Free or Equal?

[Accountable]

gmc;875996 wrote: posted by accountable





You sit down and discuss it and agree on what's fair and just. In modern society we have a court system. Courts are an ancient method designed to stop open conflict by the arbitration of others or by the group as a whole. In ancient greece and rome the whole community would settle disputes. We still talk about blackballing someone-the greeks used coloured balls to register a verdict white for agree black for disagree.



This kind of debate has been going on since mankind started living in groups in one way or another. there's nothing new in the argument Democracy and government and taxation are ancient concepts in every culture throughout the world.



So is the argument about who get to decide and we both live in cultures where all get an equal vote. Your idea of votes based on wealth is not a new one. You lost the argument a long time ago. You're completely out of context. Clodhopper said he doesn't have an instinct to favor either equality or freedom. My question was about an individual instance only to nudge him to possibly see he does sway one way or the other. Besides, the question didn't mention wealth at all.



[quote=gmc]Thank goodness for that. All taxation is inherently unfair. That some will pay more than others will always be the case. If you have a situation where the wealthy get to decide where it all goes than you no longer have a democracy. While democracy is not perfect it is still better than all the other methods tried.



Your proposal would help concentrate power in the hands of a few even more than it is now. America is supposedly founded on the idea that all men are created equal. When did some are more equal than others come in to it?Lessee. Agreed. Agreed. Disagree; once again you've wrenched it over into the comprehensive which I could've sworn I was specific enough that it would not apply in all situations. Agreed.



My proposal would not likely concentrate power more than it is already, since most politicians have a price tag practically taped to their foreheads. I don't know about the UK, but the affluent in the US are as politically diverse as the rest of the nation. The one way to have revenue and freedom is for people to voluntarily give what they think their fair share should be, with no threat of punishment. How's that for fantasyland thinking?



[quote=gmc]I can just see the likes of Donald trump and George Bush and his cronies voting for legislation to pay more taxes to help the poor. Do you think they would vote more funding for war in Iraq if they were being asked to pay more for it? They might, I suppose, if they stood to gain by it. I can't speak for the Bushes - who knows what goes on in the Bushes? - but Trump gives hundreds of thousand to help the poor, beyond the taxes he pays. Warren buffet is giving $37 billion!



I wonder how much of the Kennedy fortune goes to charity.

[Clodhopper]

Acc:

As K alluded, few businesses survive if building wealth is the only, or even first, priority. If there is no product or service that some demographic somewhere finds beneficial, then it cannot possibly succeed.

Businesses create jobs. They create livlihoods. Businesses make it possible for society to have the high standard of living we enjoy today. If it weren't for businesses, where would people get the income to pay the taxes to fund the myriad government services offered? And where would the government contract for those services, if not from businesses? Business people provide the lifeblood our society lives on.


Interesting. While agreeing with what you say in a broad sense I seem to see the implications of this differently from the way you do. To me business is simply part of the system that makes both our societies function, providing the citizen or subject with heat, light, food, a living (preferably sufficient and if business won't pay enough, a little of my tax money going to help the worst off is fine with me, even if some individual cases make me angry). Rights are what people have hacked out of this system. It's an ongoing process.

Clodhopper said he doesn't have an instinct to favor either equality or freedom.


:wah::wah: Probably more that I can't make up my mind, but essentially correct.

It occurs to me that what you see as making things more equal, we see as making things more free: the person with two votes to my one is interfering with my right to influence the government of this country. That's an infringement of my freedoms (as well as against equality in general). Puts my hackles straight up.

What got lost in the fog is that the multiple votes aren't available unless a voter would be disproportionately impacted. For instance, when voting for a spending bill. If voting for a candidate, it should still be one man one vote even under my idea... an idea which, btw, I concocted here in this thread; it's not something I've been thinking on for a long time or anything.


Not sure how that would work with our system. Perhaps some MPs having more votes when certain Bills come before the House? MPs vote acording to the party line as a general rules. When they don't Governments fall. Don't think what you suggest would really work in our system, which only leaves the voters and the Lords, and the Lords (I hope) provide the sort of corrective you imply.

gmc said to Acc re multiple votes:

You lost the argument a long time ago.


It takes a long time for ideas to die, and in the right circumstances they come back. (to Acc as well) To me America sometimes does look worryingly like 57 business parks. And I wonder where the rights of the individual are. But I don't see a full picture and these boards are most informative in the sense that they've reminded me of that. You seem happy enough with the general principles and they've given you a century of prosperity. The election of Bush - which still smells rotten to me - TWICE makes me worry as a citizen of the world.

I am a bit nervous about the Muslim population in Britain, but I have some faith in the resilience of our society and believe that the children will be more integrated and their children more and the less we fuss the quicker the process will be. I believe there are one or two Muslim MPs and Lords. Meanwhile I'm crossing my fingers and hoping CI5 are keeping a quiet eye on things. In ways that don't interfere too far with our freedoms.

[Bryn Mawr]

Accountable;875853 wrote: I don't understand the way you try to separate the individual and society. Demanding something of society is de facto demanding it of your neighbors. It's cool if you want to do that, and in many instances I agree, but to deny the connection makes it too easy to ignore that you're taking money that is not yours to give to someone else. Dodge, parry, spin, Robin Hood.


Society is inherently different from the individual and whilst the individual is a part of the society, the society is far more than just a collection of individuals.

Your single individual could easily have the morals of a skunk at the same time as living in and being part of a highly ethical society.

Society has the power to give rights to the individual whereas the individual does not have the right to demand from society - this is why your analogy of universal healthcare being an individual taking money from your neighbours is false, the individual is not taking money that is not his, society is investing in its population.

Accountable;875853 wrote: No society can give all their children an equal start in life as long as their unequal parents are involved. Offering a free public education is adequate to give them as close to an equal start as we can without going to that unacceptable extreme.

Society is inherently unbalanceable, if that's a word.


You appear to be saying that, because you cannot have absolute equality, you should not try to get anywhere near. Yes, it is impossible to give everyone an exactly equal start but it is no excuse for the levels of inequality we have now.

Accountable;875853 wrote: It would be fun to build the ideal, if we had time. It might even give us ideas to fix the real. I don't think our societies are as sick as you seem to.


Your initial question was very specifically aimed at an ideal society - "A society can either be free or equal, but it cannot be both. So, which is more desirable?" does not relate to any specific society but is of the form "is it possible for a society to be .....". It therefore behoves us to build the ideal to explore the question.

[Accountable]

Clodhopper;876330 wrote: It occurs to me that what you see as making things more equal, we see as making things more free: the person with two votes to my one is interfering with my right to influence the government of this country. That's an infringement of my freedoms (as well as against equality in general). Puts my hackles straight up.I would agree with you if it were in every instance, but it is only when the impact is disproportionate. I won't try to explain again because I think you understand & just don't agree.

The more I think of it, though, the more I can see it as an incentive to pay more taxes, increase income, increase voter involvement, lots of things like that. Even capping it at, say $100K annual income would do wonders for lower-middle and middle class people.

[Accountable]

Bryn Mawr;876523 wrote: Society has the power to give rights to the individual whereas the individual does not have the right to demand from society - this is why your analogy of universal healthcare being an individual taking money from your neighbours is false, the individual is not taking money that is not his, society is investing in its population.
There's the difference - possibly unsurmountable difference - between your society and mine: where rights come from.



