The Political Thread

[JPMaybe]

So, JPM, you now advocate a state fund to deport undesirables? I think that's been tried before. People didn't like it much.
.
If by "letting selfishness run rampant" you mean enlightened self-interest, then I agree. If you mean "I got mine so the rest of you can piss off," then you are dead wrong.
.
"...your ideal society would be far more vulnerable to the excesses of capitalism than mine." Have you not been paying attention? Global debt has grown by $57 trillion to reach $199 trillion in the seven years following the financial crisis - a 40.1% rise. Austerity, crumbling public services, unemployment, homelessness, wealth inequality... Yeah, your society is just peachy.

In what universe have I implied that that's "my" society?  I'm a socialist.  I want to eliminate capital as a deciding force in anybody's life.  The reason I take so much issue with your view is that it would make things immeasurably worse.

Perhaps the fact that you have to go back to a man who died in 1960 to make a point about all politicians not being greedy and duplicitous says more than I could. I'm sure there are a few who want to do as much good for as many people as possible - but only a few. Of course our world is complex, wonderfully so, but that doesn't mean it can't be funded and run in a more sensible manner. I think you may be under the impression that I want to sweep everything away and start again from the ground-up. Nothing could be further from the truth. The best way to alter a system is to make the minimum required changes. I suggest only two; the switch to social money creation and the replacement of elected politicians with elected managers. All these other changes you fear are entirely in your own head.
.

This is incredible.  Because you put the number "two" on the changes you want to make as if everything you can label a change is equal in magnitude, then it's the "minimum required" change?  As if completely changing how society works can just be done overnight with no state to back it up?  Note that I don't have a problem with the idea of social money.  I think it's a fairly good one.  It's the idea that it would mean a fucking thing without a state to back it up that I take issue with.

Vital public services would be managed by elected managers and funded by publicly created money, thus removing them entirely from the profit motive. The fall of Rome was in a very large part caused by massive debt which facilitated the need for more plundering wars, high taxation and the erosion of public services. I'll leave you to draw your own parallels with what is happening in our society today.

Why would it remove them from the profit motive?  Would or would not public utilities be open to competition in your ideal world?  And if not how is that any different to a state monopoly?  And, no don't leave me to draw my own parallels, you raised ancient Rome as a paragon of the use of social money, you can explain it.

What's wrong with people being rich if they want to work for it? What's wrong with buying something and renting it out? Capitalism isn't inherently evil. Hotel rooms are rented out, bicycles, cars, tuxedos, boats, aircraft, fields. If you just want a weekend in London, should you buy a house and then sell it when you're done or just rent a hotel room? Capitalism is the best of a set of imperfect choices but it should be kept away from necessities like water, sewage treatment and housing. If you wanted to buy a house, would you rather take out an interest-bearing mortgage, which profits private banks, or an interest-free mortgage, which benefits you?

There are a number of things wrong with people being rich, or more precisely much richer than the people at the bottom.  Read  The Spirit Level.  I'm talking about the runaway accrual of wealth that the rich in this society indulge in, which we've got little and insufficient defence against now, but to which we'd have no defence at all under your system.  And thanks for the admission that you do want centrally controlled monopolies on vital services, the governance of which wouldn't be a de facto state... how?  And they'd be protected from private interests undercutting them and driving them out of business... how?

Nor do I. Utopia is an ideal to strive towards, not a fixed end point.
.
I don't know where you get the idea that running the water system properly will give us all drinking water with turds floating in it or that law and order will suddenly evaporate into nothingness if we work towards making the two major changes I advocate. This kind of rhetoric smacks of fearmongering, I'm afraid. Have you ever considered running for parliament? You'd fit right in.

Well now you've admitted that a state monopoly on it is the way to run a water system, then we've no problem.

