Illusion of Understanding Can Lead to Extreme Political Attitudes

[muir]

Muir, I'm not naive to the realities of the world (I very strongly protested against ID cards in Britain when I was younger and I've explored my fair share of conspiracy theories (and have certainly not discounted them all)), but I feel that you've grabbed a series of negative points and joined them up.

What points have i grabbed and joined up?

I don't disagree really here.

That's just as well because jim rickards knows what he is talking about!

The dollar basket currency is being undermined by China and such, but it's in everybody's interest that the spending power of the west remains strong. Power and wealth is shifting east, however that's not necessarily a bad thing, as it brings up their citizens quality of life. The key is that the value has to be reciprocated.

What needs to happen is a switch away from the current fascistic system where the wealth is funnelled upwards through a series of scandals to the few at the top. We need to see a more equal society as this will decrease the polarity and the tensions that result from it

The book 'the spirit level' explores the damage inequality causes in society

In China, there is too much bias towards using Chinese goods when there may be better ones available from other nations and in America, the government seems to take delight in fining foreign companies. It's important that free trade encourages the free movement of wealth - so that everyone, anywhere can benefit from the growing global prosperity.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...r-extortionate-US-fines-on-British-firms.html
http://theweek.com/article/index/24...iant-owes-the-us-398-million-in-bribery-fines

Although I can say the same for the EU in some instances - Microsoft is a regular target. It's easy money, right?

Fines are a drop in the ocean compared to the amounts of corporation tax that is not being paid....its small change....millions? pffff! These guys are dodging billions

This is true, however there is equally a story in the news at the moment about the British government maintaining our commitment to overseas aid. We are also compensating the victims of the torture.

After many of the victims have already died. Its hush money and guess where the money comes from? It doesn't come from the corporate elements who were exploiting Kenya it comes from UK taxpayers money....yours and mine

That's how neoliberalism works.....the corporate cabal make the profits and we the taxpayers get lumped with the risk (see for example 'bank bailouts')

Its a big con and that is why the gap between the top 1% and the rest is growing

Yes, imperialism is not a fluffy, wide eyed kindness (I recall studying something about the Indian railway network and how it was carefully costed to ensure Britain got good value from it) but Britain did attempt, with the commonwealth, to continue to support former colonies after our empire ended.

No it didn't it sought to maintain crown influence over former colonies

As far as still exploiting, I don't condone or support slave labour, but as a consumer it's difficult to know whether an item was responsibly sourced. Price of goods does not equate necessarily good treatment of manufacturers. Because of globalisation, it's easy for a company to switch to a different supplier if costs go higher, potentially taking away jobs from countries that really need them.

This is a real problem that there is not enough awareness on the highstreet and the corporatocracy definately does its best to keep everyone in the dark and satiated with fast foods, cheap goods, and shiny distractions

My opinion is that a lot of companies now are pursuing 'ethical sourcing policies', fair trade and the like and I strongly support efforts in this area both as a consumer and possibly backed up with legislation (not ridiculous of course (e.g. everyone must be in a union) but fundamentally that products sold in a particular country must have been sourced from a workplace where it is not overly dangerous, working hours are reasonable and money is not completely exploitative (not sure how you would do this)).

I agree, i buy fairtrade, i buy local organic produce and i pay my trade union dues

However as we both know the unions have been under fascist attack in the Uk for a long time and the current tories want to change labour laws to make it easier for employers to sack people. So if you have a personality clash with your boss or they grope your ass and you refuse its 'goodbye!' There is also a scandal over how big corporations have been blacklisting people engaged in union activities

It's a similar story with corporate taxes. The legislation should ensure that companies pay a fair rate of tax - not ridiculous or punitative tax, but a fair rate. At the moment, in Britain at least, small companies have to pay their full tax, but big companies can filter the cash through tax havens and pay little. However I'm not a corporate basher, I just think openness and transparency are key - that way greed can still be good, but within reasonable confines.

Yeah tackling the tax havens is definately a good idea! What about starting with the city of london which has been the conduit for many big scandals including 'the london whale', bernie madoff and MF Global

How are we going to do that when most people in the UK don't currently understand what the city of london even is? Occupy London knew what it is which is why they camped there to draw attention to it. Its an awareness issue...once enough people are aware then things start happening as people begin to alter their behaviour

Yes, but there was a big campaign in Britain to 'Drop the Debt' several years back (http://www.dropthedebt.com/). Debt levels in African nations were much lower a few years back, but they appear to have crept back up (*groan*): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_public_debt

I agree that debt is a terrible thing (hence why I support QE instead of debt as a philosophy relative to world population and such), but it does create money in the capitalism system we live and could be used for investment and such.

The trouble is, as westerners, we've only scratched the surface of African value. Sure they have natural resources, but there's a massive cheap workforce that could in a few years, progress like China through the Demographic Transition Model to a higher stage of development which would potentially increase their standard of living (although I worry may also undermine their majestic cultures/freedoms/communal spirit and turn them into us - and many western nations have high rates of depression and such http://www.forbes.com/2007/02/15/depression-world-rate-forbeslife-cx_avd_0216depressed.html). I also wouldn't want to encourage too much deforestation/land grabs on sites of outstanding natural beauty.

The current plan is not to utilise the potential of african workers, the current plan is to obliterate the population of africa so that the land may be bought up by the cabal. They see it as acting as a potential bread basket for their new world order

http://www.businessinsider.com/meet...illionaires-buying-land-in-africa-2011-6?op=1

Cabal bagman Bill Gates is currently stabbing synthetic poison into african children which will damage their immune systems and shorten their lives under the guise of 'immunisation'

http://nsnbc.me/2013/05/08/bill-gates-polio-vaccine-program-caused-47500-cases-of-paralysis-death/

Bills dad was the head of a racist eugenicist group called 'planned parenthood' whose main focus was on aborting black children

AIDs proved a useful bio weapon to cut the population. The conflict in the congo has been created and fuelled by the cabal whose power is dependent on keeping humanity divided

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CDxZ7PX8YGI

Debt is one of the weapons of the cabal who operate through their vehicles such as the IMF and the world bank

John pilger made a documentary using indonesia as a case study to show how this system works:

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/war-by-other-means/

Again, I don't totally agree. Interest rates were much higher only a few years back and banks make a profit either way I believe. The motive for keeping interest rates low - I believe is to regulate growth and inflation to reasonable levels.

If you listen to Jim Rickards above he clearly says that he believes that what the fed is doing is wrong and on its current trajectory will destroy the dollar as a currency

One theory is that the cabal want to destroy the dollar as a currency and have created their own currency through the IMF called 'special drawing rights'

Their modus operandi is 'order from the chaos'. they intend to create a crisis which will lead to panic so that when they then offer their pre-prepared solution the panic stricken populace will jump on the bandwagon in their desperation to avoid the fear in their life; they will then gladly accept a new global currency from the central bankers

There is a good clip of Kissinger explaining the us approach to foreign policy in which he talks about a new world order. He talks about how countrys when they are put under pressure from the US for exmaple through black ops, sanctions and threats of destruction cannot live looking into the abyss for ever and will eventually come round to accept the unconditional terms of the illuminati: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4bKwH3kJew4

Yes, this is a 'secret' meeting, but I do genuinely accept there may be a case, occassionally, for some private discussions and networking amongst powerful people. As long as they are not abusing their power or doing anything harmful to the world, I can tolerate it, though we don't know. I feel safer now with the current president and British PM than I have in a long time.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10102170/Bilderberg-Group-2013-guest-list-and-agenda.html

The 'torygraph' is a right wing conservative paper aimed at upper middle class people and landed people. It serves to create the necessary perception to guide that demographic in the direction that the illuminati pied pipers want them to go in

This may be true, however, rest assured, if I ever become a billionaire, I'll be following my own agenda as much as possible and I believe their is enough diversity in the world, to -mostly- prevent this sort of problem. However I do recognise the dangers of 'groupthink', governments getting involved with big data corporations like Google or Facebook and communities acting against individuals - e.g. I'm not a proponent of Rousseau's 'general will'. Individuals always should have basic human rights - right to speak, right to privacy, right to life, right to family and so on.

I take it you are referring to the news story that has just broken revealling how politicians have allowed foreign intelligence agencies to use Facebook and google to spy on the uk public?

I said they were doing that on this forum over a year ago and was called a 'conspiracy theorist'. Mark Zuckerberg is not a genius, he's a MOSSAD agent acting as a figurehead of a company doing their spying for them on the ignorant masses who are helping them form the biggest spy database on the planet

When google was driving around taking photos of every street in Britain for their google maps they were also trawling wireless Radio Frequency and capturing peoples email passwords and other sensitive information. This story did reach the mainstream press fairly quickly:

http://bgr.com/2010/10/27/ftc-will-not-fine-google-for-stealing-passwords-with-street-view-cars/

I have no knowledge in this area - I believe you could be accurate, but I have no proof. I watched a cool movie called 'The International' - it's about a corrupt bank that loans money for weapons and such. I think you might enjoy it.

Lets hope Bradley Manning gets off with a slap on the wrist. I advocate a 5 year jail sentance (or less). He's already served 3 years, so 2 more years and then release.

