government spending.
> Centre-right, Conservatism and Japanese nationalism. The LDP is Japan's largest political party. It is a conservative party and is made up of various conservative, nationalist and centrist factions. It is supported by the "Japan Conference", the "Shinto Association of Spiritual Leadership" which is Japanese ethnic religious conservative organization and Japan Business Federation. Before 2009, the LDP had been in power almost continuously since 1955, when it was formed as a merger of early postwar Japan's two conservative parties, the Liberal Party of Japan, and the Japan Democratic Party.
> Despite public ambiguity toward his drive to change the constitution and a probe into his alleged use of influence in helping a friend’s school project
To anyone else who was confused thinking maybe the president was helping some kid on his school project, that is not the case. It looks like he gave money[1] and state land to build a very nationalistic school.
88 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 165 ms ] thread> needed to bolster counter-terrorism precautions ahead of the 2020 Tokyo Olympics
but:
> Under the bill, terrorist groups or criminal organizations could be punished for the planning of 277 crimes, which range from arson to copyright violation
Copyright violation? Seriously? Copyright violation is a terrorist act or a part of planning a terrorist act?
'I say to you that the VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone.'
[1] https://cryptome.org/hrcw-hear.htm
Ah, back the in the MPAA hay-day when they still thought they had a chance:
> Motion Picture Association of America head Jack Valenti - a leader of Hollywood's fight against piracy - continued the terrorism theme in his written submission to the hearing.
> "September 11 changed the way Americans look at the world. It also changed the way American law enforcement looks at Intellectual Property crimes," wrote Valenti - borrowing from an November 2002 article in the Customs Service newsletter US Customs Today.
Reminds me of this old comic: https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/53/ed/12/53ed12786...
14 years later and it's still a good political tactic.
https://qz.com/711490/why-japan-has-more-music-stores-than-t...
From where I sit, almost all the rest of the world are who went wrong, with impoverished, locked-in streaming services from businesses who take everything away the day you stop paying them, and dull audiofile-only downloads.
But we seem to agree that Abe declaring unauthorized CD copying preparation to terrorism is ludicrous...
Won't someone think of the rights holders!
[1] http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-19767970 [2] http://www.wired.co.uk/article/japan-strict-copyright-law
[1] http://www.corneredangel.com/amwess/papers/copyright_comics_...
Disclaimer: IANAL, much less a Japanese legal scholar.
[1] https://www.tofugu.com/japan/doujinshi-definition/ [2] http://www.japaneselawtranslation.go.jp/law/detail/?id=2506&... [3] http://www.cric.or.jp/english/csj/csj5.html
Basically, as long as you aren't overly successful, they won't come after you.
The aftermath of Fukushima was a pretty clear demonstration of this, where Tepco and government officials teamed up with the yakuza to send their debtors, as well as rounded-up homeless people, to clean up contaminated sites:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/japan/japan-e...
The (bogus and discredited) piracy-terrorism connection has been tried before in the USA and elsewhere; it never really catches on with the public, probably because it's self-evidently something that could only emerge via the anus of a corporate lobbyist.
But that's just the fat on the edges this new law, not the significant bit. This meat of it puts the Japanese government in a more American-style power position: surveillance, and prosecution of intent rather than actual deed.
A tangentially interesting part of this for me is: I work in Tokyo, and I ride my bike to work past the people pictured in the article. They are there, organized, obviously passionate (or at least engaged) in their political protest... but they are virtually all elderly. The picture in the article really is representative of what I see every day. 95% or more, 60+.
Why is that? Sure, retired people might have more free time, but... if only old people participate in your democracy, then your democracy is fucked.
Is it not already against the law to plan crimes?
Terrorist groups could be punished for planning any one of 277 crimes.
And so could criminal groups.
The "277 crimes" range from arson to copyright violation.
Took me a second to grok it, too.
Are any of the major economies moving to the left? Does anybody have a good understanding of why this is happening?
In this instance, it doesn't appear to be fear caused by domenstic terrorism. Japan suffered domestic terrorism in the past and the response seemed far more measured then.