.
That last bit's just rubbish, I'm afraid. You seem to regard any changes to the system as insanely dangerous and regard anyone who proposes such changes as a dangerous lunatic. That's your prerogative, of course, and indeed there are dangers with any change. This does not mean that changes should not be explored. I also find your suggestion that I think some kind of Utopia could be created overnight with no problem at all to be misrepresentative not only of reality but of what I say.

You've repeatedly said yourself that you could make the changes you want overnight.  Do you want me to dig up a quote from you in this thread?  The thought of scrutinising your turgid ramblings doesn't fill me with delight, I'm afraid, but I will if you want.  Again I need to reiterate that as a socialist I think that social money isn't a bad idea, I just don't think it would be the absolute panacea you think it would be.

I also think that you are incapable of grasping that oppression begins with consent. The state, or religion, or capitalism, or debt, or the Lord Humungous, can only oppress a society through the consent and willing cooperation of sections of that society. You round off with a bit of name-calling, which you'll forgive me if I don't reciprocate.

Your oppression is my defence from the tyranny of the rich.  In fact your definition of oppression has such a ridiculously low bar that only fringe cases like you hold to it.  And please tell me how the victims of the Bhopal disaster consented?  Or any victim of insufficient state control against capitalism, for that matter?  Who, exactly, steps in to protect people from the feckless or the greedy in your world?  Forgetting that, without politicians and money, everyone will of course be good human beings.

Modified to repair broken link—IP

[The Legendary Shark]

I have to go to bed. I'll respond in the morning. G'night!

[Richmond Clements]

If I walk into a restaurant, I do so of my own free will. If the meal is inedible and the service is dire then I have no obligation to pay.

The very act of entering a restaurant and ordering a meal constitutes a contract.

Pick one.

[JamesC]

Three days ago this thread was quite interesting.

[Fungus]

Three days ago this thread was quite interesting.

This thread gets skipped for long spells these days. The point scoring and nit picking is very grating 

[The Legendary Shark]