Anastrophe stated it so very well I'll just copy it here:

anastrophe;391922 wrote: I started to write this in another thread and realized it belonged separately. herewith:



Anastrophe wrote in another thread: The rights that are codified in the Constitution and Bill of Rights

forgive me for quoting myself and responding to myself. but i want to stress my wording above. it's one of the things in popular discourse that drives me batty- people are CONSTANTLY saying "because i have a right guaranteed by the constitution!".



NO!



the constitution does NOT guarantee ANY RIGHTS. none!



the constitution codifies - it acknowledges - the rights we already hold, inherently. i realize the distinction may seem awfully hair-splitting, but it is not. when one suggests that the constitution guarantees their rights, they're effectively suggesting that the government, through this document, is giving us certain rights which we may then enjoy. the fact is, however, that the rights listed are rights we hold regardless of the existence of the constitution. every copy of the constitution could be burned, and every reference to it obliterated in textbooks, and discussion of it could be banned - but it would not take away from us the fact that the rights are ours; they are not 'given' to us by the government or by the document.



furthermore, one does harm to one's greater freedom by the suggestion. that's why, further into the bill of rights and not often considered, is the tenth amendment, an extremely important one in this regard: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

think about what that's saying. it's saying that if a human right is not codified in the consitution it does NOT mean that the right doesn't exist. the constitution does not state that we have a right to breathe. if we suggest that we only have the rights that are listed in the constitution, then we're suggesting the government would have the power to forcibly stop us from breathing. or to require everyone to wear clown shoes. or whatever.



no doubt, having the constitution and bill of rights to point to, to say - 'look, see? the founders felt this was important, you can't take that right away' is a very, VERY good thing. but in writing it down, they were not concommitantly placing limits on what rights we have. they were codifying the most important rights that governments tend to chip away at.



okay, that's my rant on codification versus gaurantees.We see rights as inherent, rather than granted or given.

[Accountable]

Bryn Mawr;876523 wrote: You appear to be saying that, because you cannot have absolute equality, you should not try to get anywhere near. Yes, it is impossible to give everyone an exactly equal start but it is no excuse for the levels of inequality we have now.Not at all. I'm just saying that we're very near the balance, possibly as near as we should get without squelching the independence and self-reliance qualities of freedom.



Bryn Mawr wrote: Your initial question was very specifically aimed at an ideal society - "A society can either be free or equal, but it cannot be both. So, which is more desirable?" does not relate to any specific society but is of the form "is it possible for a society to be .....". It therefore behoves us to build the ideal to explore the question.Oh I wish I had the time to discuss it.

Maybe we could take a slower pace.

[Bryn Mawr]

Accountable;876790 wrote: There's the difference - possibly unsurmountable difference - between your society and mine: where rights come from.



Anastrophe stated it so very well I'll just copy it here:


What's a constitution? :p

Accountable;876790 wrote: We see rights as inherent, rather than granted or given.


You are right - this is an insurmountable difference. There is no such thing as an inherent right, all rights are granted by the society you live in and are meaningless outside of the context of that society.

For every "right" you can come up with I can come up with a workable society where that right does not exist.

[Bryn Mawr]

Accountable;876793 wrote: Not at all. I'm just saying that we're very near the balance, possibly as near as we should get without squelching the independence and self-reliance qualities of freedom.



Oh I wish I had the time to discuss it.

Maybe we could take a slower pace.


I am not sure that everyone would agree with you there - certainly within British society I see gross inequalities that are institutionalised and should not be tolerated..

There's no reason that we should not drag this one out for months if needs be - depends how far you'd like to take it. I'm game and I'm sure GMC, Clodhopper and K Snyder would be too.

[gmc]

Bryn Mawr;876875 wrote: I am not sure that everyone would agree with you there - certainly within British society I see gross inequalities that are institutionalised and should not be tolerated..

There's no reason that we should not drag this one out for months if needs be - depends how far you'd like to take it. I'm game and I'm sure GMC, Clodhopper and K Snyder would be too.


Well yes It's an endlessly fascinating debate with no final conclusion and one that will be going on at the end of time. I get a sense that there is a real cultural difference in the way we look at these things in the UK compared to the US. It's like all the ideas of the enlightenment and socialism etc etc just didn't happen in the states whereas the british tend to have a shared perception of the way things should be and a predisposition to argue about it endlessly. (not sure that makes sense but hopefully you get my drift) Maybe it's because we don't have a written constitution and expect things to be changed as necessary and hanging on to the status quo is just another option that may not be the best one. Government is a machine you're always tinkering with.

posted by accountable

I would agree with you if it were in every instance, but it is only when the impact is disproportionate. I won't try to explain again because I think you understand & just don't agree.


I don't speak for clodhopper but for myself I do understand, I don't agree and I'll see you at the barricades you right wing numpty. it's ridiculous idea that has had it's day. If you want to find all the rebuffs for it have a trawl through the debates that took place state by state as universal suffrage was brought in. There was always some idiot arguing that the wealthiest should have more say in government. You would lose the debate every time.

Power to the people.

[Accountable]

Bryn Mawr;876874 wrote: For every "right" you can come up with I can come up with a workable society where that right does not exist.
But not in mine. :yh_flag

[Accountable]

Bryn Mawr;876875 wrote: There's no reason that we should not drag this one out for months if needs be - depends how far you'd like to take it. I'm game and I'm sure GMC, Clodhopper and K Snyder would be too.
To start, we'd have to be pre-society rather than creating an instant society.



Two businessmen involved in two separate cruise ship accidents coincidentally wash up on the shores of the same island. At this point both are completely free, completely equal. Agreed?

[gmc]

Accountable;876926 wrote: To start, we'd have to be pre-society rather than creating an instant society.



Two businessmen involved in two separate cruise ship accidents coincidentally wash up on the shores of the same island. At this point both are completely free, completely equal. Agreed?


Why two businessmen, What does that mean, why not a builder, an accountant and a butcher and a hairdresser who owns a chain of shops-blonde petite. The first is also a keen outdoors man, the accountant has a heart condition but plays golf in a vain attempt to try and bring his weight down, and the butcher is a keen bow hunter, the blonde is a martial arts enthusiast. They are all free but are they equal?

My money's on the hairdresser ending up in charge.

Out of curiosity-as a good capitalist- have you ever read the Adam Smith-Wealth of nations?

[Accountable]

gmc;876988 wrote: Why two businessmen, What does that mean, why not a builder, an accountant and a butcher and a hairdresser who owns a chain of shops-blonde petite. The first is also a keen outdoors man, the accountant has a heart condition but plays golf in a vain attempt to try and bring his weight down, and the butcher is a keen bow hunter, the blonde is a martial arts enthusiast. They are all free but are they equal?



My money's on the hairdresser ending up in charge.



Out of curiosity-as a good capitalist- have you ever read the Adam Smith-Wealth of nations?
I figured to set them both up at zero. Farmers, hunters, & the like would likely have a clear advantage. Even two people with no outdoor experience would soon show inequality just through innate talent and luck. You can make them a legless sports enthusiast and a latent homosexual if you'd like.

[Clodhopper]

Hmm. I don't think our guinea pigs can wash up on a desert island, either: that immediately puts them in a tribal situation. You can't think of a modern society without considering its technology: sewers, power stations and computers.

Perhaps the question should be, "What is the ideal society, given the nature of the modern world and of humankind?"

