The Political Thread

[Funt Solo]

Where do I say the system doesn't exist? If it doesn't exist, I may as well be against unicorns.

You might not like statism, but you can't pretend that it doesn't exist as a framework, and that within that framework there aren't more or less preferential policies. (Well, you can pretend whatever you like, but I'm sure you get my drift.)

Trying to help focus on the point.

[Funt Solo]

Sorry to triple post, but I'm genuinely curious about...

And so I decline to take part in a system that gives me no say in the things it wants me to pay for. If NHS funding is indistinguishable from, and more importantly reliant upon corporate bail-outs, if paying for roads cannot be accomplished without paying for bombs, then I cannot in all good conscience go along with that. So I live outside and interact with the government's machinations as little as possible. I ask nothing of it, take nothing from it, give nothing to it.

So, you never use the NHS, or roads?

[JayzusB.Christ]

Where do I say the system doesn't exist? If it doesn't exist, I may as well be against unicorns.

I never said you did.

No, but it is in the first sentence of the quote you posted (which I seem to recall was originally directed at me anyway), which you followed up immediately with "100% this." Sorry if I misunderstood.

Fair enough, I can see where you're coming from.  Personally, I was following on Hawkmumbler's original point, and the sentence 'you may not like statism' made me think of myself and my own dislike of statism. The point of my post was to explain why I still believe in participating in it as a voter rather than opting out.  I know you don't agree with me, but it's your perogative of course. I wasn't aiming my post at any one individual.  Sorry if it seemed like a dig at you. It wasn't meant to be.

Also the fact that my post came directly after yours probably didn't help - have to admit I skimmed through everyone's last few posts without paying too much attention to them. Nothing personal, I'll read everything in more detail later when I have time, but my post was not a response to yours, is the point I'm trying to make.

[IndigoPrime]

It's because you're privileged and safe.

Quite. Obama was a long way from perfect, but that didn't matter to the millions of people he enabled to access healthcare or freed from discrimination at work. Blair was a long way from perfect, but that didn't matter to the millions lifted out of poverty, the gains in terms of funding for culture, and so on.

I get that some people want their own version of a utopia, but if you genuinely can't see the difference between Johnson, Cameron, Clegg, Blair, etc, and think they're all the same, you're wither being wilfully obtuse or an ideologue who's going to spend an awful lot of time getting the 'nothing' I talked of in my previous post, rather than something. And once you do get the something, you can push for more.

[The Legendary Shark]

I do not think that the roads and the NHS belong to the government. I believe they belong to society as a whole - as does government itself - and that its job is to properly maintain them on behalf of society.

The inference seems to be of a similar flavour as "why don't you go and live somewhere off in the wilderness then, Hippy?" That dissenters should be banished or otherwise restricted, thrown out of civilisation altogether with only rocks and twigs as tools, leaves stitched together with pine needles as shoes, and allowed only to consume what can be killed, picked, or dug up (provided none of it's in a fenced-off area or within certain lines on a map). To leave behind my family and friends, my home, all the benefits provided by generations of society stretching back into the shadows, to take nothing, to receive no benefits of civilisation whatsoever? Just for questioning the legitimacy of state power and believing that no mythical political Christ is ever going to rock up and fix it all? For not wanting to support something which I see as both morally and actually rotten? For just wanting to keep my head down and live out the rest of my life (which, given past incidents, may not be long) in peace? For this I should be treated worse than a convicted murderer, who I'm sure most people here would want to see fed, clothed, protected, and generally get her basic needs met and not dumped in a remote wilderness.

But the roads and the NHS, sure I use them - but sparingly and in emergencies. To not use them would be to recognise the government's ownership of these things which is, like so much about it, illusory.

Amusingly, my job tomorrow will consist chiefly of clearing the encroaching countryside off the public pavement running in front of the farm because the Council can't afford to stay on top of shit like that any more. I'll also clear the gutters and drains as well while I'm at it because why not? That's contributing, isn't it? Making a public pavement safe for passers by who will never know what I've done and never get a demand to pay for it or else is one of the little things I can give. Because I don't contribute monetarily doesn't mean I don't contribute at all.

[Tjm86]

Because I don't contribute monetarily doesn't mean I don't contribute at all.

There are lots of ways to contribute to the 'common wealth'.  It's a very narrow perspective that limits it to financial contribution.  Those who take responsibility for their own health, wellbeing and education are arguably contributing.  Such actions free up resources for those who genuinely need it.

One thing that does get my back up at the moment is the comment from some quarters about the proportion of taxation contributed by the highest earners in the nation.  Kind of misses the point that what this means is that far too many are not being paid enough to pay tax.  The number of people on in-work benefits is bonkers.

I would also say that how we compose ourselves online is an important contribution.  The last few years have really foreground what has been growing for a long time.  The sort of abuse and vitriol that started in the playground of the early Facebook years has now morphed into something truly terrifying.

No, there are lots of ways to contribute.  Money is only one of them.  The fact that far too many people in this country are not able to contribute more financially is something we should really be questioning but that is another argument entirely.