Erm, in this universe. I began with a direct quote from you in which you specifically called it "my society" and, as you have not put forward any vision of the society you would like to help build, and have admitted to defending at least aspects of this one, I assumed that's what you meant. Apologies if I misunderstood. Besides, to be pedantic, this society is your society, just as it is mine and everyone else's equally.
.
I too am disdainful of capital. My ideal society, at the risk of attracting more howls of derision, would not use something so primitive as money at all and would be more along the lines of the 'Star Trek' society. But such a society is a long way off and the changes I propose simply a step along the way - not designed or meant to last forever. And how eliminating debt, meeting everyone's basic needs and empowering the individual makes things "immeasurably worse" is, I admit, beyond me. What changes to society do you propose to make things measurably better?
.
There are many changes I'd like to see but vomiting out a long laundry list of them would be pointless. There are many changes other people would like to see as well but I wouldn't presume to know what they are. In my opinion, after listening to the people around me, the two major factors behind their discontent are debt and oppressive rules. Many changes are required but changing where money comes from and curtailing the imagined power of our "rulers" is the minimum amount of those required changes. Minimum in number, not minimum in impact or complexity. Such changes will make it easier for people to change their own lives, and society, as they see fit. The idea that you need a state (by which I assume you mean an authoritarian parliament) to "back up" these changes is not one I subscribe to. We don't need politicians to force us into making our own lives better but facilitators to manage the tools we need to do it for ourselves.
.
No, public utilities would not be wide open to competition under the changes I propose (see my later comments). They would be social monopolies, run by society in any way it chooses (my suggestion is elected managers), funded by social money and with the aim of providing the best service possible. Profit would not come into it. There would still be plenty of scope for private enterprises to provide assistance and support for these utilities through the manufacture of parts and the provision of specialist labour etc.
.
I raised ancient Rome as an example of the power of social money, not a paragon. I would not want to use social money to build a war machine to go out and rebuild the British Empire at the end of a billion guns. Ancient Rome shows us that vast changes can be made using this system and also offers a sobering lesson as to the dangers of using private money. In order to pay off the money lenders, Rome had to engage in ever more plundering wars (as we do now, riding on the US's coat tails) and tax the life out of its citizens (as we are doing now), which in turn led to the state viewing its own citizens as the enemy, to be controlled and kept down (US, UK, EU). In the end, Rome imploded and fractured apart (independent Scotland), a fate I would like to see us avoid. I don't want to write a long essay on the similarities between Ancient Rome and the modern world and so I hope these superficial parallels will suffice.
.
"The runaway accrual of wealth that the rich in this society indulge in" is a symptom of private money creation which would be throttled by a switch to socially created money. Take away from these people the ability to create fortunes at the stroke of a pen, or these days at the click of a mouse, and they'd have to work for their fortunes like everyone else. There would still be relatively rich and relatively poor people (in a monetary sense) but the gap between the two would be significantly lessened. The poor would be less likely to resent the rich if their basic needs were met and the rich would be less afraid to end up hanging from a golden lamp post. People would still be able to start their own businesses and strive for greater monetary wealth than their fellows if that's what they want, and be able to employ people who want to work for them to give them a higher income than just the basics. In fact, I'd expect entrepreneurs and creatives to flourish under a social money system as they won't lose their houses or end up on the streets with nothing if they fail. I have no problem with having a diverse society containing both relatively rich and relatively poor people. I do, though, like you, have a big problem being part of a society containing obscenely rich and obscenely poor people.
.
Public utilities would not be protected from competition as such but their nature would safeguard them to a large extent. Imagine some genius puts his hand up and says, "hey, I've invented a way to draw free energy from the fifth dimension without the need for fuel but I'm not going to tell you how to do it unless you pay me ten billion quid!" The elected manager of the National Grid would, in that instance, be advised to first verify such claims and then put the offer to the people. If the people accept the offer, or he accepts society's counter-offer, all well and good. The technology could be purchased and a period of transforming existing public power stations undertaken. If the offer is rejected, the inventor is perfectly free to construct his own safe power plant and offer the energy he generates for sale - but if he wants to do so using existing public power lines then he'd have to pay rent to society for using those power lines. If his electricity is cheap enough then there's no problem but if it's too expensive the public won't buy it. Without unchecked rulers presiding over the country's power system, he'd be unable to bribe people into accepting his system and charges. It becomes more sensible to cooperate than compete.
.
Not state monopolies, social monopolies. The state monopoly is wide open to corruption due to the few people involved in making decisions on contracts, secret dealings and what have you. The social monopoly, whilst still open to a certain level of corruption, would be far less vulnerable due to the transparency required (all decisions and accounts must be available for any member of society to view at will, most likely on the internet). If it's ours, then its our responsibility to keep an eye on it. This does not mean that every one of us must spend 18 hours a day studying the accounts of every public utility. People will naturally keep an eye on the things of interest to them and flag up any discrepancies to social media, reporters, each other, the rest of society and so on. Local, regional or national elected councils could even employ people to specifically monitor these accounts on our behalf. (Yes, there would still be elected bodies in place to help run the show - the difference is that all decisions made in the running of society's vital services and infrastructure would be transparent and not virtually invisible. You would have the facility to see it all and object, support or suggest as the situation requires.)
.
These changes could be made overnight. It really is that simple. The question as to whether they should be made overnight is a different one. I said earlier that I would never want to be prime minister and one of the reasons I gave is that I would make these changes overnight, leading to confusion, misunderstanding, mistrust and unrest. It would be far more sensible to work towards these changes, to plan ahead and to prepare. It might take us ten years or more to sort out the details and explain the ramifications. Society, indeed, might not go for it - but if it does, when we're ready, these changes can be made overnight. There are pros and cons for both making these changes tomorrow and in ten years. Doing it tomorrow invites fear and unrest and doing it in a decade invites sabotage and exploitation. And although the fact fills me with unease, if society decides it wants to do this then it really must be done through our existing imperfect and corrupt political system. I honestly hate that fact and wish there was a peaceful and sensible way around it but there really isn't. At least none that I can see. We'd be asking an entrenched ruling elite to give up their power and hand it over to the people - and they are not going to do that willingly just because a handful of people like me think it's for the best.
.
The victims of the Bhopal disaster did not consent; their rulers consented for them using powers they are not entitled to. Removing parliamentary power does not automatically destroy existing structures such as civil services, police forces or court systems. There would still be protections in place - protections that would become stronger with the removal of undue authoritarian influence. Remove that undue influence and one example of benefit would be the situation where the government decides who is and is not entitled to legal aid and therefore access to the judicial system. Police and courts would be much freer to investigate and prosecute such hideous crimes as the Bhopal disaster without the interference of government or the protection of vast wealth.
.
Rich, as I said, contracts, both written and unwritten, have only two fundamental requirements: they must be mutually consensual and contain reasonable expectations. If I walk into a restaurant and order a meal, that's the consensual part. I therefore have the reasonable expectation, the second part, that the meal provided will be edible because, why would I possibly expect otherwise? If the meal turns out to be inedible, that is a breach of the second fundamental base of contract, therefore the contract is void and I have no obligation to pay. If the restaurant owner wants me to pay for an inedible meal then that is an unreasonable expectation and outside the law of contract. The same is true for every contract; if you ask a mechanic to fix your car and he promises to but doesn't, and then wants you to pay anyway, the mechanic has an unreasonable expectation and the contract is void. Conversely, if you drop your car off at a garage for a basic service and the mechanic decides to charge you for replacing the engine without asking you first, that is a breach of the consensual part of the contract, voiding it, and you have no obligation to pay him for work or materials which you didn't authorise. I trust this clears things up.