Well, I'd start with education and healthcare free at the point of supply. The vote is available to all after age 18 (at which point compulsory education stops. Education to include vocational training). No detention without trial. Democracy (ah, but what sort?)and an environmentally neutral approach to our place in the planet's hierarchy of life.

Just a few thoughts to get things moving...

[gmc]

Accountable;877598 wrote: I figured to set them both up at zero. Farmers, hunters, & the like would likely have a clear advantage. Even two people with no outdoor experience would soon show inequality just through innate talent and luck. You can make them a legless sports enthusiast and a latent homosexual if you'd like.


Kind of pointless. Why not make them six year olds. Start with no knowledge and see what happens. Republics and all having equal say precede kingdoms every time. Hereditary rule is an aberration that people have to be conned in to accepting as is the idea of giving more power and voted to those who have done well for themselves.

First you accept that your voice and opinion is somehow less worthy than another's simply because they are wealthier than you and shortly you will be touching your forelock to your master and america will head for third world status. You may want to do it but I doubt you will find many supporters nowadays.

Do Americans not study political philosophy-as in how did you arrive at the bill of right and the concepts contained therein? They didn't just spring up nor are they uniquely american, at one point you were part of a far wider political dimension that you seem to be now and have stopped being part of. Do you not get Thomas Paine at school or is he banned as being controversial despite being so important in 1776? what about economic theory, monetarism against keynsian economic theory or don't they teach such things? How about adam smith-surely required reading for any capitalist education system. Or even just history in general. You have institutions modelled on the roman republic and a type of voting system the ancient creeks would have recognised surely you know the background to how you got to the political system you currently have. Why do so many americans seem to believe that the concept of individual liberty and civil rights is due to christianity.

[Accountable]

Clodhopper;877741 wrote: Hmm. I don't think our guinea pigs can wash up on a desert island, either: that immediately puts them in a tribal situation. You can't think of a modern society without considering its technology: sewers, power stations and computers.



Perhaps the question should be, "What is the ideal society, given the nature of the modern world and of humankind?"



Well, I'd start with education and healthcare free at the point of supply. The vote is available to all after age 18 (at which point compulsory education stops. Education to include vocational training). No detention without trial. Democracy (ah, but what sort?)and an environmentally neutral approach to our place in the planet's hierarchy of life.



Just a few thoughts to get things moving...Sorry, can't have "free" when there is overhead. Teachers & doctors have to be paid by someone, and then there's buildings, maintenance, untilities ....... before we can talk about all that stuff, we have to talk about the oh-so-unimportant money. How will we pay for services in a way that is equal?



What does your last suggestion mean? The one about neutral approach.

[Accountable]

gmc;877833 wrote: Kind of pointless. Why not make them six year olds. Start with no knowledge and see what happens. Republics and all having equal say precede kingdoms every time. Hereditary rule is an aberration that people have to be conned in to accepting as is the idea of giving more power and voted to those who have done well for themselves.



First you accept that your voice and opinion is somehow less worthy than another's simply because they are wealthier than you and shortly you will be touching your forelock to your master and america will head for third world status. You may want to do it but I doubt you will find many supporters nowadays.



Do Americans not study political philosophy-as in how did you arrive at the bill of right and the concepts contained therein? They didn't just spring up nor are they uniquely american, at one point you were part of a far wider political dimension that you seem to be now and have stopped being part of. Do you not get Thomas Paine at school or is he banned as being controversial despite being so important in 1776? what about economic theory, monetarism against keynsian economic theory or don't they teach such things? How about adam smith-surely required reading for any capitalist education system. Or even just history in general. You have institutions modelled on the roman republic and a type of voting system the ancient creeks would have recognised surely you know the background to how you got to the political system you currently have. Why do so many americans seem to believe that the concept of individual liberty and civil rights is due to christianity.
Okay! Okay! Fine, you pick 'em if yer gonna blow a gasket. Gee whiz

[gmc]

Accountable;878563 wrote: Okay! Okay! Fine, you pick 'em if yer gonna blow a gasket. Gee whiz


Not blowing a gasket. Just don't get where you are coming from.

People sit down and discuss what kind of society they want to live in. powerful individuals have a lot of influence, too much sometimes, laws are brought on to control them and protect the rights of others, wars start over resources warlords rise and fall, religion comes along and screws things up even more with warlords now persuading people they have god given right to rule. People disagree and start movements for quality People decide what they want society to be and what they expect from it. You want me to go to war? You listen to what I want or you're on your own. All history is is the study of what happened and how we got to where we are today, who are we where did we come from etc etc.

Surely you know how the united states came to be a democracy with universal suffrage. You must also be familiar with the counterarguments put by opponents of calhoun and his ilk. he and his kind lost which is why you don't have slavery any more and everybody-even women get to vote. That those who are people of substance, pay more tax and have a stake in the country should have more say is an old argument. It's been long lost. Do you really want to turn the clock back?

You object to taxation going on healthcare. Why stop at healthcare How about the war in iraq? If you oppose refuse to pay your taxes. After all why should you be asked to pay for something you don't support. If you have a mall army you have less to fear from a government using it against the people or a military takeover.

Why not give church members more votes-after all they have a better moral sense than non-believers don't they? Have to just be protestant though or you would have the pope running the country.

posted by accountable]

Sorry, can't have "free" when there is overhead. Teachers & doctors have to be paid by someone, and then there's buildings, maintenance, untilities ....... before we can talk about all that stuff, we have to talk about the oh-so-unimportant money. How will we pay for services in a way that is equal?


You sit down, decide what is fair and go for it. I live in a country where the people said this is what we want and this is the way it is going to be. There is no nonsense about what govt should and shouldn't do-there is a consensus of opinion and it does what it is told or gets unelected-eventually sometimes- but once people want change it tends to happen and woe betide any politician that doesn't listen or is stupid enough ti think they are entitled. Nobody cares if the rich don't like it or think it unfair they pay more tax than the rest and we most definitely do not think there opinion is any better or should carry more weight than anyone else's just because they happen to have a talent for making money. Quite frankly anyone suggesting that some should have more votes than others just doesn't get very far. They can form their own party but the odds of winning any seats are nil to non existent. The raving monster loony party has more chance of forming a government.

Don't mean to offend and I'm not blowing a gasket. I simply find your argument ridiculous and is one I would oppose no matter how you put your case. Probably best I leave you to it. I'm always going to be in favour of one person one vote-proportional representation, freedom and equality all the way. Just sorry you seem to have been brainwashed in to thinking they're mutually exclusive.

[Clodhopper]

Accountable;878558 wrote: Sorry, can't have "free" when there is overhead. Teachers & doctors have to be paid by someone, and then there's buildings, maintenance, untilities ....... before we can talk about all that stuff, we have to talk about the oh-so-unimportant money. How will we pay for services in a way that is equal?



What does your last suggestion mean? The one about neutral approach.


"Free at the point of supply", ie not paid for by the pupil or patient at the moment of use, but by contributions from taxation over the long term. If nothing with overheads can be started because there is no money, then how do businesses start up?

Should the individuals not be taxed, just businesses, or individuals are taxed, but not businesses, or both taxed, or no tax and no services and you pay for everything at the point of use and DON'T fall sick whatever you do. Don't have kids unless you can afford to educate them....

Environmentally neutral means that for everything our citizen takes from the world, something equivalent is put back; or that in the case of something like mining for ore, the methods don't pollute, or are balanced in some way.