I think the corporate elements will be wanting to make an example of him

I was not aware of this. I think it is always important that legal aid exists and gives due protection to defendants. Trying to get value for money is not in itself wrong, but as long as people are not unfairly discriminated against based on wealth. e.g. a poor person is just as innocent until proven guilty as a rich one.

I think if you've got a lot of wealth (salaries over £37k) it's not unreasonable to ask people to pay towards their legal defence, but obviously it's also relevant to the actual wealth you have, not just what you're currently earing.

*Phew* I'm done. Ok. Your turn.

Edit: if you want to.

The whole country is being turned into a two tier country where only the rich will be able to afford health care (see the attempts to privatise the NHS), education (see the creation of university tuition fees), security (police protect the rich and security is increasingly being sourced out to private companies), transport, legal representation etc

The rot in our system has been concealed for a long time but the money funnelling upwards is causing the decay of our system. Instead of fully trained police we now have 'community officers', instead of trained nurses we now have 'nursing assistant', instead of fully trained soldiers we have more 'territorial army', instead of prison wardens we get private security guys who lose prisoners or who kill people like the G4S killing of a person in the london olympics, instead of teachers we get teaching assistants etc

They're patching over the cracks but the system is decaying

They are freezing large parts of the population out of the game of capitalism which the media term the 'NEET' class ie not in education employment or training. These people feel they have no stake in society hence the london riots.

They are destroying the savings of the middle class and they are currently growing a new housing bubble that will decimate the savings of many more middle class people

Fascists don't like a middle class that can challenge them politically

 

[muir]

This is going a little-- no, actually, a LOT too far.

I don't think that all of our tax money always gets spent the way that most people want it to, but trusting private companies to build roads and infrastructure out of the kindness of their hearts would probably result in highly developed areas for the rich, slums for everyone else (rented at ridiculously high rates from the rich), and a gigantic wall between the two places so the rest of us don't contaminate the nicer parts of the world… with a garbage chute high up in the wall constantly dumping the scraps into the eager arms of the slum-dwellers, whose greatest hope is that they'll one day pick up a cracked but still usable iPad.

So many libertarians seem either hopelessly naive or secretly evil to me… I'd much rather take my chances with a shady government than let the corporations rule the world.

You are talking about right wing libertarians here and that is fair enough because i posted a video of a capitalist libertarian

The corporate media has worked tirelessly to equate libertarianism with ONLY the right wing so that now many people aren't even aware that there are left wing libertarians

I am not a right wing libertarian so i sympathise with your concerns about taking away government controls. The government can when used properly protect the public, but in reality it is usually bought hook line and sinker by the corporations and only really acts as a way of keeping an uneasy balance or of enforcing the will of the corporations against the people

I personally would like to see an end to capitalism itself

I posted the video of a right wing libertarian because I like listening to their critiques of the current fed dominated system because they are correct in their assessment. I am in the bizarre position of strongly agreeing with some of what the right wing libertarians say whilst strongly disagreeing with other things they say, which has confused some over my position

I would say my sympathies lie towards libertarian socialism NOT libertarian capitalism

 

[Lee Taylor]

@Gul & Muir I may have misunderstood, but I sense socialist overtones and, as you've made an effort to engage with me, I will explain why I think socialism is bad and nip it right in the bud. Most people, I cannot be bothered to explain because they'd never see it anyway, but I will explain it to you, and then you can make your own mind up (or decide that I'm actually a bigot... ).

Socialism fundamentally is about a group of people (normally not a cross section of society, but a group with shared interests such as a political party or union) making judgements about and for individuals.

This leads to decisions which the socialists believe are good for everyone (because the group agrees) being professed with such lustre that they are suprised whenever anyone disagrees.

So:

1) Decisions for everyone taken by a group who lack perspective.

This in it's most extreme form manifests as the Nazi party (our interests are right) and militant unions.

It is also explains why socialists typically increase the legislative burden on the public and businesses (because in isolation each new rule makes sense) and it's how extraverts claim legitimacy in exterting their will in society and it's also why in today's age, the fear of terrorism trumps privacy.

2) Socialists answers to problems is inevitably the redistribution of wealth.

For example recently one of my family broke their leg. They want to apply for a 'blue badge' so that we can park nearer shop entrances. However the person is still able to walk and work (just with a limp). Bureacracy rules that we have to have disabled benefits in order to have a blue badge which we do not want.

Sometimes money is the issue, but I've found mostly an absence of money has other causes, and these causes, if they could be addressed, I think, would often lead to better outcomes. Also often times rather than genuinely address an issue, socialists think that by increasing spending they are solving the problem.

Conversely, any attempts to save money are increasing the problem.

Has charitable giving solved the problems in Africa? Nope - yes it helps - but it doesn't have a big enough effect. Would a genuine monetary engagement with them for valued goods and services increase the money flow through the continent and actually improve prosperity and encourage their own governments to take responsibility? Possibly.

3) Socialists eventually see most things as a good cause and consequently can't control their spending.

The nurse who helps the elderly. Good cause.
The teacher. Good cause.
The fireman. Good cause.
The disabled. Good cause.
Overseas Aid. Good cause.
The poor. Good cause.
The sick. Good cause.

And so on and so on.

However once a country is in debt, the public they wanted to help are now paying extra interest (often the size of entire department budgets) because of their former exuberance - this means today's generation is paying for yesterday's.

It is not evil to be fiscally responsible.

4) Corporations are evil. Really?

They compete on price and the value they give. If you don't like them, nobody is forcing you to use them. I liken it to a newsagents vs the post office.

A newsagents has a short queue, they exist all over the country and are open long hours and sell what you want. They also allow families to make a living.

The post office, through its monopoly often keeps people waiting a long time and some of the processes can be mired in bureacracy and complexity. Also the price of services is fixed (though I don't believe they are particularly excessive).

-----

Note: this is not a rant at government. I was able to go to university because of a subsided government loan. I also think the BBC is an excellent broadcaster. I have used and benefited from the NHS. I also do not believe the profit motive of corporations can exist alone ethically without some legislative boundaries.

-----

So if socialism is so flawed (wrong rules for the wrong people (at least sometimes), excess debt, bad attitude towards the private sector and an excessive focus on wealth as the solution to all woes), what's the alternative? First up, I don't know of any perfect answer. My preffered solution is Liberal Conservativism.

Or to put it a different way, responsibility, freedom and compassion.

Rawls advocates a 'veil of ignorance'. The idea here is that before we are born, we don't know what our lot in life will be. So we all take a metaphorical trip behind a veil. Here we don't know if we're going to be wealthy or disabled. If we're going to be black or white, straight or gay or whatever.

In this model, he then forms a series of conclusions. In short Rawls' view is that we should have a 'thin conception of what good is'. He generates the following rules: 1) Everyone has basic equal liberties and rights (most important) 2) Positions in government/office should be open to everyone - equality of opportunity (second rank). 3) Benefits should go to the least advantaged (third rank).

We should not cap success, but we should look after the poor/disadvantaged.

I find this very uplifting.

I also agree with JS Mill's Harm Principle (you can do what you want so long as you don't hurt others).

However equally and perhaps wrongly I respect a lot of the Conservative values - respect for family, personal responsibility, fiscal responsibility and so on.

Consequently the current government in Britain is in my opinion, excellent.

With a limited amount of money they have protected the NHS and Education budgets and overseas aid, but also taken on the deficit issue and the pension problem where there was (may still be until the reforms occur) an effective tax rate of 40% on people who save a small amount for their retirements and those who didn't through the withdrawal of pension credit benefits.

They also cut income tax for low earners, which directly benefited me.

Where I disagree with them is in areas such as cutting legal aid. I also think tuition fees have gone silly (though I support efforts to have things like universities and public transport mostly self-sustaining). The more educated people we have in this country, the better, in my opinion, though it should remain a choice. Also pension ages should not be allowed to get ridiculous.

Anyway I've ranted on. I hope I've given you some insights into my mind *ugly*. Also sorry if I've not addressed your points directly.

Peace out INFJs.

 

[muir]

@Gul & Muir I may have misunderstood, but I sense socialist overtones and, as you've made an effort to engage with me, I will explain why I think socialism is bad and nip it right in the bud. Most people, I cannot be bothered to explain because they'd never see it anyway, but I will explain it to you, and then you can make your own mind up (or decide that I'm actually a bigot... ).

Socialism fundamentally is about a group of people (normally not a cross section of society, but a group with shared interests such as a political party or union) making judgements about and for individuals.

That's a very narrow view of socialism

What you are talking about here is state socialism where as you say a group decides for everyone else and runs the economy centrally

I am TOTALLY against centralised power. I am also against coercion.

Libertarian socialists are for decentralised power. If you look at this too narrowly and tar anyone who criticises capitalism with the same brush you will obscure from yourself a whole range of options

This leads to decisions which the socialists believe are good for everyone (because the group agrees) being professed with such lustre that they are suprised whenever anyone disagrees.

So:

1) Decisions for everyone taken by a group who lack perspective.

This in it's most extreme form manifests as the Nazi party (our interests are right) and militant unions.

