Main Menu

The Political Thread

Started by The Legendary Shark, 09 April, 2010, 03:59:03 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

NapalmKev

Quote from: The Legendary Shark on 23 April, 2017, 12:47:53 PM
So, stealing money to spend on others is acceptable? Okay, I might be able to get behind this Robin Hood approach. From whom is it acceptable to steal, upon whom is it acceptable to bestow the stolen money and who or what decides?

The sun produces practically limitless energy, add wind and hydro and there's more than enough for everyone. There is enough food on this planet to feed everyone. In both cases, government backed corporations manage these resources for profit and not humanity, resulting in an organisational and monopolistic matrix of systems dependent on engineering and promoting shortages.

There is abundance in abundance, the only barrier to us accessing it is government.

As I said - "I understand your stance..." - but I fail to understand how you would address these problems.

Remove Government - OK, what then? How do we distribute goods at home or abroad. How do we liase with other Nations (that may decide to keep their Governments)? What if my next door neighbour decides to build a shed in my garden without permission? What if a far right group seizes my home/property, who should I complain to? And on and on and on...

Cheers
"Where once you fought to stop the trap from closing...Now you lay the bait!"

The Legendary Shark

Quote from: TordelBack on 23 April, 2017, 12:54:24 PMThe problem is people. Governments are people, elected by people. The solution is for people to grow the hell up.
I completely agree except, maybe, to say wise up rather than grow up. We have all been conditioned to see business as the game of Monopoly, with winners and losers and a score measured in money and yachts instead of what it really is; simple human interaction with the goal of making society accessible to and beneficial for all.
[move]~~~^~~~~~~~[/move]




The Legendary Shark

Quote from: NapalmKev on 23 April, 2017, 12:58:38 PM


As I said - "I understand your stance..." - but I fail to understand how you would address these problems.

Remove Government - OK, what then? How do we distribute goods at home or abroad. How do we liase with other Nations (that may decide to keep their Governments)? What if my next door neighbour decides to build a shed in my garden without permission? What if a far right group seizes my home/property, who should I complain to? And on and on and on...

Cheers

There are several answers to your questions which do not include government interference but these are not what I'm talking about. These are simply excuses used to short-circuit the argument on the table, which concerns the illegitimacy (at best) and criminality (at worst) of government power.

I say, "taxation is theft because..."

Most people ignore this and say, "but, roads and hospitals!" Instead of engaging with the assertion that government relies on crime, roads and hospitals - which everyone needs and values - are thrown out as an excuse, a distraction from the core argument. Once the core argument is settled we can start thinking about which solutions are necessary or practical.
[move]~~~^~~~~~~~[/move]




The Legendary Shark

Quote from: Hawkmumbler on 23 April, 2017, 12:56:34 PM
Do you not use the NHS? Did you not go to school, or have family that do? Do you not require the mergency services at sometime or another? Inreally don't get this notion that we are all dependent on ourselves, instead of being a complex net of codependency. If I have a cut of my wages removed so my mates grandmother can have her chemo, I fine. If I have a slice of my income taken to get my brothers and sister stheough school, i'm chuffed. I will at sometime in my life have need of the police, the fire service, and ambulance staff, so I will gladly pay their wages so they can do their job.

All of these public services are very laudable and noble but no excuse for theft. If you want to contribute to these things then that's all fine and generous of you. But you're not asked to contribute, are you? You are forced to contribute and then have no say on how much of your money is spent on bandages and how much on bullets, bail-outs and banquets.

As I say, my argument is not about the value of public services but that they do not excuse theft,
[move]~~~^~~~~~~~[/move]




NapalmKev

#12904
Quote from: The Legendary Shark on 23 April, 2017, 01:15:10 PM
Quote from: NapalmKev on 23 April, 2017, 12:58:38 PM


As I said - "I understand your stance..." - but I fail to understand how you would address these problems.

Remove Government - OK, what then? How do we distribute goods at home or abroad. How do we liase with other Nations (that may decide to keep their Governments)? What if my next door neighbour decides to build a shed in my garden without permission? What if a far right group seizes my home/property, who should I complain to? And on and on and on...

Cheers

There are several answers to your questions which do not include government interference but these are not what I'm talking about. These are simply excuses used to short-circuit the argument on the table, which concerns the illegitimacy (at best) and criminality (at worst) of government power.