There maybe significant (and even growing) resistance. But it doesn't seem very effective at creating political change.
And even if Labour get in, they still voted the IP Bill in. So they are pro-surveillance. So overall, I can't be convinced that "things are looking positive" from an individual liberties point of view, in the UK. Is there anywhere it's looking positive?
As people live longer and birth rates stay low, young people are increasingly outnumbered by old people in many parts of the developed world. I suspect that this demographic change has a lot to do with the right turn that many countries seem to be making these days.
"Left" and "right" are context dependent terms. But in this context I mean left as favoring individual freedom.
Yet, it's also true that many countries are moving far to the right.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_compass
They have been doing a lot recently to reduce this corruption and apparently have made good process. I don't doubt that social/political liberties will not improve in China but it's possible the business environment could further improve. Especially with the next president.
The only problem is the government created a very unstable economy with their massive spending projects after the financial crisis. And a lot of the wealthy people are rushing to get their money out instead of reinvesting it there and they are still very unfriendly to foreign capital (both human and financial).
It's interesting to see the lower middle class once dependable voters for the left break right and likewise, upper middle class, once dependable voters for the right, break left. I'm glad that parties can no longer take their bases for granted.
> The first revolution was the rise of the European nation-state after the Peace of Westphalia; the second was the late-18th- and 19th-century turn toward individual rights and accountable government; the third was the creation of the modern welfare state. Each revolution improved the state’s ability to provide order and deliver vital services while still fostering innovation. But as democratic publics demanded more and more, the state promised more and more, eventually overextending itself. In Revolution 3.5, Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan tried, but failed, to shrink the state.
The second half of the book is less good where it predicts the eventual shrinking of the state towards an efficient Singapore-esque limited government (aka the fourth revolution). But they make very good observations about the current state where individual liberties are continually diminished, innovation is crippled, widespread government inefficiency is the norm ("94% of government IT projects failed in last decade"), budgets are bloated, and the economic growth needed to support social services stalls.
The cause may simply be that whenever a crisis happens everyone calls for something to be done, then laws get passed, regardless if they are effective or not (see: terrorism, drugs, etc) as well as the thousands of small regulations over business every time someone gets hurt or dies or were merely pushed through by incumbents protecting their market share. Combine that with constant crises over a couple decades and you have quite the large administrative state.
But I think it may be more simply the result of the "The Iron Law of Bureaucracy" [2]. As organizations mature, without push-back, administrators end up taking over every aspect of an organization (happened at universities too) and the administrators favourite thing to do is creating new rules requiring more administrators. Which is how you end up with so many government agencies that they don't even know how many exist in the US [3].
The growth of the modern state is hardly a partisan issue, at least not in practice.
[1] https://www.amazon.com/Fourth-Revolution-Global-Reinvent-Sta...
[2] http://www.jerrypournelle.com/reports/jerryp/iron.html
[3] https://cei.org/blog/nobody-knows-how-many-federal-agencies-...
The urge to squeeze every drop of profit from companies is stronger than ever and means less profit for the common employee.
This shifts people to the right/conservative who often stand for more protectionistic economies.
The present U.S.A. 1982 administration was elected by the votes of only one-seventh of the U.S. population and it spent $170 million — more than five times the money raised by their opponents — to buy their victory. The networks' people, aware that a U.S. presidency costs $50 million, a senatorship $10 million, and a representative's seat $5 million, observe that the TV era governments are corrupt, wherefore they spontaneously abhor and abstain from further voting.
Gradually discovering that the networking abandonment of the voting booth was the true cause of their claimed "overwhelming majority," the incumbent administration, fearful of a potential rejective voting tidal wave of the inter-networked world people, will probably try in vain to block networking. Because networking is apolitical and amorphous, it has no "cells" to be attacked, as did the communism of former decades. The fearful sovereign nation politicos will find that trying to arrest networking is like trying to arrest the waves of the ocean."
--Buckminster Fuller, Grunch of Giants (1982)
Seems there is no end to this cycle
I'll give you my perspective on your question as someone fairly left of center, so take it with a grain of salt. Or take it as God's truth, whatever you fancy.