Its not possible to make such a generalisation about 'militant' unions. Unions might be striking for all sorts of reasons and might have the unanimous support of their members

The nazi party was a state socialist party. In fact it was capitalist as it had a market economy that was being centrally controlled by central planners. The nazis were supported by industrialists and bankers who saw fascism as a sheild against the rise of communism in Europe

Genuine communism is about the workers owning and controlling the means of production and that is a threat to fascist elites who want to maintain massive wealth imbalances, so they fund and support repressive regimes such as Hitlers to protect their corporate interests

The nazis were supported by the corporations. But the corporations want a strong government. They want a strong government that they can control which will protect them and their interests from the people (the workers)

For example in the US the economy is centrally controlled by the federal reserve who operate to ensure that the big corporations get all the wealth. This is state capitalism and is fascism (the blurring of the boundary between corporate and government power).

It is also explains why socialists typically increase the legislative burden on the public and businesses (because in isolation each new rule makes sense) and it's how extraverts claim legitimacy in exterting their will in society and it's also why in today's age, the fear of terrorism trumps privacy.

Once again you are talking about centrally controlled, coercive, repressive systems which always resort to surveillance, police states as they become increasingly paranoid

2) Socialists answers to problems is inevitably the redistribution of wealth.

The nordic countries have a more equal society than us

There is plenty of info online comparing the US or UK with scandinavian countries for things like education, health, crime, pollution etc

For example recently one of my family broke their leg. They want to apply for a 'blue badge' so that we can park nearer shop entrances. However the person is still able to walk and work (just with a limp). Bureacracy rules that we have to have disabled benefits in order to have a blue badge which we do not want.

We live in a capitalist country not a socialist one.

Sometimes money is the issue, but I've found mostly an absence of money has other causes, and these causes, if they could be addressed, I think, would often lead to better outcomes. Also often times rather than genuinely address an issue, socialists think that by increasing spending they are solving the problem.

Conversely, any attempts to save money are increasing the problem.

The socialists haven't had an opportunity to govern in the UK. Who are these socialists you are talking about?

Has charitable giving solved the problems in Africa? Nope - yes it helps - but it doesn't have a big enough effect. Would a genuine monetary engagement with them for valued goods and services increase the money flow through the continent and actually improve prosperity and encourage their own governments to take responsibility? Possibly.

That's not how neoliberalism works. The game is to dominate them utterly

if you don't like that then you should oppose the fascists and look at examples where countries have nationalised their resources to see how this has brought them benefits. Unfortunatly when they do this the cabal moves in and assassinates whatever leader made the changes and they foment trouble in the coutnry and bring about a coup to revert the country back to privatiation and inequality

3) Socialists eventually see most things as a good cause and consequently can't control their spending.

The nurse who helps the elderly. Good cause.
The teacher. Good cause.
The fireman. Good cause.
The disabled. Good cause.
Overseas Aid. Good cause.
The poor. Good cause.
The sick. Good cause.

And so on and so on.

What example of a socialist country are you talking about here?

However once a country is in debt, the public they wanted to help are now paying extra interest (often the size of entire department budgets) because of their former exuberance - this means today's generation is paying for yesterday's.

It is not evil to be fiscally responsible.

You are talking about problems that have happened under a capitalist government

4) Corporations are evil. Really?

An FBI criminal profiler profiled the corporate model and said they were psychopathic because they have no in built mechanisms for empathy or remorse. they are solely orientated towards profit and take no account of the externalities

They compete on price and the value they give. If you don't like them, nobody is forcing you to use them. I liken it to a newsagents vs the post office.

No generally they price fix. They also consolidate into bigger and bigger corporations; the corporatists are monopolists

A newsagents has a short queue, they exist all over the country and are open long hours and sell what you want. They also allow families to make a living.

The post office, through its monopoly often keeps people waiting a long time and some of the processes can be mired in bureacracy and complexity. Also the price of services is fixed (though I don't believe they are particularly excessive).

-----

Note: this is not a rant at government. I was able to go to university because of a subsided government loan. I also think the BBC is an excellent broadcaster. I have used and benefited from the NHS. I also do not believe the profit motive of corporations can exist alone ethically without some legislative boundaries.

The corporatists are privatising the mail service. They are privatising the NHS, they are making people pay tuition fees for university now (to price out those that aren't rich enough) and they control the BBC (see for example how they had the head of the BBC fired for the david kelly interview and then had kelly assassinated)

Look at the railways as an example of what privatisation has done. We now have the most expensive and worst run railways in Europe which are heavily subsidised by the taxpayers so that the corporations can take home large profits yet can't provide enough carriages for everyone to get a seat!

-----

So if socialism is so flawed (wrong rules for the wrong people (at least sometimes), excess debt, bad attitude towards the private sector and an excessive focus on wealth as the solution to all woes), what's the alternative? First up, I don't know of any perfect answer. My preffered solution is Liberal Conservativism.

You're a little confused it seems

WE HAVE NOT BEEN LIVING IN A SOCIALIST COUNTRY. We have been living in a state capitalist country controlled centrally by the central banks. yes such people like the idea of state socialism because it is another system of central control and they want to control the economy centrally; they want to see democracy end altogether

Or to put it a different way, responsibility, freedom and compassion.

Rawls advocates a 'veil of ignorance'. The idea here is that before we are born, we don't know what our lot in life will be. So we all take a metaphorical trip behind a veil. Here we don't know if we're going to be wealthy or disabled. If we're going to be black or white, straight or gay or whatever.

Most conservatives know exaclty what they are going to be: white, rich and upper class or upper middle class

If they are disabled they will get the best health care. If they are gay its ok as long as they enter into a sham marriage to keep up appearances

In this model, he then forms a series of conclusions. In short Rawls' view is that we should have a 'thin conception of what good is'. He generates the following rules: 1) Everyone has basic equal liberties and rights (most important) 2) Positions in government/office should be open to everyone - equality of opportunity (second rank). 3) Benefits should go to the least advantaged (third rank).

We should not cap success, but we should look after the poor/disadvantaged.

I find this very uplifting.

I also agree with JS Mill's Harm Principle (you can do what you want so long as you don't hurt others).

However equally and perhaps wrongly I respect a lot of the Conservative values - respect for family, personal responsibility, fiscal responsibility and so on.

Consequently the current government in Britain is in my opinion, excellent.

With a limited amount of money they have protected the NHS and Education budgets and overseas aid, but also taken on the deficit issue and the pension problem where there was (may still be until the reforms occur) an effective tax rate of 40% on people who save a small amount for their retirements and those who didn't through the withdrawal of pension credit benefits.

Andrew Lansley is trying to destroy the NHS!

The Tories biggest funder is the financial sector who they protect, enforcing austerity against the rest of us for the crimes of the bankers.

The tories work for the same people as the 'labour' party (please note how all of milibands polices are the same as the tories!)

They also cut income tax for low earners, which directly benefited me.

This was really just undoing labours increase of tax for the low earners that saw them lose their core support. All part of the swings and roundabouts of British two party politics

Where I disagree with them is in areas such as cutting legal aid. I also think tuition fees have gone silly (though I support efforts to have things like universities and public transport mostly self-sustaining). The more educated people we have in this country, the better, in my opinion, though it should remain a choice. Also pension ages should not be allowed to get ridiculous.

Anyway I've ranted on. I hope I've given you some insights into my mind *ugly*. Also sorry if I've not addressed your points directly.

Peace out INFJs.

Yes we need to be spending on education for sure. We spend a lot less for capita than the nordic countries and it shows

I think that in spirit you seem to have a lot of good intentions but i think you're not yet seeing quite how controlled the tories and labour are by the central bankers and how they are protecting those bankers (and the city of london) and that this is what is damaging our society and economy

 

[Gul Dukat]

I just want to say that I don't think that Nazism was truly socialism-- true socialism seeks to empower the disadvantaged and redistribute the wealth equally regardless of race or religion or class... Nazism wasn't exactly egalitarian in that respect. Nazism is too elitist to be true socialism-- things like racism and sexism (which were abundant in the third reich-- women were barely even allowed to work) are in complete opposition to socialist ideals.

It's unfair to group Nazis in with modern socialists because their principles and ideals really couldn't be more different... centralization in itself isn't negative if the central power is a positive influence on society and works according to a positive philosophy (as opposed to being held hostage by the corporations).

This seems to be a pretty common tactic for the libertarian right nowadays... and it leads to arguments about how public health care and not being able to own machine guns is going to somehow result in soldiers storming into your house at night and raping your wife and children while you're left to helplessly stand by and watch.

 

[Lee Taylor]

Hey,

@ Muir

That's a really insightful reply. Thank you for your engagement.

You are correct that I was reffering to state socialism(ish) in the form of the Labour party.

I am not especially familiar with Libertarian Socialism, however several problems immediately spring to mind.

1) The profit motive.

I exclude myself from this (as I buy into the idea of giving value based on the value of the value, not the wealth generated necessarily), although inevitably a value judgement call would have to be made about me anyway by external entities (e.g. other people) to see how much grain I deserve. Does a poet deserve any grain? Does a philosopher? An Artist? What about a disabled person? What about someone who creates a machine that does the work of 10 people and then doesn't do any more work him/herself?

