The Political Thread

[JPMaybe]

I love your restaurant analogy, JPM, because it allows me to make my point perfectly.
.
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. If I decide I don't like the menu, I can walk out before ordering. If the meal is super delicious and the service is excellent then I'll definitely pay and may even leave a tip. If the restaurant owner doesn't like the look of me or if I behave poorly in his/her establishment then I can be refused service or asked to leave - it is a mutually consensual arrangement.
.
Let's take your analogy further. If the restaurant owner employed a couple of gorillas to grab people off the street and force them inside to eat and then forced them to pay, irrespective of the quality of the food, would that be right? I'd say no.
.
Let's go a little further into the realms of fantasy. Imagine your restaurant is publicly owned and the only one in town; and that if you wanted to eat out this place was the only option. But the manager, for whatever reason, only buys the cheapest cuts of meat and fish which he knows are a bit iffy. People get sick and some may even die. You'd want that manager sacked, wouldn't you? But you can't sack him for up to five years, during which time he just carries on as he is. Would you consider that to be fair? Even when he is sacked after his tenure expires, you'll only get someone else like him and so it continues.
.
So you decide to open J. P. Maybe's Diner and provide a better service. This new place is the same size, offers the same dishes and the same portions at the same price but uses fresh ingredients, properly cooked and served by staff who enjoy their job and don't sneeze into the soup or spill gravy all over the place. Most people, given the choice, would rather go to your diner.
.
But the manager of the first restaurant has a brother who's the mayor of your town and so taxes, levies, requirements and fines are imposed on your new diner. So much so, in fact, that the JPM Diner can't make a profit and eventually goes under, leaving you with massive debts, no house and a criminal record. The first restaurant, not bothered by such restrictions, carries on as it always has. Would you consider this to be fair or even lawful? Well, this is exactly how government works.
.
Thanks for that analogy, JPM, I couldn't have thought of a better one myself and will use it often from now on!

The point, which I guess must have been deflected into the stratosphere given how far it sailed over your head, is that one doesn't have to sign a piece of paper to be subject to a contract.  Though please do use it, as it will make clear the utter self-centredness and abrogation of any notion of responsibility to society that your philosophy entails.

I don't really get the rest of your post. You seem to think that, because I am part of society, I must pay for it with money. Helping people out directly or having a socially useful job doesn't seem to be enough for you.

Depends how much you earn.  If you make enough to cover your basic needs then yeah, you absolutely should put something back in to improve the lot of the society that let you make that money in the first place.  And having a system of mandatory graduated income tax means that, however much people hate it, at least it's fair as anyone of a given income gives as much as anybody else.

If I were to turn up at your home, uninvited, and mow your lawn, wash your car and clean the windows then demand payment, would you think that fair? But this is exactly what government does. "We've built you a school, pay us," "we've bombed Iraq for you, pay us," "we've invited the King of Europe over to a banquet for you, pay us," "we've increased our salary for you, pay us," "we've incarcerated a petty criminal for you, pay us" and so forth and on. Taxation is nothing but a con job but we've all been conditioned to see it as entirely reasonable and honest when it is, in fact, the complete opposite of those things.

Except we're not talking about washing your car, are we?  We're talking about the things that keep people alive like clean water and sewage disposal, the things that everyone has a duty as members of society to contribute to, the things that need a steady, predictable source of income to be able to plan and not leave people swimming in their own faeces.  You can keep stating that taxation is equivalent to theft as much as you like (and I'm sure you will) but it doesn't make it so.  The absolute moral necessity of wealth redistribution, for one, trumps your obsession with where exactly value gets extracted from the work you do to pay for the good of your fellow human.  I agree that Iraq was an obscenity, and would strip military spending to the bare minimum if I could.  Doesn't mean that taxation itself is the evil that you're obsessively saying it is. 

To quote Clement Atlee "Charity is a cold grey loveless thing. If a rich man wants to help the poor, he should pay his taxes gladly, not dole out money at a whim."  Putting aside your ludicrous utopian fantasies of social money instantly doing away with corporate greed and the profit motive, that's what you'd reduce us to, being at the mercy of the whims of the wealthy.

[Tiplodocus]

Shark,  your argument is perversely similar to those rich wanders who say "I earned this through hard work and never relied on anyone for a handout so why should I pay tax to help others".