I say, "taxation is theft because..."

Most people ignore this and say, "but, roads and hospitals!" Instead of engaging with the assertion that government relies on crime, roads and hospitals - which everyone needs and values - are thrown out as an excuse, a distraction from the core argument. Once the core argument is settled we can start thinking about which solutions are necessary or practical.


People offering a counter to your arguments are not "Short circuiting the argument". Without wishing to sound rude - you are the one extolling the virtues of a brave new world but when asked how it could work you have no answer other than " people can cooperate without coercion" which is flim-flam to say the least.

I would like things to be different/better but it's a baby steps process rather than throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Cheers
"Where once you fought to stop the trap from closing...Now you lay the bait!"

The Legendary Shark

Punctuation error rectification:

Most people ignore this and say, "but, roads
and hospitals," instead of engaging with the
assertion that government relies on crime.
Roads and hospitals - which everyone needs and values - are thrown out as an excuse, a
distraction from the core argument.

Sorry about that.
[move]~~~^~~~~~~~[/move]




Suede1971

I think its common sense that we need taxes to fund our services, the unfair bit i think is that some of the larger companies either do not pay tax at all or very little and do not contribute to society, and your average person sometimes pays too much.

I don't think people would pay taxes if they had the choice not to(some companies do not though circumventing laws with lawyers etc) and im personally happy to pay my taxes if it helps fund services and benefits etc.

The Legendary Shark

Quote from: NapalmKev on 23 April, 2017, 01:23:50 PM
Quote from: The Legendary Shark on 23 April, 2017, 01:15:10 PM
Quote from: NapalmKev on 23 April, 2017, 12:58:38 PM


As I said - "I understand your stance..." - but I fail to understand how you would address these problems.

Remove Government - OK, what then? How do we distribute goods at home or abroad. How do we liase with other Nations (that may decide to keep their Governments)? What if my next door neighbour decides to build a shed in my garden without permission? What if a far right group seizes my home/property, who should I complain to? And on and on and on...

Cheers

There are several answers to your questions which do not include government interference but these are not what I'm talking about. These are simply excuses used to short-circuit the argument on the table, which concerns the illegitimacy (at best) and criminality (at worst) of government power.

I say, "taxation is theft because..."

Most people ignore this and say, "but, roads and hospitals!" Instead of engaging with the assertion that government relies on crime, roads and hospitals - which everyone needs and values - are thrown out as an excuse, a distraction from the core argument. Once the core argument is settled we can start thinking about which solutions are necessary or practical.


People offering a counter to your arguments are not "Short circuiting the argument". Without wishing to sound rude - you are the one extolling the virtues of a brave new world but when asked how it could work you have no answer other than " people can cooperate without coercion" which is flim-flam to say the least.

I would like things to be different/better but it's a baby steps process rather than throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Cheers

I agree wholeheartedly with your last paragraph. As I have said before, society is a process and there is no big switch with UTOPIA written on it.

Human cooperation is everywhere. Look, for example, at the roads. People follow the Highway Code because the rules make sense, not because Theresa May tells them to. People in this country drive on the left because of tradition and an aversion to dying in a head-on collision and not because they'll get a ticket if they drive on the right. People follow the rules, on the whole, because they make sense.

Do people bend or break the rules? Sure they do, all the time - they creep through red lights or drive over the speed limits on deserted or quiet roads all the time, not to cock a snook at law and order but because sometimes rules and regulations make less sense. For example, there is no difference between an ambulance with a badly injured person in the back breaking the Highway Code as safely as possible and a family car  with a badly injured person in the back breaking the Highway Code as safely as possible. If either vehicle gets to the hospital without accident then that's fine, if either one causes damage, injury or death on the way then that's not fine and why we have courts.

The problem with courts (and police) at the moment is that they are run as government monopolies, which gives the false impression that only government can provide law and order - which is patently untrue. People do not refrain from murdering one another because the government tells them not to but because human beings are social animals who have, to an overwhelming extent, evolved an aversion to murdering one another. Are there exceptions? Of course there are, but compare the numbers of people murdered by individuals on their own recognicance to the numbers of people murdered by order of governments or other authoritarian organisations.

