The Political Thread

[The Legendary Shark]

No, I dismiss the visions of the world you present because your starting point requires a near utopian society in which each individual is willing to work for the good of the whole, where all disputes are settled with reasoned logic and where everyone is imminently sensible.  When this is opposed, you claim that this isn't a utopia. You frequently fall foul of the nirvana fallacy.

Every economist in the world appreciates that economics is a flawed science because it's laws require that individuals act rationally.  Your alternatives require that people not only act rationally, but morally. 

The starting point is now. You seem to think that I think that nothing can change until everything has changed. I don't think that at all. Nothing can change until people begin to think about change. Even now, disputes are often settled with reasoned logic - that is what the courts are for. True, the courts often fail but, just as often, they succeed. One of the major problems with our courts is that they are run as that which you profess to despise; a monopoly. A government monopoly. You infer that monopolies are undesirable and yet expound the idea of government monopolies in policing, healthcare, courts, government, trade, roads, imprisonment, money creation and God knows what else. You despise the idea of monopolies and yet, at the same time, you love them.

You might be advised to read up on Austrian economics, which treats humans as flawed and self-serving individuals. To be self-serving does not mean selfish, for that which serves the one also serves the many. Human beings do not always act rationally or morally. I never claimed they did, so far as I recall. If I, as a private person, act irrationally or immorally, then I must bear the consequences of such actions myself. If, however, I were to win the four-yearly popularity contest and become prime minister and enforce my irrationality and immorality on the general population, then the general population must bear the consequences of my actions until the next popularity contest rolls around. Then, and only then, can you "punish" me by voting for somebody else. You'll despise me ever after but I won't care - I'll still be living off the pension you're paying for and supplementing my income through being on the boards of the government protected corporations I helped whilst "in power." 

Who is responsible for the workers who die because of poor conditions in Apple factories?

I assume (and correct me if I'm wrong) that you are referring to the suicides in Foxconn factories. These factories are suppliers to Apple, not Apple companies in and of themselves. Without wider data on suicides in the area, with a data set limited only to Foxconn employees, it is impossible to come to any solid conclusion as to the cause of these suicides. There could be many factors involved.

Let us, though, for the sake of argument, present the thesis that it is the working conditions in the Foxconn factories alone which drove these suicides. What's the alternative to suicide? Perhaps workers' rights or the right to strike for better working conditions, which we take as legitimate forms of applying pressure for change. These rights are not nearly as well recognised by the Chinese government, which would rather send in riot police to break up any such demonstration. Our own country is not immune to this horror, as Mrs Thatcher proved during the miners' strike. (How many miners committed suicide?) In nature, many animals have defence mechanisms: the hedgehog has its prickles, the rabbit has its speed and the deer has its antlers. The worker has the ability to withhold labour - but governments make this natural defence mechanism illegal.

Who, then, is responsible for the workers who die because of poor conditions in Apple factories? The governments who deprive the workers of their rights to protest.

That said, I understand that Apple shares some of the blame. However, it's not as simple as just going to another supplier. Apple will have invested a great deal of money and time and effort in Foxconn, there will be specialist equipment, proprietary technology  and processes involved. I would not imagine that Foxconn would have informed Apple that, "oh, by the way, we're going to treat our workers like slaves," and that Apple would have said, "that's okay, knock yourself out." What would you have Apple do? Simply abandon the money and resources already invested and invest more millions into another supplier, or try to fix the deal they're already locked into? If Apple were to simply abandon this supplier for another, what's to stop Foxconn from ripping off Apple designs and innovations to produce "pirated" goods? I'm confident the Chinese government would welcome such a move - it would be more tax money in their coffers, after all.

Is it a coincidence that Apple is accused of guilt by association at the same time as it has the temerity to negotiate its tax (theft) bill? The uncomfortable truth is that we can all negotiate our tax bill. One cannot simply demand money from another person without a contract. if that were so, then I could approach you and demand your money for whatever reason I desired. I need an operation, pay for it. I need food, pay for it. I need transport, pay for it. I need a home, pay for it. I need a wage, pay for it. But I can't do that; nobody can. Yet "governments" all over the world assume that right - and where do they get that right? From you. But if you don't have those rights, how in God's name can you pass those rights to a handful of people who win a popularity contest every four years? It makes no logical sense at all, yet you take this fallacy and believe it to be true. You're a clever guy, you really are, and I respect that - but how the Hell can you not apply your intelligence to the reality of the situation? You're accepting that some people have more rights and responsibilities than you because you voted for them. You're saying, "I can't do these things but I'm giving you permission to do them for me. I can't break the law but I authorise you to break the law in my name." It makes no sense.