Without the motive of profit, why would someone work?

If there is a profit motive, surely, inevitably, wealth would accumulate in certain hands, and the only way to counter this would be some form of redistribution - perhaps by a government - and you're right back at what we have now anyway.

2) Big government = voice in world.

A small country, lets face it, is vulnerable to attack.

Multiple small cooperatives may quarrel amongst themselves and it seems only logical that the most successful ones would grow up to become the dominant ones.

Larger entities can leverage scale to deliver extra value. So it's not feasible for Google to exist with only 5 users, but with 50 million users, it becomes worthwhile (for example).

It's true, power can corrupt, but it can also do good things, such as a welfare system for the disenfrancished or the NHS, which may not be possible at a smaller scale.

3) Capitalism does work. It's ugly, for sure, but compared to Africa (which is far more tribal) or even somewhere like Venezuela, which is often hailed as a socialist utopia, we have a much higher standard of living e.g. we don't have to walk 3 miles to get dirty drinking water and then return to the communual slum.

The fundamental problem you've got with Libertarian Socialism is that you're overlooking the state of nature argument and why government institutions exist in the first place.

I advocate reforms of the existing system to be freer and compassionate along the lines of Rawls and Mill as I previously outlined. Specifically I think the closest you can reasonably hope to get towards communuals is more small businesses, though there's a reason supermarkets emerged - because they were more efficent and better than their competitors (mostly on value).

In my opinion, the best way to deal with abuses of power is more challenger businesses as this creates more 'spheres' if you like, free media (I think the internet has really helped) and public engagement with politics.

Liberal principles are that there is a 'public sphere' and a 'private sphere'. I liken businesses to sphere's within the public sphere (that sometimes cross into the private sphere) - adding to the diversity and plurality of our society.

@Gul

The Nazis were socialists in my opinion. When a union goes on strike, do they do it for their own benefit and not for the people they'll harm? Yes? When Germany went to expand its living space, was it doing it for it's own benefit? Yes.

Socialists basically say: the individual doesn't matter, it's the collective that you belong to that counts, and in that mindset, nazism is free to flourish.

true socialism seeks to empower the disadvantaged and redistribute the wealth equally regardless of race or religion or class

Only for people in the collective.

women were barely even allowed to work

The role of women, in the collective, was to raise children.

A planned state, a planned economy. Socialism.

------

You may argue that socialism is actually about caring for people and I cannot deny many people I've known who claim to be socialists have been kind to me, but I regard that as a secondary function. The main objective is to crush individualism and further the collective (in the image of one leader).

This is what we saw in Russia, China and most places where some sort of socialism variant has been attempted, assuming they haven't gone bankrupt first (which normally happens with democratic socialism).

It's exactly why the fear of terrorism (more people die each year in the bathtub than from terrorism) trumps individual liberty, because the collective needs protecting at the expense of the individual.

 

[Gul Dukat]

The socialist motto is 'to each according to his contribution'. How does that equate to submitting to the state? And I can't believe you're comparing labor unions to the Nazis... labor unions aren't about hurting people, they safeguard workers against exploitation. If there are no unions then everyone gets hurt and human beings are basically worthless, which is exactly what was happening at the dawn of the industrial revolution-- people were actually dying because their bosses were working them into their graves for profit. You seriously think it's selfish for workers to not DIE in order to provide you with your iPad? It's selfish to want livable wages in exchange for doing pretty much all of the actual work?

And collectivism isn't the same thing as socialism... you don't think that anarcho-communism or anarcho-socialism is a real thing? Socialism isn't about suppressing your individuality, it doesn't automatically require a revolution OR a dictatorship, and it doesn't necessarily require the kinds of control or personality cult that Stalin set up. But it's impossible to have a society without a degree of conformity... if people aren't willing to come together and agree on things then society can't even exist, and society is held together by a lot more than just money or basic needs-- things like spirituality, philosophy, education, health, etc... if your basic needs are provided then you can concentrate on your higher needs and achieving bigger and better things for yourself. A socialist society probably wouldn't be marketing irresponsible, unhealthy products simply because they're profitable... basically, the difference between socialism and capitalism is the difference between public and private TV networks-- the government-funded networks can be selective about their advertising, and mostly focus on documentaries, domestic culture and 'high' forms of culture designed to enrich your life, whereas the private networks focus primarily on reality TV, explosions, the marketing of junk food to children and adults, and sensationalist split-second 'news' stories. They have a lot more money and so they can be louder and shinier and more exciting than genuine education-- to the point where education is now competing with that for the attention of children.

I don't know why you're even talking about terrorism-- the United States is not even close to being a socialist state... and Russia made amazing amounts of progress in a very short period of time... ignoring all of the positives of Soviet societies in order to dismiss them as complete failures is totally wrongheaded... there is no reason why socialism couldn't work if we took that opportunity to learn what worked and what didn't-- which is actually what some nations are currently doing with great success.

 

[muir]

I just want to say that I don't think that Nazism was truly socialism-- true socialism seeks to empower the disadvantaged and redistribute the wealth equally regardless of race or religion or class... Nazism wasn't exactly egalitarian in that respect. Nazism is too elitist to be true socialism-- things like racism and sexism (which were abundant in the third reich-- women were barely even allowed to work) are in complete opposition to socialist ideals.

It's unfair to group Nazis in with modern socialists because their principles and ideals really couldn't be more different... centralization in itself isn't negative if the central power is a positive influence on society and works according to a positive philosophy (as opposed to being held hostage by the corporations).

This seems to be a pretty common tactic for the libertarian right nowadays... and it leads to arguments about how public health care and not being able to own machine guns is going to somehow result in soldiers storming into your house at night and raping your wife and children while you're left to helplessly stand by and watch.

Nazism was fascism NOT socialism

The first thing Hitler did when he declared a state of emergency was round up and imprison 5000 communists

The nazis were funded and brought to power by the corporations and bankers. In 1932 leaders of german industrial giants like Siemans, Krupp, Thyssen and Bosch signed a petition urging Field Marshall Paul von Hindenburg to appoint Hitler Chancellor of Germany. Bank of England chairman Montagu Norman held a meeting with other bankers and oil people and they deided to covertly fund Hitler

The corporations saw the nazis and fascism in general to be a shield against the rise of communism

Communism seeks to raise the workers, fascism/corporatism seeks to exploit the workers

To know which side won ask some workers how they feel about their work and how they feel about their boss. You'll soon find out the fascists are currently at the helm of our society.

Centralised power is always a bad idea as even if you have a benevolent leader the less moral will eventually lie, cheat and morder their way into a position of influence and then ruin it for everyone else

The right wing libertarians are right to be concerned and personally i think they are right to be hanging onto their weapons. Hitler disarmed the public before dominating them

The fascists who are behind the corporations want to use the government, which they have subverted, to dominate the public and the publics weapons are a barrier to them achieveing this. To give them up would be to tilt the balance of power far in the fascists favour

 

[muir]

Hey,

@ Muir

That's a really insightful reply. Thank you for your engagement.

You are correct that I was reffering to state socialism(ish) in the form of the Labour party.

I am not especially familiar with Libertarian Socialism, however several problems immediately spring to mind.

1) The profit motive.

The profit motive is the primary problem of the current system!

The current system puts profit before everything else including people, the environment, peace, the truth, health, happiness etc

It posions everything

I exclude myself from this (as I buy into the idea of giving value based on the value of the value, not the wealth generated necessarily), although inevitably a value judgement call would have to be made about me anyway by external entities (e.g. other people) to see how much grain I deserve. Does a poet deserve any grain? Does a philosopher? An Artist? What about a disabled person? What about someone who creates a machine that does the work of 10 people and then doesn't do any more work him/herself?

Without the motive of profit, why would someone work?

People do in anarchist communist communities. They contibute because it is what they have evolved as social animals to do over 200,000 years

If there is a profit motive, surely, inevitably, wealth would accumulate in certain hands, and the only way to counter this would be some form of redistribution - perhaps by a government - and you're right back at what we have now anyway.

The scandinavians distribute the wealth far better than us and have a more equal society as a result

2) Big government = voice in world.

By 'voice in the world' do you mean engaging in covert operations to overthrow democratically elected leaders, destabilise countries, fight endless wars and bully and coerce people all around the world?

A small country, lets face it, is vulnerable to attack.

Its vulnerable from attack from the fascists which is why the global consciousness that is now developing amongst the worlds workers (see protests going on globally) will recognise that the revolution must be global

Multiple small cooperatives may quarrel amongst themselves and it seems only logical that the most successful ones would grow up to become the dominant ones.

I think with money out of the way there will be much less quarrelling!

Larger entities can leverage scale to deliver extra value. So it's not feasible for Google to exist with only 5 users, but with 50 million users, it becomes worthwhile (for example).

Google is a spying aid for mossad, the CIA and MI6 and has been exposed as such by a recent whistle blower; this was called Operation Prism. Check it out, but perhaos use another search engine other than google! Everyone should just walk away from these fascist, controlling devices

It's true, power can corrupt, but it can also do good things, such as a welfare system for the disenfrancished or the NHS, which may not be possible at a smaller scale.