Stripping governments of unlawful powers does NOT automatically mean abandoning law and order, public services, international trade, national trade, local trade, food hygiene, public safety, policing, a court system, hospitals, roads, shoes or anything else.

What you are putting forward is a kind of Utopia fallacy; because I cannot offer a perfect alternative for every minute aspect of society - despite the fact that what we currently have is also far from perfectly Utopian and that a great many things do not require abolition, replacement or alteration and can continue to function perfectly well under a non-criminal government system - then nothing I say or suggest can possibly be valid.

[move]~~~^~~~~~~~[/move]




The Legendary Shark

Quote from: Suede1971 on 23 April, 2017, 01:39:05 PM
I think its common sense that we need taxes to fund our services, the unfair bit i think is that some of the larger companies either do not pay tax at all or very little and do not contribute to society, and your average person sometimes pays too much.

I don't think people would pay taxes if they had the choice not to(some companies do not though circumventing laws with lawyers etc) and im personally happy to pay my taxes if it helps fund services and benefits etc.

So long as we continue to base our societies on the primitive and selfish monetary model then yes, these things must be paid for.

Taxation, however, is not the only way.

As I have said here many times, taking the monetary system out of private hands and returning it to the public realm, even under the auspices of the current deeply flawed government system, would be a massive and fundamental game-changer and is a step we simply must take on the road to a fairer, healthier society.
[move]~~~^~~~~~~~[/move]




Suede1971

Quote from: The Legendary Shark on 23 April, 2017, 02:13:22 PM
Quote from: Suede1971 on 23 April, 2017, 01:39:05 PM
I think its common sense that we need taxes to fund our services, the unfair bit i think is that some of the larger companies either do not pay tax at all or very little and do not contribute to society, and your average person sometimes pays too much.

I don't think people would pay taxes if they had the choice not to(some companies do not though circumventing laws with lawyers etc) and im personally happy to pay my taxes if it helps fund services and benefits etc.

So long as we continue to base our societies on the primitive and selfish monetary model then yes, these things must be paid for.

Taxation, however, is not the only way.

As I have said here many times, taking the monetary system out of private hands and returning it to the public realm, even under the auspices of the current deeply flawed government system, would be a massive and fundamental game-changer and is a step we simply must take on the road to a fairer, healthier society.

I cant say i disagree with you but we live in capitalist society and have for the last 200 plus years, infact in my opinion society now isn't that different from feudalism which came before, apart from now we get to vote who will be in power, but things will not really change due to the society we live in general, this is why i have massive disillusionment with voting.

Everything would probably have to change if we wanted to live in a different and fairer society, and this from what i have gathered in the past would be a massive upheaval, and i actually think human nature in a way would have to change.

Hawkmumbler

We've been here before, Sharky, voluntary taxes dont work.

The Legendary Shark

Voluntary taxes are only a small part of the solution, not the only option.

There's nothing wrong with capitalism, Suede, it's corporatism (government-protected monopolies) that needs to go; and the first of these to die must be the current banking system which simply must be returned to a capitalist foundation.
[move]~~~^~~~~~~~[/move]




Suede1971

I cannot agree that there is nothing wrong with capitalism, it has things which are inherent to the system such as unemployment and inequality in general, im not saying these problems don't exist in other systems, but it has been an issue with capitalism even before such things as corporatism.

And working conditions are continually getting worse too, just look at places like asos and amazon, i worked at both of those places and they are both sweatshops pretty much.

The Legendary Shark

They are sweatshops because governments introduce toxic, anti-capitalist schemes like the minimum wage and strip workers of their basic right to sell their labour for a fair price.

So long as we remain a primitive, money-based society we need capitalism, which I agree is flawed but less flawed than corporatism, which is only a couple of degrees away from classic slavery.
[move]~~~^~~~~~~~[/move]




Suede1971

That does not explain the lack of trade unions, hire and fire employment tactics the the general precariousness of the work.

And no offence mate, but the minimum wage is the only thing what kept me from living in poverty, its very idealistic to think companies would suddenly give workers a fair wage, unless the workers in question had collective bargaining. which in the warehousing and manufacturing industries the majority do not.

And yeah there is good things to capitalism, but its still a flawed system to me, which still requires the exploitation of others to operate and make a profit.