[Clodhopper]

Accountable;878563 wrote: Okay! Okay! Fine, you pick 'em if yer gonna blow a gasket. Gee whiz


chuckle. Don't think gmc is miffed. It's his accent coming through: any Scot worth his salt can make, "Good morning, nice to see you," sound like "Ah'll rip off yer heid an spit doon yer naick."

[Accountable]

gmc, the rest of us have agreed to build the ideal society. We've decided we're the powerful individuals with too much power, and we're going for it. Care to join us?



I'm not married to the idea of multiple votes, so try to scrub that from your filters. As I said a couple of times, the idea came to me during the life of this thread, so of course I haven't thought it completely through.



I do want to discuss how everyone can contribute equally if everyone is going to receive equally. Bryn had some ideas.



Point is, we gotta start somewhere. I was tossing out ideas. Brainstorming.

[Accountable]

Clodhopper;879221 wrote: "Free at the point of supply", ie not paid for by the pupil or patient at the moment of use, but by contributions from taxation over the long term. If nothing with overheads can be started because there is no money, then how do businesses start up?



Should the individuals not be taxed, just businesses, or individuals are taxed, but not businesses, or both taxed, or no tax and no services and you pay for everything at the point of use and DON'T fall sick whatever you do. Don't have kids unless you can afford to educate them....That's what we need to decide - how to get revenue to pay for whatever benefits we decide an ideal society should offer. Our current ways aren't fair or equal.



Oh yeh, I guess we have to decide what 'ideal' means too.



ClodhopperEnvironmentally neutral means that for everything our citizen takes from the world, something equivalent is put back; or that in the case of something like mining for ore, the methods don't pollute, or are balanced in some way.[/quote wrote: Or like Bill Cosby's dad used to say, "I brought you into this world; I'll take you out of it, too."



[quote=Clodhopper;879226]chuckle. Don't think gmc is miffed. It's his accent coming through: any Scot worth his salt can make, "Good morning, nice to see you," sound like "Ah'll rip off yer heid an spit doon yer naick."
:wah: I know. gmc & I've been friends for years. You'da thunk he'd know when I'm trying to lighten the mood too! :yh_bigsmi

[Galbally]

Its a good thread, here is a question. Should the goals and organization of a republic be based overwhelmlingly on on the desires of its most powerful (and richest) members, or for the general good of the citizens as a whole? Is the there a role for civil society anymore, which is the self-participation of citizens in their own society and governance for the interest of the common good, without perhaps there being any direct material gain. Should promoting civil society be the first duty of all truly republican governments, not just the material gratification of the most entreprenurial and self motivated class of people? Is commerce and trade the first and only thing that will make a society free and happy, or do we need more that to be a healthy society. Thats the other side of this argument.

[Accountable]

That's the balance to find, alright.



Maybe we should start a forum for this, seeing as it's so complicated. We can call it Ideal Society and have threads or subfora for the various aspects we find most important.



Also, I think we should have a model nation to work on, because size definitely matters when fashioning a gov't. For instance, If I were King for a day, the US federal gov't would be virtually powerless domestically, leaving all but interstate infrastructure to the states themselves. However, a smaller country such as wee merry Scotland could run just fine with a mayor and 3 constables. :sneaky:

[Bryn Mawr]

Accountable;876926 wrote: To start, we'd have to be pre-society rather than creating an instant society.



Two businessmen involved in two separate cruise ship accidents coincidentally wash up on the shores of the same island. At this point both are completely free, completely equal. Agreed?


I'm not convinced that you can have a society of two. Take a generalised society and set the rules of that society. Firstly, agree whether those rules would be self sustaining and, if not, how they would evolve and then agree the consequences of those rules.

[Bryn Mawr]

Accountable;879236 wrote: gmc, the rest of us have agreed to build the ideal society. We've decided we're the powerful individuals with too much power, and we're going for it. Care to join us?



I'm not married to the idea of multiple votes, so try to scrub that from your filters. As I said a couple of times, the idea came to me during the life of this thread, so of course I haven't thought it completely through.



I do want to discuss how everyone can contribute equally if everyone is going to receive equally. Bryn had some ideas.



Point is, we gotta start somewhere. I was tossing out ideas. Brainstorming.


Let's start with this one - what would you see as equal?

1) Everyone pays an equal amount regardless of income

2) Everyone pays an equal percentage of income

3) Everyone pays an equal percentage of disposable income (income after deducting an allowance for living essentials)

4) No tax on income but every item purchased is taxed equally

5) No tax on income but every non-essential item purchased is taxed equally

6) No tax on income but every item purchased is taxed at a rate related to their frivolity

7) A mixture of the above

8) A possibility not previously mentioned.

[Bryn Mawr]

Accountable;879375 wrote: That's the balance to find, alright.



Maybe we should start a forum for this, seeing as it's so complicated. We can call it Ideal Society and have threads or subfora for the various aspects we find most important.



Also, I think we should have a model nation to work on, because size definitely matters when fashioning a gov't. For instance, If I were King for a day, the US federal gov't would be virtually powerless domestically, leaving all but interstate infrastructure to the states themselves. However, a smaller country such as wee merry Scotland could run just fine with a mayor and 3 constables. :sneaky:


:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl

[Accountable]

Bryn Mawr;879488 wrote: Let's start with this one - what would you see as equal?



1) Everyone pays an equal amount regardless of income



2) Everyone pays an equal percentage of income



3) Everyone pays an equal percentage of disposable income (income after deducting an allowance for living essentials)



4) No tax on income but every item purchased is taxed equally



5) No tax on income but every non-essential item purchased is taxed equally



6) No tax on income but every item purchased is taxed at a rate related to their frivolity



7) A mixture of the above



8) A possibility not previously mentioned.Number 4 works great for goods, but what about services? For instance, I need a carpenter. Will we need to determine essential vs nonessential work, then tax accordingly? Crap, I don't even know if such things are taxed at all here.



Also there's a question of revenue. Will taxing nonessential purchases bring in enough? Maybe we should make it be enough, meaning that's it and that's all there is and we can do X Y and Z within budget but no more. That resonates well with me.

[Bryn Mawr]

Bryn Mawr;879488 wrote: Let's start with this one - what would you see as equal?

1) Everyone pays an equal amount regardless of income

2) Everyone pays an equal percentage of income

3) Everyone pays an equal percentage of disposable income (income after deducting an allowance for living essentials)

4) No tax on income but every item purchased is taxed equally

5) No tax on income but every non-essential item purchased is taxed equally

6) No tax on income but every item purchased is taxed at a rate related to their frivolity

7) A mixture of the above

8) A possibility not previously mentioned.


Accountable;879585 wrote: Number 4 works great for goods, but what about services? For instance, I need a carpenter. Will we need to determine essential vs nonessential work, then tax accordingly? Crap, I don't even know if such things are taxed at all here.



Also there's a question of revenue. Will taxing nonessential purchases bring in enough? Maybe we should make it be enough, meaning that's it and that's all there is and we can do X Y and Z within budget but no more. That resonates well with me.


These are certainly the questions we need to investigate and I'll come back to it when I'm not rushing to get to work.

[K.Snyder]

Galbally;879265 wrote: Its a good thread, here is a question. Should the goals and organization of a republic be based overwhelmlingly on on the desires of its most powerful (and richest) members, or for the general good of the citizens as a whole? It most definitely should not be based on the desires of the rich and powerful...This does nothing but transcend into fascism and I find that incredibly dangerous and it influences for too many impractical decisions...