But they, like you, did not emerge from the womb as a fully functioning adult. There was a whole infrastructure in place to help get you from being a crawling baby dependent on everything, through childhood, through rebellious teenage years and into adulthood.

A fuck load of people paid for by taxes have helped you. You can't just say "Ah but I didn't want them to".

[Professor Bear]

F***. As if the election news couldn't get much worse:

http://news.sky.com/story/1481942/ukip-rejects-nigel-farages-resignation

Well, as pointed out elsewhere, UKIP did actually achieve unprecedented success for an independent party even if they didn't get much in the way of seats.  If they ever stop being a punchline by making their members not say stupid things in public, get their shit together and master spin, it'll be like that bit in Rise of the Planet of the Apes where the monkeys figure out how machine guns work - WE'LL ALL BE COMPLETELY FUCKED.

All the same, I think this has more to do with Farage being a known quantity with voters, and without him UKIP have to get someone else in and make them a household name.

[Theblazeuk]

Yeah I think without Farage they would sink quickly. Remember Nick Griffin?

[NapalmKev]

Remember Nick Griffin?

No!

Actually, now that you mention it, wasn't he Oliver Hardys Stunt-double in the old black and white movies?

Cheers

[GordonR]

Aren't Shark's boring, one-note and delusional contributions often typed out on a computer at his local library; a service available free to all members of the community, thanks to local council taxation.

Stop me when you see where we're going with this...

[ZenArcade]

Is our White Falcon (famous fish) setting the Political Thread aflame again??? Z

[The Legendary Shark]

TheBlaze, in this "anarchist utopia" I would define money as a medium of exchange.
.
JPM, I know one doesn't have to sign a piece of paper to be subject to a contract. The very act of entering a restaurant and ordering a meal constitutes a contract. The point that seems to elude you is that all contracts, whether written or unwritten, must be a) mutually consensual and b) contain reasonable expectations - a combination of the two ideas of agreement and obligation. A contract really is a pretty basic concept which, as you do not seem to grasp, cannot be forced by one party onto another.
.
I'd like to know how you think taking control of one's own life is an abrogation of personal responsibility when I have said, time and time again, that one cannot have personal freedom without personal responsibility. Handing over one's power to a small bunch of politicians in the vain hope that they will wield those powers wisely and for the benefit of all, then watching them piss away that power to rob you and help their friends, is the ultimate abrogation of responsibility.
.
So long as a society is run for profit then what you say will remain true - if you don't have enough money then you deserve a slice of someone else's. And if that someone else doesn't want to give up their hard-earned wealth then it should be forcibly taken from them. Social money creation still allows for people to work hard and become rich but it doesn't demand it. "Look at him, he's got lots and I've got nothing, boo-hoo" seems to be the norm today. Give everyone enough - a roof over their heads, public services and enough to eat - and things will be better. Not perfect, granted, but better. The very idea that people must be treated like rats in a pit, fighting each other for every scrap they can get, seems to be the only kind of society you can envisage. I think that kind of society is abhorrent. One can contribute to society in very many ways - but these ways entail hard work and thought. To just throw a few bob into a big pot to be administered by greedy and duplicitous politicians
is the least of these ways and represents yet another abrogation of personal responsibility.
.
The things that keep people alive, like clean water and sewage disposal, would not instantly cease to be if government and taxation suddenly disappeared. Indeed, these are the very things that social money creation is designed to fund. (Rome built an empire with socially created, interest-free money and lost it when the money creation transferred to private hands. What I'm suggesting is neither radical nor new.) Money is created by society, with no interest, and in order for it to enter society and do its job (which is not to earn more money for the rich, as is its purpose today) it has to be spent on these things. Today, the things that keep people alive are run for profit when they should, in fact, be run for the benefit of society.
.
The  absolute moral necessity of wealth redistribution is only an absolute moral necessity in this world of haves and have nots you defend so vehemently. In a society of haves, it is much less important.
.
We have so many fantastic systems and technologies in this world of ours. Imagine if we used them for people instead of profit. The only things stopping us from building that world are privately created money and politicians.
.
It is privately created money and politicians who leave us at the mercy of those wealthy individuals you despise so much (again, look at modern Greece). Social money and personal freedoms and responsibilities free us from those whims. If you have enough food, how will the rich starve you out?
.
Tips, you are correct, we do have a lot that we all benefit from. My argument is not about that - indeed, we should all treasure and help maintain these things, which a switch to social money creation would do in spades - my argument is that these things have been hi-jacked for profit. We all think that our taxes pay for these vital things but the truth is that they do not. Debt pays for these things, which is precisely why they are all under so much unnecessary strain today.  Our current system, which we have all been brought up to believe is the only system possible, is destroying them.