[IndigoPrime]

High earners don't pay enough. But then, whenever anyone talks about putting up taxes, most people default to saying they won't vote for them. Locally, services are in the shit, and people rage about that all the time. The second anyone notes that council tax needs to go up to pay for them, they have a failure of logic.

In a national taxation sense, I do also wish more people understood the basics of marginal tax rates. It's deeply worrying how many sensible people I know are starting to advocate the Farage-style flat rate (which would likely take a small number of lowish earners out of the tax system entirely, royally fuck anyone earning under about 60 grand and be a boon to anyone on six figures or more).

[The Legendary Shark]

The monetary system as it currently exists is both unfair and unsustainable, and a fundamental part of the problem. Fiddling with tax rates will do nothing to address these flaws - like rearranging the books on a wormy shelf does nothing to address the alliterative problem of the worms in the weakening wood.

[IndigoPrime]

Given that lowering tax rates and removing funding demonstrably causes problems at almost every level of society, one can easily enough argue that increasing tax rates in a progressive manner would do the reverse. I'm not arguing it's a perfect system, but it's the one we have. If the wealthy paid more—at levels most would barely notice—those with little would be much better off.

[Funt Solo]

... if paying for roads cannot be accomplished without paying for bombs, then I cannot in all good conscience go along with that. So I live outside...

My point wasn't that you should not use roads, it was that you said you were going to have nothing to do with them. But you do use them. So, you do have something to do with them.

Which is fine (by me) - because why shouldn't you use them?

But, you using the roads (that were built using tax money that also pays for those bombs you mentioned) doesn't make you guilty of dropping bombs. In the same way as voting for a government doesn't make you guilty of things the government does that you disagree with.

I don't understand why you take a moral high ground on voting (effectively throwing away a responsibility that could really help real people), but you don't take a moral high ground on road use.

[Professor Bear]

I can't remember who it was, but there's some conservative talking head on Youtube who got asked how he ratified his objections to socialism with the need to maintain infrastructure necessary not just for the civilian populace but for the capitalist class to use in pursuit of profit, and he just goes off on one saying "you think you got me with them bitch-ass roads, but I don't care about no motherfucking roads."  Then he said the army and cops weren't socialism, "because they ain't."  I am really trying to remember his name because I think it's really important to get him and Sharky in the same room and film what happens.

If it wasn't for his horrendous decision re Iraq, ...

Oh, just that little thing.

Jimmy Saville raised a lot of money for kids' charities, so on balance he did more mathematically-quantifiable good than harm, and in the end, aren't the numbers more important than the ethics?

[Hawkmumbler]

I can't remember who it was, but there's some conservative talking head on Youtube who got asked how he ratified his objections to socialism with the need to maintain infrastructure necessary not just for the civilian populace but for the capitalist class to use in pursuit of profit, and he just goes off on one saying "you think you got me with them bitch-ass roads, but I don't care about no motherfucking roads."  Then he said the army and cops weren't socialism, "because they ain't."  I am really trying to remember his name because I think it's really important to get him and Sharky in the same room and film what happens.

If that isn't the walking dumpster fire in a shite beard formerly known as 'Sargon of Akkad' i'd be incredibly surprised. The dude's one argument is 'I don't need it/ I didn't ask for it' to stuff he absolutely uses every single day, then laughs at rape victims or something because he's scum.

[The Legendary Shark]

Sorry, I was unclear. The aspect I want nothing to do with is not the roads themselves, or how they are used or maintained, or my responsibilities towards them, but how they are funded by a dishonest system.

I believe that yes, if my money pays for bombs and I know it does then I am guilty of aiding and abetting at worst or wilful ignorance at best. "I was just following orders," just doing as I was told, does not salve my conscience as it once did.

Furthermore, I do believe that voting has roughly the same character, at least under current conditions. If I vote, I'm encouraging someone else to impose my will on others, expecting them to live according to the policies and standards I find acceptable. I have no right to do that to you, nor to pay someone else to rule you for me.

As far as I'm concerned, folk can live their lives however they like. The only thing I expect from everyone is that they don't harm anybody - which is impossible but a worthy aspiration. A good portion of my belief system rests on trying to live up to this myself by trying not to support what I see as a harmful system. It's me trying to do no harm because, as sure as eggs is eggs, I can't stop others from doing it - but I can, and must, refuse to enable them.

[Funt Solo]

Shark - I entirely understand your personal reasoning for your position on voting, but I find I can't square it for myself. It goes back to Asimov's first law (of Robotics, not Sharks, naturally):

1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.


I don't really understand why you're convinced that not voting has any benefit. It's inaction, y'see. Your "I will not take part" stance actually leaves you in a position of effectively having allowed the winners to win, through your inaction.

I get that you have a moral stance that suggests that's okay, but from my perspective it's immoral behavior, because the results of your inaction are also real.

Conundrum.

[The Legendary Shark]

...it's really important to get him and Sharky in the same room and film what happens.

I don't want to be overly sensitive here, but are you guys suggesting this person as an opponent or an ally? Because, y'know, if it's an ally then, from the sound of it, I might as well chop off my thumbs burn my 'phone right now...