Galbally;879265 wrote: Is the there a role for civil society anymore, which is the self-participation of citizens in their own society and governance for the interest of the common good, without perhaps there being any direct material gain. There may be a roll for them but only because of the scraps leftover from those with the real power in all societies...The rich...

Galbally;879265 wrote: Should promoting civil society be the first duty of all truly republican governments, not just the material gratification of the most entreprenurial and self motivated class of people? Absolutely...But I think that no matter where you begin it will ultimately end up being influenced by the rich and most powerful in any government anyway...I think all that's left is to pray (Or quite simply just hope...) that the virtues of the common man remain good...Optimistic but what else do we have?...

Galbally;879265 wrote: Is commerce and trade the first and only thing that will make a society free and happy, or do we need more that to be a healthy society. Thats the other side of this argument. Commerce and trade are always good but without laws to insure equality it most certainly won't make anyone happy...

[gmc]

Clodhopper;879226 wrote: chuckle. Don't think gmc is miffed. It's his accent coming through: any Scot worth his salt can make, "Good morning, nice to see you," sound like "Ah'll rip off yer heid an spit doon yer naick."


:yh_rotfl

Know what you mean-used to work in london. a surprising number of the natives think scots are aggressive. South London accents sound terribly effeminate to scots ears which may lead to misunderstanding. If being threatened in a london pub by one of the locals the phrase "I'm going to do you" can take on all sorts of unusual connotations and it's hard not to laugh in such situations which makes things worse.

posted by accountable

gmc, the rest of us have agreed to build the ideal society. We've decided we're the powerful individuals with too much power, and we're going for it. Care to join us?

I'm not married to the idea of multiple votes, so try to scrub that from your filters. As I said a couple of times, the idea came to me during the life of this thread, so of course I haven't thought it completely through.

I do want to discuss how everyone can contribute equally if everyone is going to receive equally. Bryn had some ideas.

Point is, we gotta start somewhere. I was tossing out ideas. Brainstorming.


So who decided you were going to be in charge? Without agreement it won't work or you are going to have to use force of arms to impose your will.

If you're forming a republic you first need to decide who gets to vote. You need, it seems to me, to decide what kind of structure you want before you start worrying about the economy and the division of labour. Unless you have consensus and acceptance all you have is conflict. I think you're putting the cart before the horse, early taxation was simply the strong taking from the weak until the weak got fed op and started fighting back.

posted by accountable

Also, I think we should have a model nation to work on, because size definitely matters when fashioning a gov't. For instance, If I were King for a day, the US federal gov't would be virtually powerless domestically, leaving all but interstate infrastructure to the states themselves. However, a smaller country such as wee merry Scotland could run just fine with a mayor and 3 constables. No offence taken-we are used to the envy of others whose great sorrow in life is not to be scots:D



In ancient times kings were elected by acclamation and not hereditary, basically who was the best warlord. That worked for some societies but not all, city states tended to go for republics.

Are you hunter gatherers, nomadic tribes or city state? The first didn't have taxation, the second elected leaders and the third had to decide who was going to take out the garbage for the health of all and how to pay them.

posted by galbally

Its a good thread, here is a question. Should the goals and organization of a republic be based overwhelmlingly on on the desires of its most powerful (and richest) members, or for the general good of the citizens as a whole? Is the there a role for civil society anymore, which is the self-participation of citizens in their own society and governance for the interest of the common good, without perhaps there being any direct material gain. Should promoting civil society be the first duty of all truly republican governments, not just the material gratification of the most entreprenurial and self motivated class of people? Is commerce and trade the first and only thing that will make a society free and happy, or do we need more that to be a healthy society. Thats the other side of this argument.


That seems to me to be what the US is now discussing when it comes to things like socialised medicine. The basic question is who gets to decide? An elite or does everybody in society gets an equal say?

[Accountable]

K.Snyder;879647 wrote: It most definitely should not be based on the desires of the rich and powerful...This does nothing but transcend into fascism and I find that incredibly dangerous and it influences for too many impractical decisions...



There may be a roll for them but only because of the scraps leftover from those with the real power in all societies...The rich...



Absolutely...But I think that no matter where you begin it will ultimately end up being influenced by the rich and most powerful in any government anyway...I think all that's left is to pray (Or quite simply just hope...) that the virtues of the common man remain good...Optimistic but what else do we have?...



Commerce and trade are always good but without laws to insure equality it most certainly won't make anyone happy...
Got it. Rich bad, poor good. *scribbles notes*

The trick is, how do we ensure equal representation for all, including the poor, without unduly screwing anyone, including the rich?



I still think that any group disproportionately burdened should have disproportionate influence over a decision, so we need to figure out how to avoid disproportionately burdening anyone.

[K.Snyder]

Accountable;879671 wrote: Got it. Rich bad, poor good. *scribbles notes*

The trick is, how do we ensure equal representation for all, including the poor, without unduly screwing anyone, including the rich?
You don't let it get that way to begin with...:wah:...As an incentive you give workers a portion of the share in the business in which they are working for at the expense of their potential income all be it to an extent that does not dictate their livelyhood ultimately eliminating the potential for influence in the form of fascism...Just a thought...Why not?...Seems logical...



Accountable;879671 wrote: I still think that any group disproportionately burdened should have disproportionate influence over a decision, so we need to figure out how to avoid disproportionately burdening anyone. During which time making it mandatory for those share holders to prove their competence within each business by a series of reports that can then be prepared and given a vote...

If all else fails we can just nuke everyone...

[gmc]

Accountable;879671 wrote: Got it. Rich bad, poor good. *scribbles notes*

The trick is, how do we ensure equal representation for all, including the poor, without unduly screwing anyone, including the rich?



I still think that any group disproportionately burdened should have disproportionate influence over a decision, so we need to figure out how to avoid disproportionately burdening anyone.


You all get together, everybody votes, and if enough of those who think like you do can persuade enough of those that don't and would have to effectively give you and those who think they should have more say more say you get your way.

If you don't then you are screwed and progressive taxation will be the norm. Ain't democracy wonderful?

In your hypothetical little country why don't you A) become a warlord and take over, B) form a group and try and get things going that way by taking over the running of the place. become an oligarch. Course if you're not careful and forget to share the goodies around you might find the peasants get fed up and string you up redistributing the wealth in the process.

Freedom and equality are dangerous concepts, if the people get the idea that they are as good as you i.e your equal they tend to get pissed off a lot and take liberties by force if they have to. The real problem is they might not believe wealth is a good measure of a person's worth to society just as once they began to think that birth and being born in to an aristocratic family was not an adequate measure either. Government without the consent of the governed is doomed to failure.

posted by accountable

Got it. Rich bad, poor good. *scribbles notes*


I still think that any group disproportionately burdened should have disproportionate influence over a decision, so we need to figure out how to avoid disproportionately burdening anyone.




It's not that simple though, is it? If wealth is the only way you measure the worth of a man (or woman) you really are up **** creek. It's always going to come back to the same issue. Should any individual or group have more power than another and if that is inevitable how to keep the power in check. I would put it to you that doing away with universal suffrage is not a good approach.

As to the hypothetical country you and I are I think are always going to be on opposing benches or if you prefer the french version I will always be on the left in defence of freedom and democracy against right wing counter revolutionaries that want to bring back the monarchy. Haven't a clue how they sit in the US congress.