[The Legendary Shark]

You're right, James. I do try not to engage in nit-picking and point-scoring but often fail. I apologise and will try harder to avoid such things in the future.
.
Mr R, I apologise for my earlier snipe.

[Banners]

In practical and straightforward terms, what is it you want, and what can we do to help you make it come about?

[The Legendary Shark]

In practical and straightforward terms, I want to be in control of my own life. I want to be able to negotiate with authority in order to reach agreements acceptable to us both. When I say "no" I want it to mean just that. I want to be free to live my life as I choose, following the simple code 'cause loss, harm or damage to no-one; honour your lawful contracts, pay your lawful bills and be honest in your dealings.'
.
If you want to help me, just do the same. Live your life as you see fit and do no harm.

[Theblazeuk]

Unfortunately the definition of lawful is what leads to 1,000 word debates.

[The Legendary Shark]

Lawful - not murdering, raping, hurting, stealing, lying or cheating.
.
Legal - legislation.
.

[Grugz]

whilst i miss the "legendary shark" I do like the white falcon...it reminds me of one of those 30's serials .

[Theblazeuk]

Lawful - not murdering, raping, hurting, stealing, lying or cheating.
.
Legal - legislation.
.

'Moral'

Legal = Lawful. With no claims to Justice.

Legendary Shark & White Falcon - puts me more in mind of a Kung Fu movie

[The Legendary Shark]

Legal is not the same as lawful. What was lawful 1,000 years ago remains lawful today. What is legal changes almost on a daily basis.
.
Take Prohibition in the US as a prime example. Alcohol was legal, then it was illegal, then it was legal again. It remained constantly unlawful, however, to kill someone whilst pissed (or sober).
.
Shall we talk about this? I'm up for it but people seem to be getting a bit bored of me.
.
Grugz, you should see my flared nunchucks and killer quiff!

[Steven Denton]

Stolen from the internet.

*An example may explain the difference:

In is unlawful to build a house in breach of planning permission.

But it is not illegal to do so.

Murder is illegal.

It is unlawful to employ someone without a formal contract.

It is not - however - illegal.

Illegality attracts criminal sanctions.
Unlawful activity attracts civil sanctions.*