People, inevitably inexorably being strangled to death by the neoliberal free market capitalist economic system which has controlled nearly every western government since the 80s, are struggling and striking out for anything that will save them. People often turn to extremism and fascism of all stripes in situations like that. They become more extreme, because the status quo is a slow and painful death so anything that seems like it will bring change is good. When you are drowning you don't worry too much about the kind of boat that's offering to pull you up, you just climb onto it. Even if that boat is a slave ship.
Leftists have seen some success recently when they drop the ridiculous affectation of 'reasonable centrism and compromise' (centrism is only ever reasonable to people for whom the status quo is working, almost by definition), stop focusing on race/gender to the exclusion of class, and present real, radical, explicit and understandable changes to improve the lives of voters: Corbyn, Sanders, even Melenchon have all had encouraging and very high levels of success relative to expectations and the recent past, though they are mentioned in the order of their absolute success (Corbyn, topping the list, won a huge number of seats, the largest increase in labor vote share since 1945, caused a hung parliament which is pushing the Tories to make an uneasy alliance with an extremist group).
But these movements are still beginning and have a lot of work to do; they diametrically oppose the entrenched order explicitly (for the ultrawealthy, a Muslim ban is gauche and unbecoming of their senses of civility and properness; nationalizing private industry to take it from robber barons or providing healthcare for the poor is a very assault on their power/way of life), so they receive no support from above.
https://jacquesmattheij.com/i-blame-the-babel-fish
As to why in general a move to sovereignty it's a long delayed reaction to neoliberal economics and globalization as we have reached what might colloquially be called peak globalism as people (working class) see it as a net negative on their lives.
Last year, members of three opposition parties collectively filibustered an anti-terrorism bill (granting more domestic surveillance powers to NIS) for 192 hours and 27 minutes, setting a world record by a wide margin. Although the ruling party eventually forced the bill through, the media spotlight on the filibuster helped the opposition grab a lot more seats in the general election shortly afterward. The impeachment ten months later could not have happened without the new balance of power caused by that filibuster.
I don't think surveillance has ever been such a consequential issue in the mainstream politics of any other country so far. So if anyone is in a mood to try a bit less surveillance on its own people, I think South Korea just might be.
This isn't about left and right, it's a power grab. Any leader of any political party can fall to the temptation of a power grab regardless of their professed ideology.
The recent UK election is a bit hopeful in this regard.
The Conservatives weren't beaten outright by Labour, but performed so poorly that one of the architects of their campaign "suggested the party changed its name to the Workers Party or Conservative Workers Party ... He told BBC Newsnight "And I think that we have to actually build our policies based on five pillars - we should be a real modern trade union movement for the British people - five pillars of workers' rights, workers' jobs and skills, workers' wages, workers' welfare and workers' services."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40277395
At least it would be nice if they dealt with the well known problem of organized crime in Japan, but I doubt it will be used for anything like that - just more screwing over the little guy.
George W. Bush nearly doubled Federal Government spending and built numerous massive new bureaucracy agencies. Reagan before him did likewise in regards to spending. They're almost all big government conservatives now, the only question is what they spend on.
There few conservatives in the US holding the political position of cutting government spending, and almost none in favor of cutting entitlements. The tiny wing of the Republican party that actually favors the free market heavily, is irrelevant and has zero power or influence.
> Centre-right, Conservatism and Japanese nationalism. The LDP is Japan's largest political party. It is a conservative party and is made up of various conservative, nationalist and centrist factions. It is supported by the "Japan Conference", the "Shinto Association of Spiritual Leadership" which is Japanese ethnic religious conservative organization and Japan Business Federation. Before 2009, the LDP had been in power almost continuously since 1955, when it was formed as a merger of early postwar Japan's two conservative parties, the Liberal Party of Japan, and the Japan Democratic Party.
To anyone else who was confused thinking maybe the president was helping some kid on his school project, that is not the case. It looks like he gave money[1] and state land to build a very nationalistic school.
* http://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/japan-pm-accused-of...