[Accountable]

gmc;879687 wrote: You all get together, everybody votes, and if enough of those who think like you do can persuade enough of those that don't and would have to effectively give you and those who think they should have more say more say you get your way.



If you don't then you are screwed and progressive taxation will be the norm. Ain't democracy wonderful?



In your hypothetical little country why don't you A) become a warlord and take over, B) form a group and try and get things going that way by taking over the running of the place. become an oligarch. Course if you're not careful and forget to share the goodies around you might find the peasants get fed up and string you up redistributing the wealth in the process.



Freedom and equality are dangerous concepts, if the people get the idea that they are as good as you i.e your equal they tend to get pissed off a lot and take liberties by force if they have to. The real problem is they might not believe wealth is a good measure of a person's worth to society just as once they began to think that birth and being born in to an aristocratic family was not an adequate measure either. Government without the consent of the governed is doomed to failure.



posted by accountable













It's not that simple though, is it? If wealth is the only way you measure the worth of a man (or woman) you really are up **** creek. It's always going to come back to the same issue. Should any individual or group have more power than another and if that is inevitable how to keep the power in check. I would put it to you that doing away with universal suffrage is not a good approach.



As to the hypothetical country you and I are I think are always going to be on opposing benches or if you prefer the french version I will always be on the left in defence of freedom and democracy against right wing counter revolutionaries that want to bring back the monarchy. Haven't a clue how they sit in the US congress.
Will you get off of it?? Jesus F Christ!! I agree that everyone has equal worth. The problem with current society is that only part of the populace pays for everyone. That's because it's easier to pay with money, which only a few have in real quantity. With our hypothetical country we can try to fix it, but only if you wrench yourself away from your preconceptions like I'm trying to.

[gmc]

Accountable;879717 wrote: Will you get off of it?? Jesus F Christ!! I agree that everyone has equal worth. The problem with current society is that only part of the populace pays for everyone. That's because it's easier to pay with money, which only a few have in real quantity. With our hypothetical country we can try to fix it, but only if you wrench yourself away from your preconceptions like I'm trying to.


In theory the fairest way would be that each pay the same proportion of their income-say 25% for arguments sake- and there is no indirect taxation. But in reality when some people earn very little or nothing at all 25% is a massive chunk of their income which arguably makes it even harder for them to improve their prospects by education etc etc.

So you agree a base level below which no tax is paid and those only those above it pay tax. Either at a flat rate or you use progressive taxation with the tax rate rising as the income rises. In the UK we use progressive taxation to redistribute the wealth. We also have inheritance taxes to prevent the accumulation of too much wealth in to too few hands and originally it was intended to break up large landed estates. we also have capital taxes for the same reason-tax on unearned income.

Taxation on commodities affects trade, indirect taxation, such as sales tax is unfair as it impacts more on those with low incomes. Taxes on imports usually put up prices and distort the market.

Take tax on gas for example-you don't have this but we have massive taxes on our petrol. people on low incomes that need a car to get to work pay a higher proportion of their income on that kind of tax than someone who earns three times the salary. so a hike in price hits them hardest since there is usually little choice in getting to work. Add in things like sales taxes and someone on a low income can actually can end up paying a higher proportion of their income in taxes than the high wage earner. .

posted by accountable

The problem with current society is that only part of the populace pays for everyone. That's because it's easier to pay with money, which only a few have in real quantity. With our hypothetical country we can try to fix it, but only if you wrench yourself away from your preconceptions like I'm trying to.


I don't know the interaction of the US taxation system and how much is direct income taxation and how much indirect but I would be willing to bet the burden on the rich is a great deal less that it is on low and middle incomes relatively speaking. They might pay more in monetary terms but as a proportion of their income is the spread fair?



Basically it boils down to what how to tax and what should you use taxation for? One option is to use it to redistribute wealth and provide fairer access to education etc for all and help improve the overall prosperity of the community as a whole with it's knock on effect for the economy.

Say a manufacturer of shoes pays higher taxes than one of his workers but that is used to improve the education of the population as a whole so they have better prospects and get better jobs then he has a bigger market for his shoes from a more affluent population. What helps the poor helps him in the long run though he might not appreciate it believing that people should help themselves and provide for their families. He may even end up selling shoes as fashion items rather than just things to keep the feet dry. He may find it unfair to pay more in tax but ultimately it helps his business.

Healthcare is part of the debate, does ensuring all have access to good medical care when they need it improve the general well being and wealth of society, As against just improving the wealth of the companies that provide it. Yes or no?

Leave out the morality and apply some cynicism. You go on about cost and who pays and what is fair. You need to be cynical but There are two kinds of cynic-those who see the world as it really is and those who know the price of everything and the value of nothing.

posted by accountable

Will you get off of it?? Jesus F Christ!! I agree that everyone has equal worth.




See we do agree. You're almost fit to live in a modern democracy. :sneaky:

[Bryn Mawr]

Accountable;879717 wrote: Will you get off of it?? Jesus F Christ!! I agree that everyone has equal worth. The problem with current society is that only part of the populace pays for everyone. That's because it's easier to pay with money, which only a few have in real quantity. With our hypothetical country we can try to fix it, but only if you wrench yourself away from your preconceptions like I'm trying to.


But it appears to be you that keeps going back to the idea that those who pay more are worth more :-

Accountable wrote: I still think that any group disproportionately burdened should have disproportionate influence over a decision, so we need to figure out how to avoid disproportionately burdening anyone.


That really does come across as "the only value a person gives to society is the amount of tax (s)he pays".

[Bryn Mawr]

Bryn Mawr;879488 wrote: Let's start with this one - what would you see as equal?

1) Everyone pays an equal amount regardless of income

2) Everyone pays an equal percentage of income

3) Everyone pays an equal percentage of disposable income (income after deducting an allowance for living essentials)

4) No tax on income but every item purchased is taxed equally

5) No tax on income but every non-essential item purchased is taxed equally

6) No tax on income but every item purchased is taxed at a rate related to their frivolity

7) A mixture of the above

8) A possibility not previously mentioned.


Accountable;879585 wrote: Number 4 works great for goods, but what about services? For instance, I need a carpenter. Will we need to determine essential vs nonessential work, then tax accordingly? Crap, I don't even know if such things are taxed at all here.



Also there's a question of revenue. Will taxing nonessential purchases bring in enough? Maybe we should make it be enough, meaning that's it and that's all there is and we can do X Y and Z within budget but no more. That resonates well with me.


OK, let's run with that although I'm not yet convinced that it is equitable when it comes to taxing essentials.

Why differentiate between goods and services? Why not a straight x% tax on all purchases? In selecting option (4) you are electing to tax essentials at the same rate as non-essentials and you carpenery job is an item just as much as a loaf of bread is.

Revenue can always be raised to whatever amount is needed. If that means that the tax on a $1 loaf of bread is $5 then so be it.

Whilst we're talking about budget, shall we agree that the government must always balance the budget (within tolerance)? A reserve for rainy days maybe but never to run a deficit by borrowing from other countries to live beyond our means.

[Accountable]

Bryn Mawr;880136 wrote: But it appears to be you that keeps going back to the idea that those who pay more are worth more :-Everyone is of equal worth. That being said and that being true, why are they taxed unequally? The result is that those who have less money are de facto worth more, which is just as morally wrong and should raise your hackles as much. This is our chance to find another way besides just collecting money from those that have more of it. Let's get out of the box!