Pressure from the people did those things not centralised fascist power

3) Capitalism does work. It's ugly, for sure, but compared to Africa (which is far more tribal) or even somewhere like Venezuela, which is often hailed as a socialist utopia, we have a much higher standard of living e.g. we don't have to walk 3 miles to get dirty drinking water and then return to the communual slum.

Capitalism is not working it is failing

Venezuala was capitalist that is why it ended up in such a mess. Hugo Chavez then got into power and tried to turn things round, but the CIA did their best to subvert everything he did and eventually murdered him

Africa has been repeatedly raped by western colonial capitalism and is kept from industrialising by the bullying western powers

The fundamental problem you've got with Libertarian Socialism is that you're overlooking the state of nature argument and why government institutions exist in the first place.

No it acknowledges that humans are cooperative creatures. Government exists to protect the corporations and the power elite (always has)

I advocate reforms of the existing system to be freer and compassionate along the lines of Rawls and Mill as I previously outlined. Specifically I think the closest you can reasonably hope to get towards communuals is more small businesses, though there's a reason supermarkets emerged - because they were more efficent and better than their competitors (mostly on value).

The corporations also bribed politicians to create favourable conditions for big corporations and difficult conditions for small businesses see for example the current tax dodging by the big corporations with the politicians complicity

In my opinion, the best way to deal with abuses of power is more challenger businesses as this creates more 'spheres' if you like, free media (I think the internet has really helped) and public engagement with politics.

That's cool but the reality is that the people behind the big corporations are monopoly capitalists and they have the system rigged

Liberal principles are that there is a 'public sphere' and a 'private sphere'. I liken businesses to sphere's within the public sphere (that sometimes cross into the private sphere) - adding to the diversity and plurality of our society.

There will be no privacy under the big brother society the monopoly capitalists are building. They see you as their property

@Gul

The Nazis were socialists in my opinion. When a union goes on strike, do they do it for their own benefit and not for the people they'll harm? Yes? When Germany went to expand its living space, was it doing it for it's own benefit? Yes.

The nazis were fascists not socialists

Socialism is when the workers own and control the means of production. The workers did not own and control the means of production in nazi germany a centralised power elite did

Socialists basically say: the individual doesn't matter, it's the collective that you belong to that counts, and in that mindset, nazism is free to flourish.

No that's what centralised power wants people to think as it wants no middle class just a power elite and a homogenous mass of poor dominated workers with a broken spirit

Socialists believe that the workers should all have a say

Only for people in the collective.

The role of women, in the collective, was to raise children.

A planned state, a planned economy. Socialism.

------

No it was a blurring of corporate and government power which is fascism. the workers did not own and control the means of production so it was not socialism

You may argue that socialism is actually about caring for people and I cannot deny many people I've known who claim to be socialists have been kind to me, but I regard that as a secondary function. The main objective is to crush individualism and further the collective (in the image of one leader).

No that is centralised control

This is what we saw in Russia, China and most places where some sort of socialism variant has been attempted, assuming they haven't gone bankrupt first (which normally happens with democratic socialism).

Those countries aren't socislist. they have market economies and the workers do not own and control the means of production. They are more akin to capitalism tghan socialism

The reason some nationalist countries with socialistic leanings had problems is because they were covertly dmamaged by the cabal. Please read 'Big Oil and their bankers in the Persian Gulf' by Dean henderson to see how they did this

It's exactly why the fear of terrorism (more people die each year in the bathtub than from terrorism) trumps individual liberty, because the collective needs protecting at the expense of the individual.

The cabal behind the corporations have created the terror in the world. The above book outlines well how they did it.

 

[Bikerdelic]

All the political parties in the United Kingdom (disunited kingdom) apart from the green party, are corrupt capitalist puppets, with no democratic mandate to rule, as only 27% of the population bother to vote, and out of that tiny percentage the other parties fight it out for the first past post result. People do not bother to vote as there isn't a true democratic choice, either Capitalism or Capitalism, but god forbid any true Socialism, thanks to the political interference from America and its imperialistic and Capitalistic tyranny. I feel sorry for all those good American people, fighting for a better equal world, Occupy wall street shows the Americans who are our friends.

 

[Lee Taylor]

I'll have to look into your points in more detail later... but for the time being... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-22956374 - G8 challenging tax loopholes. I'm really impressed. I know it's a little orwellian and I'll be watching to make sure it doesn't become too authoritarian/invasive of privacy...but businesses being taxed at point of sale (and possibly at headquarters) is a really intelligent approach to taxation - and should faciliate more money into government coffers at a lower rate of tax.

This way small businesses are small business owners are competing on fairer grounds with the big TNCs.

 

[Lee Taylor]

Hey,

thanks again for your interesting replies and apologies for the delay in replying.

There's so many ways of approaching this that I've started the reply to this thread several times. I now disagree with my previous post about the G8 even.

Firstly I respect the genuine good intentions that I believe the participants in this thread have.

Where I keep coming out is I get a feeling of disenfranchisement and concern about the abuse of power from Muir and a strong belief in socialism from Gul and possibly Bikerdelic too.

However I look at the current system as one that requires input to get something back. So the entrepreneur who works really hard and takes a risk may become very wealthy if what he/she generates is valuable (self employment (workers ownership)) - and can then create jobs for others who want something less risky/demanding. The people who go into politics and travel around the country can become President or PM. By contrast, if people don't make much effort, then the results can be less stellar.

This is cold hearted, yet also, basically, fair. The input could be work or it could be love - its all good.

However we look at the poor, the disenfranchised, the disabled - and we make excuses for them - you couldn't have achieved this because of your circumstances - and so on.

As someone who is not very wealthy, I regularly make excuses for myself as well.

However Libertarianism (from what I recall of its basic economic theory) is all about the freedom for people to find their own level.

Libertarianism & Socialism are diametrically opposed. Socialism looks to the collective good - whereas Libertarianism holds freedom as its highest standard.

Now my opinion is that we should take care of the poorest and try to create conditions for equality of opportunity (as I expressed earlier (Rawls' theory)) - hence why I come out as a liberal and not a libertarian.

The reason I come out as Conservative as well is because it advocates freedom and responsibility at a pragmatic level - things that reduce barriers to freedom like low taxes and so on, plus I think they recognise the need for power - e.g. in this world, the weak are targetted by the strong - the only way politically we've prevented many wars in recent times is through preventing any power vacuums and maintaining strong spheres of influence - so things like the EU - e.g. attack one of us, you're attacking all of us - at least in theory.

So if I had to form a perfect ideology it would be probably be 'ethical liberal conservativism'. So kind, freedom-loving pragmatists. These values are also contradictory.

Libertarian Socialism is idealistic but perhaps not sufficiently pragmatic. I mean an INFJs vision of it is probably beautiful and one I could probably support... and in fact I recognise in myself selfishness - so low taxes and so on appeal - and I'm ashamed of my own selfishness in that regard (though I recognise that paying into something like national insurance means if I fall ill I can get help)... however... in practice... I question whether a socialist leader - so one in the anti-ancient Greek democracy sense who sought power - would have the wisdom to not get corrupted... or if there was an angel in charge... surely some power-hungry 'strong' person would try to subvert their will.

In others word, go right to go left.

Re: the commonwealth - I'd consider re-examining the virtues of it. I know it's far from perfect, but the stated goals are quite positive I think. http://www.thecommonwealth.org/Internal/190957/what_we_do/

There are worse groups.
[MENTION=8186]Bikerdelic[/MENTION]

The low participation in democracy does not necessarily denote that it's a bad system. If the opportunity to be involved exists and people decline, is that really the fault of the system or the apathy that people show?

Also under democracy, if the green party were great, more people would vote for them, no?

@Gul

I love your idea of public tv vs private tv - so the BBC which we can say - in my opinion, has worked well, which actually is a big suprise to me, because in political terms, it usually ends up, as with town planning vs organic growth, somehow off the mark.

That's not to say something like Netflix isn't amazing... and costs just £72 per annum vs the £145.50 for the BBC license fee... but yes, I agree... public tv can lead to very positive outcomes of higher calibre programs - and we could potentially plan similar things in terms of government...though this is already partially done through government grant schemes and so on (take something like the London Mayors Fund as an example).

However you could argue that owning a tv should be free. I mean, if you just say: 'I'll just have non-bbc content' for example or I'll only watch dvds on it. But yes, I am genuinely proud of the BBC as a British institute - and I admit - that politically - I would probably have never imagined it could work.

Regarding the Nazi party - I love to challenge what people think about it - and my basic response to the naysayers is - did the Nazi actions prevent the Cold War? Does its example serve us heavily in our pursuit of peace?

Is not Germany now one of the most liberal, productive and free nations in the world, committed to things like privacy and human rights? Perhaps after the failed attempt at socialism with the Weimar Republic and the Nazis (debatable), has Germany now found a quasi-socialist model that works?

At this point, we could start a whole new discussion on the pros/cons of the EU and the single currency...

-----

Anyway to wrap up, I don't honestly have a great answer. I think my model and the models you've proffessed are both fine so long as liberty is in charge (and liberty goes hand in hand with courage, not fear) - and it's recognised that things like excessive debt impede liberty and also that power vacuums can create instability. Recognise also (socialists) that I don't want to be coerced into forming a union with others and I don't believe the value that I give can always be accurately quantified - that's for history to determine (ego!! ), but it's nice to sometimes willingly add something to the collective and engage on agreeable terms.