Let's imagine you wanted to murder somebody (me, in all probability) for saying something you don't agree with. You know that murder is wrong, you know it in your heart, your soul and your bones. Then let's say that you get a million people to agree with you that I should be murdered. A million times nothing is still nothing, yet you think that a million times nothing is something. Is legitimate. You have me murdered and feel justified because a million people agreed with you even though not one of those million people had the right to murder me on their own. Or turf me out of my home. Or steal my belongings. Or take my money. Or force me to do that which I find abhorrent.

It should be noted that Foxconn do not only supply Apple. They also supply Samsung and  some of the world's best-known brands, which the company declines to publicly name. Foxconn  is the largest private employer in mainland China with some 1.4 million workers. Can you imagine 1.4 million Chinese workers on strike? No, neither can I, unfortunately.

If an unregulated market is the most effective way for a society to function, why is it that the most profitable and popular corporations are frequently the the most corrupt?

Government protectionism.

...I don't believe that a world run by corporate monopolies would be an improvement on this one. 

Neither do I. Monopolies require government enforcement.

[sheridan]

...I don't believe that a world run by corporate monopolies would be an improvement on this one. 

Neither do I. Monopolies require government enforcement.

No they don't - haven't you read dystopian corporate sci-fi?  It's like cyberpunk never happened...

[Tjm86]

I always thought it was more a case of monopolies required either government inaction or complicity rather than enforcement.  That said, regional encoding and the UK energy market might be seen as arguments in support of TLS's conceit here.

[Modern Panther]

As I've said, a government "monopoly" can be removed by enough ordinary people. It's laws can be changed by enough ordinary people. A corporate monopoly can only be removed with enough money.  That's the difference and why I believe in democracy.


Without government protectionism, Apple workers would strike, and Apple would voluntarily improve their conditions?  Wouldn't it be more cost effective to just fire then, and employ some slightly more desperate people?  The world's full of them.

Nothing can change until people begin to think about change.

Well, I hope it happens in the next few years, because pretty soon this country is going to start deporting doctors.  When the hospitals start closing and the supermarket shelves are getting empty because the country can't afford to import anything, when homelessness rockets because you can get kicked off benefits for not accepting a zero hour contract, when companies are being fined for employing too many foreigners, when the rioting starts...maybe then people will think "hey, maybe the democracy we spent the last few hundreds years building was a mistake.  Maybe we should all just act in our own self interest."

Hell, maybe we're on our way already.  Almost half of the American electorate are considering voting for a guy who boasts of his own self-serving attitude.  Although I'm not entirely sure how many hospitals that self interest has built, it's certainly bankrupted a few casinos and slowed the building of a wind turbines.

I would quite like the country to not turn to shit in the next few years, and I'm positive you would too.  I would encourage people to use the system we already have in place and which we know can affect change.  Encouraging people to remove themselves from that process isn't going to make things better. It's going to make them much, much worse.

Hundreds of thousands of people removed themselves from the democratic process in the late 90s - early 00s, because they didn't feel the parties spoke for them.  It didn't make their lives any better.  In fact, it made them much worse and let to the almighty balls up that we're in today.

Encouraging people to be the change they want to see in the world is great, Sharky, and I salute you for it.  However, we sort of have more immediate problems which can only be fixed by using the system we already have.

[IAMTHESYSTEM]

Both Free market Capitalism and State Communism have been seen to fail. None of them delivered what they promised though Capitalism being much more adaptable than Socialism has lasted longer in the West. Perhaps, grim though this sounds if both doctrines failed to deliver is Nationalism the last bulwark or indeed the start of a fightback against globalization that seems to only benefit a rich 1%? Political elites are always targeted by the populous press yet these papers owners are themselves part of the 1% who have grown very wealthy over the rest of us. Nationalism is clearly rising here, there and everywhere and since the forces of globalization believe its 'business as usual' I cannot help but think that we are all in for an increasingly nasty time.