Bryn Mawr wrote: That really does come across as "the only value a person gives to society is the amount of tax (s)he pays".
And that comes across as "the only value an affluent person gives to society is the amount of tax (s)he pays."

You've said everyone should enjoy equal benefits. Benefits must be paid for. I want equality across the board, on both the plus and minus sides.



Have you ever been poor and had an opportunity to contribute to something you're receiving? Serving in a lunchline before you yourself eat? Helping hand out Christmas presents from generous strangers before opening your own? How about being in an accident and passing on medical help so that another might get it first? I have, and it's very empowering. :-6 This kind of empowerment can make a citzen feel like part of a system rather than simply a recipient. It could be just the catalyst needed to inspire someone to pull themselves up a little.



You suggested earlier that there are other ways for people to earn - sorry, assist in paying for - benefits. Maybe we could flesh out that idea a bit.



While you're picking my suggestions apart how about one or two of your own.

[Accountable]

Bryn Mawr;880223 wrote: OK, let's run with that although I'm not yet convinced that it is equitable when it comes to taxing essentials.Sorry, I meant that we may need to consider taxing something else besides purchases, such as investment income or property, not essentials.



Bryn Mawr wrote: Revenue can always be raised to whatever amount is needed. If that means that the tax on a $1 loaf of bread is $5 then so be it.I see what you mean, but let's tax truffles, not bread.



Bryn Mawr wrote: Whilst we're talking about budget, shall we agree that the government must always balance the budget (within tolerance)? A reserve for rainy days maybe but never to run a deficit by borrowing from other countries to live beyond our means.I think I'd agree to even tighter controls, such as any deficit spending must be for emergencies and approved by a hell of a lot more than just the president or prime minister.

[Bryn Mawr]

Accountable;880238 wrote: Sorry, I meant that we may need to consider taxing something else besides purchases, such as investment income or property, not essentials.


Taxing property after you've bought it would be double taxation - you've been taxed on the purchase of the property and now you want to tax the possession of it.

Accountable;880238 wrote: I see what you mean, but let's tax truffles, not bread.


Ah - that's option (5) rather than option (4).

The main problem with a straight purchase tax is its cumulative nature. The brickmaker pays tax on the clay from the pit. The builder's merchant pays tax on the bricks, the builder pays tax on those same bricks and the housebuyer pays tax on the bricks in the form of a house.



Accountable;880238 wrote: I think I'd agree to even tighter controls, such as any deficit spending must be for emergencies and approved by a hell of a lot more than just the president or prime minister.


I would totally agree with that.

[Accountable]

Personally, I'd go for a voluntary contribution scheme, with suggested amounts and big banner thank you's published for really big, pompous, egotistical contributors, and peer pressure for the other end of the scale. But that makes it impossible to plan for or budget. Might be worth a try though.

[Bryn Mawr]

Accountable;880253 wrote: Personally, I'd go for a voluntary contribution scheme, with suggested amounts and big banner thank you's published for really big, pompous, egotistical contributors, and peer pressure for the other end of the scale. But that makes it impossible to plan for or budget. Might be worth a try though.


Given a large population, statistics would allow you to budget fairly accurately but I cannot imagine it working worth a damn.

[Galbally]

You know, its interesting thinking about this just now. I don't think it has much to do with how rich you are, (coming from a poor background, I know that being poor sucks, the poor are not necessarily the "salt of the earth" and I don' have any middle class guilt issues about money). What I think should be the measure of someone's social worth is their participation within society, what they give back to the society they are part of. Obviously that starts with being a responsible human being, teaching your children, being interested in the people around you, helping in ways equal to your ability to make the place you live a better place to be.

Obviously the richer you are the greater the gains are that you have enjoyed whether by inheritance or graft, and therefore you by extension can, and should be prepared to provide a larger (absolute) proportion of your wealth than a poor person back to the society that made you. But its equally true that being poor does not excuse you from social responsibility, it just limits your economic ability to contribute, but there are lots of other ways citizens can contribute to the state and their society, mostly by being as honest and decent as they can.

But the health of a society should be judged on the fact that its not so much that you have to share in the burden, but that you want to, that you feel the sense of responsibility and participation within a society, that you actually want to (voluntarily) give something back, of course human nature being what it is, there will always be people who have to be coerced into paying back. But for a society to be truly healthy, people should want to participate in it by choice, whether forced to or not. This is why I am so against the philosophy of making enough money to build gates and walls around yourself, and to hell with the peasants who can't afford it, I don't think that any true Republic based on that type of Darwinian economic selection will be able to survive past a certain tipping point of social exclusion.

Where I think we are lacking in modern society is in the idea of "civil" society, that rather quaint but powerful way that people used to self-organize in simpler (but perhaps wiser) times. In Europe nowadays we expect Government to take on the role of parent, policeman, teacher, guardian, social worker, family, and in doing so our government's seem to have destroyed the more civic minded idea that there are an awful lot of things that a responsible population can do by itself to regulate life in a commonsense way; while in America people think that the market and commercial interests will fulfill the duties that should be the province of the community itself, and neither way works very well. Hence you have had social deprevation in Britain based on a state imposed welfare culture of dependency, and in the States, a large segment of society ravaged by the unclipped claws of rapacious capital with nothing to glue communities back together.

[K.Snyder]

Galbally;880262 wrote: You know, its interesting thinking about this just now. I don't think it has much to do with how rich you are, (coming from a poor background, I know that being poor sucks, the poor are not necessarily the "salt of the earth" and I don' have any middle class guilt issues about money). What I think should be the measure of someone's social worth is their participation within society, what they give back to the society they are part of. Obviously that starts with being a responsible human being, teaching your children, being interested in the people around you, helping in ways equal to your ability to make the place you live a better place to be.




But does intellect dictate ones optimism,..and further does it dictate ones own moral obligation?...

[gmc]

Ultimately the only objective measure of a person's worth is how many turn up at the funeral that are there because they will genuinely miss the person.

posted by galbally

Where I think we are lacking in modern society is in the idea of "civil" society, that rather quaint but powerful way that people used to self-organize in simpler (but perhaps wiser) times. In Europe nowadays we expect Government to take on the role of parent, policeman, teacher, guardian, social worker, family, and in doing so our government's seem to have destroyed the more civic minded idea that there are an awful lot of things that a responsible population can do by itself to regulate life in a commonsense way; while in America people think that the market and commercial interests will fulfill the duties that should be the province of the community itself, and neither way works very well. Hence you have had social deprevation in Britain based on a state imposed welfare culture of dependency, and in the States, a large segment of society ravaged by the unclipped claws of rapacious capital with nothing to glue communities back together.


I don't think it's lacking but it's an ongoing debate rather than a definitive conclusion. There will always be those who want change for whatever reason and sometimes that change will be for the better or will be destructive but there will always be change. The decline of society and the social fabric etc etc is a lament heard in every generation. Now we have ageing hippies, punks and new romantics shaking their head at the antics of the current generation. Civil society has moved on carried by the currents of change the concept set in motion in the first place. The civil society came about because people were ready to question the way things were and make changes for the better for society as a whole. it's still there just changed a bit.