[The Legendary Shark]

No, Mr R. I type them out on an old 'phone using a £7.50 per month GiffGaff internet and 'phone service which I pay for out of the wages I earn from my job. I claim no benefits, tax credits or grants from the government as these things come from government borrowing and are bad for the country. My beliefs in this area mean that I sometimes have nothing at all in my pocket and very little in my belly. I also have no debts for the same reason. I wonder, do you claim any of these toxic benefits, credits or grants which do more harm than good? If not, then I honestly and humbly salute you.
.
And yes, I see exactly where you're going with this - down another one of your beloved blind alleys.

[JPMaybe]

TheBlaze, in this "anarchist utopia" I would define money as a medium of exchange.
.
JPM, I know one doesn't have to sign a piece of paper to be subject to a contract. The very act of entering a restaurant and ordering a meal constitutes a contract. The point that seems to elude you is that all contracts, whether written or unwritten, must be a) mutually consensual and b) contain reasonable expectations - a combination of the two ideas of agreement and obligation. A contract really is a pretty basic concept which, as you do not seem to grasp, cannot be forced by one party onto another.

You accede to the social contract implicitly every single day you stay here and don't move to Somalia.  Maybe there should be a state fund for people like you to leave and see what life without a state is like.

I'd like to know how you think taking control of one's own life is an abrogation of personal responsibility when I have said, time and time again, that one cannot have personal freedom without personal responsibility. Handing over one's power to a small bunch of politicians in the vain hope that they will wield those powers wisely and for the benefit of all, then watching them piss away that power to rob you and help their friends, is the ultimate abrogation of responsibility.

Jesus, that's the problem with arguing with anti-statist absolutists like you, it makes it sound as if I particularly like the current system.  Your version of personal responsibility amounts to nothing but rhetoric, and is utterly meaningless without a state to enforce against people who breach it.  Your version of "taking control of your own life" amounts to letting selfishness run rampant.

So long as a society is run for profit then what you say will remain true - if you don't have enough money then you deserve a slice of someone else's. And if that someone else doesn't want to give up their hard-earned wealth then it should be forcibly taken from them. Social money creation still allows for people to work hard and become rich but it doesn't demand it. "Look at him, he's got lots and I've got nothing, boo-hoo" seems to be the norm today. Give everyone enough - a roof over their heads, public services and enough to eat - and things will be better. Not perfect, granted, but better. The very idea that people must be treated like rats in a pit, fighting each other for every scrap they can get, seems to be the only kind of society you can envisage.

Absolutely false and your ideal society would be far more vulnerable to the excesses of capitalism than mine.

I think that kind of society is abhorrent. One can contribute to society in very many ways - but these ways entail hard work and thought. To just throw a few bob into a big pot to be administered by greedy and duplicitous politicians
is the least of these ways and represents yet another abrogation of personal responsibility.

Horseshit.  I guess Nye Bevan counts as a greedy and duplicitous politician in your world?  And, ad nauseum you never ever acknowledge how complicated our society is, in particular the kind of society we want, where people get health care and clean water.  Your system would be fine for a commune.  But for 60-odd million people some form of technocracy is vital.  Unless you think that you, White Falcon, internet-researcher extraordinaire, have the knowledge to make a valuable input on every one of the things the state provides.

The things that keep people alive, like clean water and sewage disposal, would not instantly cease to be if government and taxation suddenly disappeared. Indeed, these are the very things that social money creation is designed to fund. (Rome built an empire with socially created, interest-free money and lost it when the money creation transferred to private hands. What I'm suggesting is neither radical nor new.) Money is created by society, with no interest, and in order for it to enter society and do its job (which is not to earn more money for the rich, as is its purpose today) it has to be spent on these things. Today, the things that keep people alive are run for profit when they should, in fact, be run for the benefit of society.

