The Political Thread

[Hawkmumbler]

If, on the other hand that class takes the concept of voluntary contributions and change its name to 'taxation' then that's absolutely fine. With the "right" to coerce and enforce removed, only the things people actually want will be funded.

Thats all well and good. Until someone wants to use the public service paid for by taxation without having paid their share.

[The Legendary Shark]

Let's not, eh? Chopping one another up isn't just messy, it's unnecessary and cruel and just facilitates the replacement of one bunch of gangsters with another. Not to mention the creation of even more generational hatreds to be passed down through the ages. We need to undertake this revolution the hard way.

[The Legendary Shark]

Is that what you would do, Hawkie? I think not. A few would, sure, but then some always do. There will be cheats under any system but that's no reason to dismiss ideas for improvement.

[Frank]

If, on the other hand that class takes the concept of voluntary contributions and change its name to 'taxation' then that's absolutely fine. With the "right" to coerce and enforce removed, only the things people actually want will be funded.

At least, that's the theory.

This isn't a theoretical discussion. I count 67 states - a third of all the states on Earth - with no income, sales (VAT) or corporate tax at all. More than two thirds of all the states on Earth have a zero base rate for income tax too.

[Leigh S]

Lawful by whose idea of what the Law should be?  a referendum on every law?  Who decides what the "expected" but not coerced level of not tax is? Another referendum? What about when a law becomes outdated or unworkable? where does the law appear from and how would you get concensus on all the things "politics", however shoddily under the way we currently let it run, take care of

[The Legendary Shark]

It's not the tax, or lack of it, itself that's the core issue for me. So long as our species clings to the idea of money then things will have to be paid for somehow. My understanding is that the current threat-based system of funding is unlawful, immoral and leads to scarcity and waste. This is where the rubber meets the road. Either one agrees with this assessment or one does not. If one does not, fine, continue to support or tweak the current system. If one does agree with this assessment, then one faces a dilemma - whether to support it anyway or whether to try and find a better way, whatever that may be.

The system I'd like to see starts by putting everyone under the same basic Law and learning what that means. The rest of it will be figuring out how to handle the consequences, which will be legion. I can suggest some solutions to some of the consequences but there are billions of minds on this planet capable of coming up with far better ideas. The solutions come in legions of legions. But that's not where to start.

First one must ask oneself if the current system is the best we can do, if it's acting properly, honestly, fairly and honourably.

[IndigoPrime]

The problem with the system you're proposing is the assumption that everyone has infinite time, and probably also enough income to deal with the fact people are fundamentally selfish. The EU referendum is an excellent example of how people in the main do not do detail. Sure, partly this stems from a lack of civic education and arseholes like Boris Johnson systematically poisoning the well. But ultimately if you're asking people to decide on all law, how will you get consistency? Or should things be based on community? How large/small should said communities be? What happens when you cross a border? What happens if you just don't agree with what the local majority says? How do you deal with nationwide requirements for things like medical care, benefits/support for the less able, and even basic infrastructure?

I agree that the current system is a shitshow, but that's also in part because we have a very bad version of a variable system. A shift in voting system alone would be transformative.

One thing I will, say, though, is we have become a very apathetic country. I recall when I was at uni in the mid-1990s, a technician there said Thatcher basically ruined everything. The head campus was fucking us over, and no-one was doing everything. "Ten years ago, you lot would have barricaded yourselves in and negotiated something better." It rather feels like that with the manner in which people in this country are meekly surrendering their free movement rights, or allowing over three million EU citizens to be systematically shat on. (Most of my friends are sympathetic to these things, and voted remain. Almost none of them have even contacted their MPs, because they think it's just a waste of time. Not really. If an MP was swamped with communications, their own self interest at least would force change.)

[The Legendary Shark]

That people are fundamentally selfish is not at issue. If I want or need something I band together with people who want or need the same things, we all do.

What I don't understand is how our fundamental selfishness can be addressed by granting a small group of fundamentally selfish people the power to dictate to the rest of us. After all, if one gives fundamentally selfish people power, they will use it selfishly.

[IndigoPrime]

I get that, and I empathise with that. What I don't get is how you get away from at least some level of centralised power and retain anything remotely resembling modern-day society.

[The Legendary Shark]

Separating power from organisation is the key, in my view. Lots of organisations and individuals can and would operate perfectly well, and often even better, without coercion.

[Professor Bear]

If an MP was swamped with communications, their own self interest at least would force change.)

"MP bullied by hard left thugs promises they "won't be broken" by organised abuse campaign."

Let's not, eh? Chopping one another up isn't just messy, it's unnecessary and cruel and just facilitates the replacement of one bunch of gangsters with another. Not to mention the creation of even more generational hatreds to be passed down through the ages. We need to undertake this revolution the hard way.

This is exactly the kind of intransigent extremism that prevents us making grown up compromises with those of opposing political views.  A big part of political engagement is about finding an acceptable middle ground for both parties instead of entrenching in binary positions, and in that spirit I would like to make the first step by taking guillotine murders off the table entirely and instead proposing a publicly funded guillotine to be placed outside Westminster.  Whatever happens, happens.

[The Legendary Shark]

I'm all for compromises, just not imposed compromises. If Party A wants to punch me in the face and Party B wants to kick me up the arse, and they both argue about it for a bit and compromise to kick me in the face, I'm not going to consent to that - who would?

It's like all this nonsense come election time of voting for the lesser of two evils. The lesser evil is still evil and I don't feel obliged to choose any evil at all.

[Professor Bear]

And people wonder why the UK guillotine industry is dead on its arse.

[IndigoPrime]

It's like all this nonsense come election time of voting for the lesser of two evils. The lesser evil is still evil and I don't feel obliged to choose any evil at all.

But this is entrenched by our electoral system. This is not how, e.g., people feel in Iceland, because they have a broadly representative parliament. Sure, you may not always get what you voted for (and that country really thinks of itself as far less conservative than it is), but at least the colour of MPs more or less matches what's on the ballots. Here, people often vote for the lesser of two evils rather than what they want, because that may stop the worst evil winning. It's a fucking ludicrous system that was out of date a century ago, let alone now.

It's notable that in the past 100 years, the UK has had a majority government elected by a majority precisely once, and a majority collation elected by a majority once. British majority governments have otherwise been due to the party winning a plurality of the vote, and that's a disgrace. Some flavour of PR (I don't really care which) would force compromise, collaboration and consensus, because there would be no other way to get a majority in the Commons. (Not that we're likely to see this. The Conservatives realise they would find it extremely tough to ever win a majority again, hence their lies about how we already voted down PR, despite never having a referendum on that. Labour sit there, like entitled fools, reasoning they'd sooner have majority control one time in three of four than share power with evil centrists like the Liberal Democrats, or the SNP. And so on we go.)

[The Legendary Shark]

It isn't their power to share, or wield exclusively, that's my point. The only power anyone has is over themselves or, by contract, over willing participants. Whatever convoluted shenanigans these people undertake in order to "take power" are essentially meaningless. It's like entering into a competition to win a unicorn.

Prof, the UK guillotine industry may soon enjoy a revival as exports to the US rise sharply.