Everyone is free to succeed, supported to succeed, but seldom coerced.

 

[Bikerdelic]

Conservatism and Libertarianism is the "democracy of the selfish" over the needs of the many. Not very Christian, nor humanist or akin to any other kind of morality or altruistic endeavour, it is the politics of elites and moneyed hegemony's over the rights of the individual and communities. There exists no paradox between individuals and society, as like water, society as well as communities are made up of individuals just like objects or solutions are made up of individual molecules and atoms. But alas most political thinking types seldom see the wisdom of life nor the wisdom of Psychiatrists, sociology or indeed philosophers, more the pity for the rest of humanity that we are in the hands of bank clerks and capitalist berks, who have no true authentic value of a human being.

 

[muir]

Hey,

thanks again for your interesting replies and apologies for the delay in replying.

There's so many ways of approaching this that I've started the reply to this thread several times. I now disagree with my previous post about the G8 even.

Firstly I respect the genuine good intentions that I believe the participants in this thread have.

Where I keep coming out is I get a feeling of disenfranchisement and concern about the abuse of power from Muir and a strong belief in socialism from Gul and possibly Bikerdelic too.

My concern is that there is a cabal of powerful families who over a period of centuries have taken over the levers of power by controlling the big oil companies, the central banks and assorted other corporations often related to war profiteering

These people want a laissez-faire government, which they will have utterly corrupted through bribes and/or intimidation and monopoly capitalism which they will have stitched up through the consolodation of all the corporations into giant 'too big to fail' corporations which they will own and control. The government will exist pretty much only to protect their interests against the people

However I look at the current system as one that requires input to get something back. So the entrepreneur who works really hard and takes a risk may become very wealthy if what he/she generates is valuable (self employment (workers ownership)) - and can then create jobs for others who want something less risky/demanding. The people who go into politics and travel around the country can become President or PM. By contrast, if people don't make much effort, then the results can be less stellar.

You can create your own venture as an anarchist communist and you can represent people as their delegate as long as you carry out their mandate as agreed by all the workers

This is cold hearted, yet also, basically, fair. The input could be work or it could be love - its all good.

No it isn't 'fair' as people are not on a level playing field.

Also what you will find, and take this from someone who has seen it happen, is that once you leave the corridors of education you will find that some people rise very fast even though they proved themselves to be ignorant dunces because they have the familial connections. That is not a meritocracy that is nepotism and i'm sorry to burst your bubble but you will find out there in the world of work that nepotism is rampant

However we look at the poor, the disenfranchised, the disabled - and we make excuses for them - you couldn't have achieved this because of your circumstances - and so on.

Yes an iraqi child starved through sanctions and deformed through irradiation from depleted uranium shells left on the ground by the US military who is unable to go to school because their school has been flattened by bombs is not going to have the same opportunities as a child born into a wealthy, well connected US family that is sent to an ivy league school, followed by a degree at Yale where they get the tap on the shoulder asking them to be in a secret society which will provide them with contacts for life that will boost them up the ranks of various corporations

As someone who is not very wealthy, I regularly make excuses for myself as well.

Wealth is not about the amount of money you have.

I could give you an answer now advising you not to place material wants over less tangible but more spiritually fulfilling things such as the love of others or the wonder and awe of nature and so on but i'm gonna put another perspective across concerning wealth viewed through a more materialistic lens just as an exercise to look at things a different way

So, looking at this in a materialistic way, wealth is not, imo all about how much money you have. It is about how long you can stop working before you run out of funds and have to return to work. I see it this way because i value my time. So i have structured my life in such a way that i can stop working if i want for months at a time. There are plenty of people who have a bigger car or house than me and more material possessions but many of them are tied to the treadmill because in order to fuel their more extravagant life they must keep earning all the time and can't afford to stop working.

I consider myself more wealthy than them because whislt they are working, i go travelling or i go and do the things i like to do with the people i like to spend time with.....just a thought

However Libertarianism (from what I recall of its basic economic theory) is all about the freedom for people to find their own level.

Libertarianism is about freedom from coercion

Libertarianism & Socialism are diametrically opposed. Socialism looks to the collective good - whereas Libertarianism holds freedom as its highest standard.

Nope you can have libertarian socialism

Socialists believe that the workers should own and control the means of production. once you have worked for various bosses in various capitalist organisations you might find you start pining for the ability to own and control the means of production with your fellow workers....i did, so i then went and did it. Having tried both ways i can tell you the socialist way is far better. Before i was just a cog in a machine who was supposed to do as i was told and not ask questions. Now i decide the questions.

Now my opinion is that we should take care of the poorest and try to create conditions for equality of opportunity (as I expressed earlier (Rawls' theory)) - hence why I come out as a liberal and not a libertarian.

Capitalism is about PROFIT. In an ideology that is about the pursuit of profit there is no room for giving to the poor

If you are a capitalist boss running a company you must cover you overheads, you must pay your workforce and you must have some profit left over for yourself. If you want to increase your profit margin you can try and charge the client/customer more but you may find the market won't bare the new higher prices as other companies might be willing to provide the goods or services for less so instead you must look elsewhere to try and increase your profits.

This is when capitalist bosses then look to start squeezing the wages of the work force so that they can increase their own profit margin and take a bigger slice of the pie for themselves.

But then the workers get upset because they have rents to pay and mouths to feed so they club together in a union and they protest your new crappy wages bringing your company to a grinding halt which then starts hurting your profits

So you see when you are pursuing profit someone is going to get it in the neck....either your customer or your workers and the poor pfff you really think capitalist bosses are thinking of the poor when they fill out their annual returns? No they are thinking how they can grow their business or screw their workforce and get away with it

When the game is about profit, there ain't room for generosity so the rules of the game need to change if people aren'y going to be left to starve because what happens is when all the capitalist fat cats are so focussed on expanding their businesses and screwing their workforces and bribeing politicians to avoid paying taxes and moving their money offshore to avoid paying taxes what happens is that people begin to go hungry and when people begin to go hungry they begin to get very angry and when they get very angry they have a tendancy to riot

The reason I come out as Conservative as well is because it advocates freedom and responsibility at a pragmatic level - things that reduce barriers to freedom like low taxes and so on, plus I think they recognise the need for power - e.g. in this world, the weak are targetted by the strong - the only way politically we've prevented many wars in recent times is through preventing any power vacuums and maintaining strong spheres of influence - so things like the EU - e.g. attack one of us, you're attacking all of us - at least in theory.

No we have had constant war because war is profitable in capitalism.

We are also heading towards a major stand off between china and the US which is no laughing matter in the age of the atom bomb

Conservatives are great...........between two bits of bread with some sauce on top...i eat them for breakfast...yum

So if I had to form a perfect ideology it would be probably be 'ethical liberal conservativism'. So kind, freedom-loving pragmatists. These values are also contradictory.

Libertarian Socialism is idealistic but perhaps not sufficiently pragmatic. I mean an INFJs vision of it is probably beautiful and one I could probably support... and in fact I recognise in myself selfishness - so low taxes and so on appeal - and I'm ashamed of my own selfishness in that regard (though I recognise that paying into something like national insurance means if I fall ill I can get help)... however... in practice... I question whether a socialist leader - so one in the anti-ancient Greek democracy sense who sought power - would have the wisdom to not get corrupted... or if there was an angel in charge... surely some power-hungry 'strong' person would try to subvert their will.

There would be no taxes under anarchist communism!

The ancient philosophers where telling people how to maintain tyrannies. Platos cave is about how to control a population by controlling the flow of information to their mind. This is what the illuminati bankers have done by controlling the mainstream media to the point where now many people can't tell their arse from their elbow

In others word, go right to go left.

Why when you can just go left?

Re: the commonwealth - I'd consider re-examining the virtues of it. I know it's far from perfect, but the stated goals are quite positive I think. http://www.thecommonwealth.org/Internal/190957/what_we_do/

The commonwealth is about the british monarchy maintaining influence around the world

There are worse groups.

The monarchists are in all the worst groups....satanists and peodophiles....i'm not joking either

 

[Lee Taylor]

@ Bikerdelic

I recognise that human beings need love and need to give love for their wellbeing.

However like I said, I studied politics and my conclusions were based on the facts that human beings certainly can be very selfish. History proves that although there can be kind role models - like Jesus - like Ghandi and so on - more often than not the powers that be resolve their conflicts in bloody ways. I came out as a realist, who wanted more idealism, so realist solutions didn't become necessary (an example might be having an Islamic outreach program so Muslims in Britain (British Council) could explain their beliefs to Muslims in Afghanistan), rather than jumping to a conclusion of having a war. But I am under no illusion that if a power vacuum exists, it will be filled and appeasement doesn't work.

You say: Conservatism and Libertarianism is the "democracy of the selfish".

Ideologically speaking, perhaps, but, it's also honest. Human beings are often selfish - and the answer - I believe is Rawls' veil of ignorance, thus guaranteeing we all contribute to maximise the liberty of others.