No shit.  Explain how your stateless utopia would prevent those vital services falling prey to the profit motive, given that by your own admission you think every single one should be open to competition.  And evidence of how the Roman plunder-economy relates to the UK today please.

The  absolute moral necessity of wealth redistribution is only an absolute moral necessity in this world of haves and have nots you defend so vehemently. In a society of haves, it is much less important.

Absolutely measurably false, every single metric you can think of for the overall health of a society indicates that its overall well-being is intimately tied to the internal distribution of wealth, even when the poorest in that society have the basics.  Your system is social cyanide. And yeah, I vehemently defend the have-nots, as opposed to your perverse defense of plutocrats and rent-collectors.

We have so many fantastic systems and technologies in this world of ours. Imagine if we used them for people instead of profit. The only things stopping us from building that world are privately created money and politicians.

Yet more evidence-free utopian horseshit.  I'd like a system like Iain M Banks' culture, doesn't mean I think we'll get it as soon as we have a strong AI. 

It is privately created money and politicians who leave us at the mercy of those wealthy individuals you despise so much (again, look at modern Greece). Social money and personal freedoms and responsibilities free us from those whims. If you have enough food, how will the rich starve you out?

The water cartel will demand that you pay twice what you did before for water that you can only get on alternate Tuesdays and which might give you Legionnaires.  Or they'll bulldoze your house while you're out because there's no-one to stop them.

Tips, you are correct, we do have a lot that we all benefit from. My argument is not about that - indeed, we should all treasure and help maintain these things, which a switch to social money creation would do in spades - my argument is that these things have been hi-jacked for profit. We all think that our taxes pay for these vital things but the truth is that they do not. Debt pays for these things, which is precisely why they are all under so much unnecessary strain today.  Our current system, which we have all been brought up to believe is the only system possible, is destroying them.

Yet you have never, ever shown how in your system any of these services would be protected from the depredations of capitalism.  Not once.  You just state that it would, over and over again.  You're incapable of grasping a source of oppression that isn't the state, hence in your laughably simplistic worldview we'd have an instant utopia without them.

I was probably wrong to call you an identikit libertarian, you're a curious hybrid of left- and right-anarchism really, given that most anarcho-capitalists are just motivated by base greed- you obviously aren't, though you'd like making society prey to those who are for some reason.

[Zarjazzer]

The tyranny of private money is back I see. Those who voted for it may find they are its victims as much as the state they profess to loathe.

[JPMaybe]

The  absolute moral necessity of wealth redistribution is only an absolute moral necessity in this world of haves and have nots you defend so vehemently. In a society of haves, it is much less important.

Absolutely measurably false, every single metric you can think of for the overall health of a society indicates that its overall well-being is intimately tied to the internal distribution of wealth, even when the poorest in that society have the basics.  Your system is social cyanide. And yeah, I vehemently defend the have-nots, as opposed to your perverse defense of plutocrats and rent-collectors.

Misread what you wrote here Shark/Falcon, apologies.  My point, expressed more pithily, is that your ideal society is still one of haves and have-nots, as the definition of a have-not is entirely tied to the relative differences between levels of personal wealth.

[The Legendary Shark]

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.
.
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.
.
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.
.
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?
.
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.
.
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. 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.

[JOE SOAP]

Society is a work in progress, and while Anarchy in the political sense does seem appealing on paper, I think it would mean Mad Max times if we tried to implement it right now because a lot of people only act in a civilised manner because they fear reprisals from government agencies. Anarchy would most likely result in feudalism and warlords and I'd rather have some kind of overarching authority in place to prevent that.

But it's the only likely sci-fi scenario we have left to look forward to.

[The Legendary Shark]

To your correction, no apology is necessary as I am enjoying our debate immensely, although I do appreciate it - thank you. It is impossible, I think, to have a world without haves and have nots. Some people will always have things that others do not. This is not necessarily a bad thing (see my comment about renting things). The absolute worst part of that, of course, is when it boils down to necessities. I hope you would agree that it is utterly and fundamentally wrong for some people to have clean water, food, shelter, clothing etc. when others do not. It is these fundamentals which I propose be "ring-fenced" (to use an awful political phrase) away from capitalism. Luxury yachts, sports cars, Gucci handbags, even comic books and statues of Judge Dredd are not essential - so capitalism can have all that stuff.