[Theblazeuk]

Monopolies don't require government enforcement. coercion and corruption of government power benefits a monopoly but its not required. That the mechanisms for preventing exploitive monopolies are subverted is to me, a clear argument for why those mechanisms were needed in the first place.

Of course, you can call public services a government monopoly if you want to be really obtuse. The free market would of course be much better, just like it has never been. As always the libertarian schtick is great at picking holes in the problems we're all aware of but the only alternative it offers is so profoundly naive and flawed it's almost not worth going into. All this hypothetical 'if I was prime minister under your system' vs 'if I was a private citizen' is purest sophistry. The two scenarios are of no relevance to each other. Let's not pretend that private citizens don't escape the consequences of their actions all the time; look at the bloke trying to win the biggest popularity contest of all at the moment.

[Theblazeuk]

Political elites are always targeted by the populous press yet these papers owners are themselves part of the 1% who have grown very wealthy over the rest of us.

I would argue that the press typically targets political elites, rather than financial ones.

[Goaty]

Is it end of Trump?

[Michael Knight]

Goaty i think it maybe. I have thought from the start that this Election will be more of a coronation, and it looks that way at the moment. Clinton herself is not much better than Trump in my book. No shocking conclusion there lol. Its just she is not a 'decent' person by any measure of the book. The definition of a modern politician who will say anything to get elected, flip flop on major issues, etc etc.
I think the world will see much of the same when she elected. More crazy foreign incursions that just breed more terrorists, more catering to the banking, media elites that back her to the hilt and zero accountability.
I find it astonishing how she can delete emails en mass like that and destroy countless mobile phones with hammers etc and still call for Edward Snowden to be prosecuted. We dont even know what she was hiding.
My american friends, the vast majority of which always vote Democrat seem to despise her and are voting with a heavy heart to keep Trump out. 

[Theblazeuk]

https://www.wired.com/2016/09/actually-clinton-destroyed-phones-better/ pretty much sums it up outside of the hysterical narrative.

Clinton is more of the same, bad as that is. Trump is incomparably worse in every regard. And the fuss over the whole email 'hiding' things is ridiculous. What do you know of Bush's emails or private correspondence? Nothing.

[Michael Knight]

Agree with you Blaze. Its just her conduct over 'Benghazi' and the 'Clinton Foundation money' etc. Not that i expect much better from any of these political elites.
My God a Country the size of the USA and these muppets are best they can present as a choice lol. 

[TordelBack]

Clinton is more of the same, bad as that is. Trump is incomparably worse in every regard.

That puts it absolutely perfectly. 

[TordelBack]

I'll say this for xenophobes, they get up good and early on a Monday.  A suggestion that all of the Republic's entry points become a 'hard border' for and operated by the UK receives instant online approval: dominant response "about time". Be great to see Her Maj's forces guarding our shores against Johnny Foreigner once again, what what?

Any political party that endorses this awful retrograde notion will lose my vote. Don't make me vote for the Shinners, you bastards. I truly don't understand Irish people's fears of those horrid Muslims (which is what this is), given that during my lifetime we grew and funded our own terrorists to execute and explode us, and at the same time lived under a state not unlike the much-mooted Sharia law, so would hopefully know how to see it off again on the off-chance that 3 million hard-line Islamic activists showed up to outvote us right-thinking folk.  I think I'd rather see the CTA go than this.

[IndigoPrime]

Hang on – the Irish are in favour of this policy? I would have thought the pushback against such British arrogance would have been so severe it would have had Whitehall reeling.

[TordelBack]

Hang on – the Irish are in favour of this policy? I would have thought the pushback against such British arrogance would have been so severe it would have had Whitehall reeling.

Online approval. The comment threads of just about every Irish news site and board are heavily policed by right wing racists. And when what we laughably refer to as the Irish left is mainly concerned with not paying for water twice, their ranting is pretty much all you hear.

All this said, it's rock-hardplace time: "Where do you want us to leave your fortified border, Mr Murphy?". "I don't recall ordering a border... in fact I clearly remember cancelling the one you gave us last time..".