I recognise, that like the Hunger Games - unnatural competition lessens our human companionship bonds.

I also left a good job recently to be self-employed, so I know all about being under the thumb and trying to make it alone. But the point is: I am free to do that in the current system. If I don't like my employer I can move jobs.
[MENTION=1871]muir[/MENTION] and Bikerdelic

I'm going to admit something - libertarian socialism is a nice objective - and yes - I can see the world working that way - and whilst reading your posts - I genuinely began to believe (I feel something *shakes head* *must not succumb* ) - however - equally - you cannot deny that unions at times have been unreasonable - putting their own interests before others - and yes I know it will stir hatred, but... if we're serious about a real debate then it needs to be said - 35% payrise requests from coal miners under Thatcher's era and such. RMT striking on weekdays for more money when they already had decent money, pensions and working hours relative to the private sector averages.

Also you cannot deny that there has been no successful fully socialist model anywhere in the world, anytime in history. As I said earlier, African tribalism is the closest we've got to it, and that didn't work out well for them.

Also consider how China (closer to socialism) vs Hong Kong (closer to western values) have developed.

I'd like to believe - and I'd even potentially go with it - I noticed that scandanavian countries and places like New Zealand avoided the worst excesses of the boom and bust in terms of banking - but these places aren't exactly delivering huge growth either.

Then again, do we need to grow as fast as we do? Once a long time ago - don't ask me for the source - but it was youtube video - it was shown that growth is pretty consistent around (I think 2%), however, in western nations, we tend to have booms, then busts and so on.. but the long term trend is consistent.

I'd still, because of my concern about human nature, advocate a defensive system at its base. However more of what you're discussing in the world (idealism) would be most welcome on higher layers.

To close, thank you very much for your contributions - and you nearly got me earlier, but I managed to pull it back.

All the best.

 

[Gul Dukat]

[MENTION=602]lee[/MENTION]

One word that the right loves to use is 'freedom'-- but it's definitely debatable as to whether or not freedom actually even exists... it's a pretty enormous question but I think it plays a huge part in why people have the perspectives that they do.

Primitive humans didn't hunt and live in caves because they actually wanted to hunt and live in caves, they did it because their survival instincts compelled them. They weren't exactly 'free'. When agriculture was discovered, there was a trade-off... the precarious nature of the hunt was replaced by the more reliable DIY lifestyle which meant that some people could reap the benefits of that work... and lo and behold, as soon as people were liberated from the demands of basic survival, innovation really took off. So why wouldn't we want to make providing people with all of their most basic needs our top priority? Yes, there will be people who are lazy... but that doesn't justify denying the majority what could very easily be provided to them. It's basically an intentional degradation of the entire human race... stifling innovation because of the myth that desperation is a good motivator. And yes, it is a myth... compare the child who comes from a broken, abusive home to one who comes from a loving, supportive one-- which one do you think is more likely to succeed?

Furthermore, socialism isn't about a rigid emphasis on equality, or about kicking people out of their mansions and forcing them to live in ghettos... it's about redistributing the wealth just enough so that everyone is guaranteed a basic state of survival. There will still be wealth inequalities-- socialism isn't about ending prosperity for the upper classes, it's the end of desperation for the lowest of the low. It's about ending extreme wealth. Libertarians aren't defenders of opportunity, they're defenders of frivolity, inequality, oppression and wastefulness. They think that the rich should be free to have diamond-studded airplanes because that's more important than ending hunger. The thought of it is repulsive on so many levels.

Profit isn't even a valid incentive to achieve-- people don't become doctors because they want to be rich, they do it because of the social hierarchy... even wealth isn't really about having the power to buy stuff-- sure it's nice to have a mansion and a private island, but all of these things are indulgences and frivolities that are no more fulfilling than the more practical alternatives like a reasonably sized house and a yearly trip to Hawaii. It's an ego game for people who want to feel like they've succeeded, and therefore have rich and fulfilling lives.

 

[Lee Taylor]

@gul

I was not expecting this level of opposition and wisdom to my arguments.

I used to joke with a friend that the 'hunt' of the past was probably an excuse for men to get out the house, especially once they discovered sheep in a field. He replied, shortly thereafter the first pub was invented.

Anyway you're arguing about something I already covered I think. Under Rawls, the third principle is that the benefits go to the poorest (the answer can be found in liberalism) & we already have a welfare system.

Also liberalism, especially democratic liberalism does not simply turn its back on others. Rather Liberalism is designed to defend people from other's 'thick conception' ideologies.

So the single mum and the millionaire can both be assured equal rights and standing before the law, for instance (if the ideology is being followed - at least partly). The danger of socialism and democracy is what Mill called 'the tyranny of the majority'. Examples of this include the proliferation of CCTV, ever decreasing speed limits, the obligation to wear a seatbelt, phone/web surveillance, conscription (where it exists) and so on and so forth.

You might argue the fear is caused by an absence of socialism and to a certain extent I agree, but I also believe socialism is often at a group level (unions, nationalism and so on), it may turn away those outside the group, whereas liberalism is a tune we can all sing to (so for example individual unions may get good deals for some staff, leaving others in the cold, but liberalism might advocate the minimum wage, for example, balancing the needs of businesses to be competitive to survive vs the needs of people to be paid a living wage), though perhaps fellowships/brotherhood are what we need more of.

'Mankind are greater gainers by suffering each other to live as seems good to themselves than by compelling each to live as seems good to the rest.' - Mill.

I can see the evolution of these ideologies and I think socialism is becoming more palatable, however I (stubbornly) will stick with my view for pragmatic reasons (I cannot cessate others desire for power without power myself, its impossible for us to know what is best for others, when and where dangers might come from and also the ideal of becoming the next Gates or Branson is somewhat inspirational - even if I'd probably donate most of my wealth to charity in the end and also even if capitalism does perhaps instill feelings of inadequacy in the majority), but I do acknowledge you are completely right that we should show more love and compassion to others - so everyone can have a decent chance and grow up into functional winners who love others too.

 

[muir]

@ Bikerdelic

I recognise that human beings need love and need to give love for their wellbeing.

However like I said, I studied politics and my conclusions were based on the facts that human beings certainly can be very selfish.

Humans can also be compassionate

The smart thing to do would be to build a society where the better side of human nature is encouraged. The profit obsessed capitalist culture tries to encourage the worst aspect of human nature. Despite this most people still work together, cooperate and live together peacefully; war is stirred up by industrialists, bankers and oilmen

History proves that although there can be kind role models - like Jesus - like Ghandi and so on - more often than not the powers that be resolve their conflicts in bloody ways.

I'm not sure that those people were necessarily role models....people have used them as role models since but i think at the time they were simply people who understood how the system works and how it was screwing over the general populace

Jesus was travelling around trying to raise grassroots support and was hung out to dry by the romans and their bankers

Ghandi was trying to encourage Indians to maintain their own hand spun textiles industry by wearing the dhoti and thereby not allowing their industry to be gutted by the heavily subsidised British linen industry which was built on the backs of heavily exploited British workers working in sweat shop conditions in the mills.

The freemasonic, judeao-christian establishment that ran (and still runs) Britain was trying to use the exploited british worker to undermine the living of the occupied and taxed Indian workers. This is why the spinning wheel is in the centre of the Indian flag because their independence from the freemasonic powers of control lay in their own spinning industry

The freemasonic bankers HATE people being self sufficient. They want everyone to be a cog in their machine. This is why under 'globalisation' they have used bodies such as the world bank and IMF to impose conditions on various developing countries. They destroy the diversity and self sufficiency of those countries by making them produce just one or two 'cash crops' for example coffee that the international bankers can then control the distribution of and control through the manipulation of prices.

This is why all areas in the 'west' have become more 'specialised'. The powers that be do not like generalists who have a braod knowledge because generalists who ave a broad knowledge have the ability to join all the dots and realise what is going on. However breakthroughs are often made by those who combine many disciplines because they have more pieces of whatever puzzle they are working on.

The powers that be want workers in little boxes who have no understanding of the larger context of their work, who are told what to do in their narrow little sphere by 'managers'

This is the complete opposite of how humans have evolved over 200,000 years. We evolved as hunter gatherers who each had a massive range of skills from home building, to boat building, to weapons and tools making to basket making, to fishing to understanding animals and their behaviours, to understanding the patterns and rythms of nature, to understadning the patterns and rythms of ourselves and each other.

In capitalism we are not encouraged to know and understand ourselves we are handed pills and told to get back to work.

Ghandi saw through the system. he was trained as a lawyer and worked within the British colonial system for a while. He knew how it all worked, who ran it and how they exploited the people of the world. He was however only one member of a vast movement of people....a movement that is still moving forward

I came out as a realist, who wanted more idealism, so realist solutions didn't become necessary (an example might be having an Islamic outreach program so Muslims in Britain (British Council) could explain their beliefs to Muslims in Afghanistan), rather than jumping to a conclusion of having a war. But I am under no illusion that if a power vacuum exists, it will be filled and appeasement doesn't work.

We are constantly appeasing the bankers which is why we are enabling them to decimate our economy (see 'banking bailouts')

If you trace back the funding of Islamic fundamentalists it leads back to the CIA and the Al Sabeh clan who run Saudi Arabia, who are allies of the CIA

The CIA is not overseen by the democratically elected members of the public, which is why there are periodically investigations held by politicians into their activities.

The CIA are recrutied from certain el-ite families within US society. These families trace their bloodlines back through Europe to the crusades. During the crusades these families had an ally in the middle east called 'the assassins' who were headed by the Al Sabeh clan. This group would carry out suicidal political assassinations by using mind control methods on its followers

The 911 attacks are said to have been carried out by a number of saudi arabian operatives who carried out a suicidal political assassination of a large number of people.

You say: Conservatism and Libertarianism is the "democracy of the selfish".

Ideologically speaking, perhaps, but, it's also honest. Human beings are often selfish - and the answer - I believe is Rawls' veil of ignorance, thus guaranteeing we all contribute to maximise the liberty of others.

The argument that humans are selfish is used by these people to justify their treatment of people. It is the same with the 'pre-emptive strike' argument used by the military industrial complex. It equates to 'i'm going to hit this person, because i think they are going to hit me'. it is born out of an extremely paranoid mind set which comes from a guilty conscience. The el-ite are so aggressive because they know that their behaviour is wrong and that if people figure out what they are dfoing there will be a backlash, so they are pre-emptively striking out against the populace by impoverishing them, controlling them, spying on them and poisoning them

In a more balanced human being who isn't so radically defensive (because they haven't fucked anyone else over) it is clear that people can be selfish but they can also be compassionate and that both are aspects of human nature; to build a system around the darker aspect of human nature is to drag the whole of society down into that cesspool

I recognise, that like the Hunger Games - unnatural competition lessens our human companionship bonds.

Despite the conditions those people are placed under they still cooperate and form powerful bonds. Also the oppressed workers riot against the disgusting inequality of their society

I also left a good job recently to be self-employed, so I know all about being under the thumb and trying to make it alone. But the point is: I am free to do that in the current system. If I don't like my employer I can move jobs.

You could do that under anarchist communism as well.

What you will find....is that the corporate giants will continue to consolidate and the serpent will also tighten its coils around the government so that they will grab greater and greater market share

The fed will continue to create boom and bust cycles where cheap credit is given out and then suddenly cut off. All those that used the credit to buy a home or strat a business will suddenly lose their homes and businesses to the bankers who will snap them up for pennies on the dollar

To understand the direction these people will take us in you need to understand their mindset. These people are about TOTAL control. they will never be satisfied until they have it. They are fear driven, fear motivated, egomaniacs. In their world there is only 'I' not 'we' or 'us'....'I am going to do this and i don't care about anyone else, because if i feel this way everyone else must feel this way and therefore they will all stab me in the back the first chance they get'

They are living in their own personal ego hell and they want us all to join them....and they'll do it too, if we let them

So you feel you currently have freedom to move around, but as the serpent slowly tightens its coils your freedoms will lessen and lessen until you are hemmed in and blue in the face.

@muir and Bikerdelic

I'm going to admit something - libertarian socialism is a nice objective - and yes - I can see the world working that way - and whilst reading your posts - I genuinely began to believe (I feel something *shakes head* *must not succumb* ) - however - equally - you cannot deny that unions at times have been unreasonable - putting their own interests before others - and yes I know it will stir hatred, but... if we're serious about a real debate then it needs to be said - 35% payrise requests from coal miners under Thatcher's era and such. RMT striking on weekdays for more money when they already had decent money, pensions and working hours relative to the private sector averages.

there are a number of factors to consider here. if you want a functioning economy you need money moving around. The workers eg miners, nurses, teachers, mechanics, doctors, builders, whatever will SPEND the money they earn; the super rich on the other hand are hoarding the money

The whole 'trickle down' argument about the 'city of london' (UK banking sector) (given a 20% share of our economy throught he destruction of the manufacturing sector under Thatcher) benefitting everyone through the wealth they generate trickling down through society has proven to be a myth. The money is staying at the top.

Thatcher cut taxes for the super rich and raised them for the rest of society!

Thatcher did not save the british economy. Britains position in the international economic league table remained the same through her tenure from 1979-1990. The IMF put Britain 6th in 1979 and 6th in 1990

The economy was actually beginning to nose dive under thatcher and was only saved through north sea oil coming online.

Her popularity which had also been nosediving was rescued by the falkland war, during which she gave the order to sink the Belgrano in international waters with the loss of hundreds of lives. The British have always rallied around their leadership in times of war even though they are the very people they should be waging war on!

Also you cannot deny that there has been no successful fully socialist model anywhere in the world, anytime in history. As I said earlier, African tribalism is the closest we've got to it, and that didn't work out well for them.

There are people living under and who have lived under successful anarchist models. Even in the 'west' there are areas, for example various 'eco villages' or 'transition towns' that are experimenting with other systems. The Paris commune even saw the workers take over and successfully run the city of paris!

African tribalism was working for them pretty well until pressure form outsiders exploiting chinese gunpowder technology

Also consider how China (closer to socialism) vs Hong Kong (closer to western values) have developed.

China now controls Hong Kong so i'd say that is game, set and match to the chinese

I'd like to believe - and I'd even potentially go with it - I noticed that scandanavian countries and places like New Zealand avoided the worst excesses of the boom and bust in terms of banking - but these places aren't exactly delivering huge growth either.

Growth is slowing down everywhere

Why is 'growth' so important anyway? What about degrowth and localism?

Degrowth: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degrowth

Localism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Localism_(politics)

Then again, do we need to grow as fast as we do? Once a long time ago - don't ask me for the source - but it was youtube video - it was shown that growth is pretty consistent around (I think 2%), however, in western nations, we tend to have booms, then busts and so on.. but the long term trend is consistent.

The boom and bust cycles or as the bankers like to euphemistically call them 'the business cycle' are created by the bankers who control the money supply. They make credit readily available to encourage borrowing so people feel confident, borrow money, buy houses and cars and start businesses. The bankers then stop the flow of cheap credit and peoples businesses fold and their homes are reposessed. The people lose, the bankers get richer and so it will continue until the people get wise

I'd still, because of my concern about human nature, advocate a defensive system at its base. However more of what you're discussing in the world (idealism) would be most welcome on higher layers.

The best 'defense' is to bring everyone into the decision making process.

Science tells us that the pathological state of pscyhopathy is passed down in a hereditary manner. Others can develop sociopathic traits when they are raised under brutalising conditions.

We know from history that the royal families and aristocracy of europe who also control big oil and banking eg 'royal dutch shell' (hence all the royals who attend the Bilderburg meetings) also interbred amongst themselves to protect their bloodlines. We also know that throughout history these people visciously suppressed workers eg the peasants revolt or the peterloo massacre, endlessly waged wars, schemed, connived and tortured their way through history. Burning people at the stake? Hung drawn and quartered? These are the behaviours of psychopaths. So it seems that what has really been preserved amongst the inbred 'chinless wonders' of the upper class is their psychopathy....their lack of emotional empathy for the rest of humanity that is evident in their behaviours (the proof is always in what people DO not in what they say)

The ideology of capitalism is PERFECT for these territorial, psychopathic reptiles because it enables them to hold onto power and suppress everyone else whilst pretending that everyday people actually have a say in the decision making process or can make it big (they can but only if they prove their sociopathic credentials)

Had you ever wondered why big corporations 'psychometrically test people'? This is to find out your personality and your motivations. Are you a reptile too they want to know or are you one of those pesky jesus, ghandi, INFJ trouble maker types?

If you go to the core of the shadow government (the freemasonic network) it is all about loyalty to the crown...to the monarchy and the bloodlines.

They too have a psychometric testing system but theirs is very old and more cumbersome. theirs involves getting you to go through a convoluted intitiation process that gradually over time assesses your suitability for their organisation and their plans

If you caught the final match of the recent royal wimbeldon tennis tournament you will have noticed that the royal who presented the trophy to the peoples champion (andy murray) was the Duke of kent. He is the grand master of English freemasonry.

Here he is in his masonic gear:



Notice the sun over the penis. They are a solar phallic cult

Here he is in military dress as 'Field Marshall' no less!:



And below in the dress of a Knight of the Order of St Michael and St George (an order origonally headquartered in Corfu; the interests of various knightly orders dating back to the times of the crusades and conflicts between royalist western powers and royalist assassins against nationalist saracen muslims...obviously that conflict is still going on today with nationalist muslims trying to hold onto their own resources whilst monarchist western powers and monarchist middle eastern powers eg the royal house of saud try to steal them. Did you know that many US presidents have been blood relations to the British monarchy?)



Andy Murray will possibly be knighted by the queen so that he will be made to bow his head to her to recognise her superiority over him

So anyway to tie this into your point....capitalism gives the psychopaths the perfect vehicle to control humanity. If on the other hand we had a an anarchist system we would all have a say and could stop any moves by the psychopaths. If a psychopath said 'i think we should burn that person at the stake' everyone else could vote that idea off the table

To close, thank you very much for your contributions - and you nearly got me earlier, but I managed to pull it back.

All the best.

You're welcome, good luck with your venture....as long as it isn't against the people