In Europe nowadays we expect Government to take on the role of parent, policeman, teacher, guardian, social worker, family, and in doing so our government's seem to have destroyed the more civic minded idea that there are an awful lot of things that a responsible population can do by itself to regulate life in a commonsense way;


In don't think such sweeping generalisations stand up to much scrutiny.

Different countries have different approaches so do different communities. The demand for change and greater say about what happens in their communities, better policing the curbing of teenage crime, better measures against knife crime etc etc isn't coming from above. What governments do in europe is because they are being elected to do these things. A government might get away with ignoring public sentiment for a while but eventually they get the boot. Look what happened in France and holland when they had the referendum on the EU treaty. hardly a case of govt doing what it wants. I can't see the irish government ignoring what the irish people want either.

I just don't see the signs that people are giving on regulating their own lives in a common-sense way up and expecting government to do everything for them. Rather they expect government to be actively involved and play a part in helping them and vote accordingly and are ready to demand action if they deem it necessary. A demand that government can't ignore for long.

posted by galbally

This is why I am so against the philosophy of making enough money to build gates and walls around yourself, and to hell with the peasants who can't afford it, I don't think that any true Republic based on that type of Darwinian economic selection will be able to survive past a certain tipping point of social exclusion.


It will survive but the ones in the gated communities probably won't survive the transition unless they adapt. Ours did-although we're not a republic but that was because the would be rulers took the hint and learned to adapt and military dictatorships don't last. Hopefully in america there won't be the same bloodshed.

I think the states have a problem as they seem to have got away from the idea that the people have a right to demand things from the government they elect and tell it what to do. A kind of perverted government of the people by the people but don't expect anything or kid yourself that an election means you should have any say in what happens next. leave it to the experts. Hence you get daft arguments that those who pay most taxes should have more say in how it is spent. It might have been credible in the 1640's or even 1776 but even then many were saying cobblers to that idea.

Not that we don't have problems as well of course.

I asked earlier and nobody answered. have any of you read the wealth of nations? These are old arguments, in one way or another you are regurgitating the very same issues that was about-how to tax and what to do with it for the betterment of the economy and society. Supposedly the foundation of modern capitalist society though most capitalists ignore the bits that come across as socialist and well free trade has problems as well not least that large chunks of the US economy can't hold it's own against foreign competition and tries to hide from it and special interest groups win the argument about what to do and convince everybody they have the right of it and no one should question the way things are done especially not to make things better. I think if he had been around now he would have refused to meet Alan Greenspan when he made his pilgrimage to Kirkcaldy with gordon brown.

[Accountable]

I went back a bit and found a post by gmc that I hadn't responded to, but he & I are just too far separated politically. We need a middle guy.

gmc, you ruin my image of a proud Scot standing against injustice. Your socialist views seem to me to be rolling on your back and screaming for the gov't to come change your nappy. I'm certain you see yourself in quite an opposite light. I just don't understand how you can proudly demand that someone else provide basic needs you're perfectly capable of taking care of yourself.







I'm hoping this just got lost in the mix. I'd really like a response.



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



Accountable;880234 wrote:

[quote=Bryn]But it appears to be you that keeps going back to the idea that those who pay more are worth more :-

Everyone is of equal worth. That being said and that being true, why are they taxed unequally? The result is that those who have less money are de facto worth more, which is just as morally wrong and should raise your hackles as much. This is our chance to find another way besides just collecting money from those that have more of it. Let's get out of the box!



Bryn wrote: That really does come across as "the only value a person gives to society is the amount of tax (s)he pays".

And that comes across as "the only value an affluent person gives to society is the amount of tax (s)he pays."

You've said everyone should enjoy equal benefits. Benefits must be paid for. I want equality across the board, on both the plus and minus sides.



Have you ever been poor and had an opportunity to contribute to something you're receiving? Serving in a lunchline before you yourself eat? Helping hand out Christmas presents from generous strangers before opening your own? How about being in an accident and passing on medical help so that another might get it first? I have, and it's very empowering. :-6 This kind of empowerment can make a citzen feel like part of a system rather than simply a recipient. It could be just the catalyst needed to inspire someone to pull themselves up a little.



You suggested earlier that there are other ways for people to earn - sorry, assist in paying for - benefits. Maybe we could flesh out that idea a bit.



While you're picking my suggestions apart how about one or two of your own.

[gmc]

posted by accountable

I went back a bit and found a post by gmc that I hadn't responded to, but he & I are just too far separated politically. We need a middle guy.

gmc, you ruin my image of a proud Scot standing against injustice. Your socialist views seem to me to be rolling on your back and screaming for the gov't to come change your nappy. I'm certain you see yourself in quite an opposite light. I just don't understand how you can proudly demand that someone else provide basic needs you're perfectly capable of taking care of yourself.


Like most of my countrymen I have what would seem to you to be socialist views on some things like socialised medicine, free education govt intervention to help poorer sectors of society. liberal when it comes to the economy but bear in mind that doesn't mean laissez faire economics, the activities of companies needs to be controlled especially big corporations so they don't abuse their position-that's not a socialist approach that's a good capitalist approach. Microsoft is a good example of how a company can abuse a monopoly position to try and stifle competition. Any good capitalist would object to microsoft getting away with it.



Your socialist views seem to me to be rolling on your back and screaming for the gov't to come change your nappy.


You have an odd way of looking at things. Your odd views seem to me to be accepting that you have no right to tell your government what you expect of it or ask that it provide even the most basic services.

Socialised medicine is a good example of how the US and EU differ. We think healthcare is a basic service govt should provide free at the point of use but paid for through taxes. As to standing against injustice-why do you think we have the NHS if it wasn't because the people had had enough of social injustice when it came to healthcare?

US citizens seem to believe they have no right to expect it and that it's somehow unamerican to exert your political freedom to demand things change. Seems like you are the most free people so long as you don't use that freedom to question the status quo or criticise. Seems to me you've been conned, all the trappings of freedom but none of the reality with armed police and a massive military and private armies ready to flatten anyone speaking out and a people brainwashed in to a panglossian acceptance of it all.

Sweeping generalisation and a wrong one I hope

but he & I are just too far separated politically.


perhaps but it's more fun arguing with people you disagree with even if they are hopelessly wrong:D

[Accountable]

gmc;880566 wrote: Microsoft is a good example of how a company can abuse a monopoly position to try and stifle competition. Any good capitalist would object to microsoft getting away with it.Yet Microsoft came up in direct competition with another monopoly: IBM. So they are also a good example that even a monopoly can be toppled.

gmc wrote: You have an odd way of looking at things. Your odd views seem to me to be accepting that you have no right to tell your government what you expect of it or ask that it provide even the most basic services.Yes, I've noticed that you view anyone that doesn't want to be coddled by their gov't in that way. I have the right to tell my government what I expect of it, which is truckloads less than what you expect of yours. I do ask my government to provide basic services, but my idea of basic is far less elaborate than yours. Also, because the US is larger and has state governments, I believe many services you expect of your national government would work better at our state or local levels.



gmc wrote: US citizens seem to believe they have no right to expect it and that it's somehow unamerican to exert your political freedom to demand things change.It's unAmerican to be overly dependent on society, that's all. All the rest are phantoms from your imagination.

[gmc]

posted by accountable

Yes, I've noticed that you view anyone that doesn't want to be coddled by their gov't in that way. I have the right to tell my government what I expect of it, which is truckloads less than what you expect of yours. I do ask my government to provide basic services, but my idea of basic is far less elaborate than yours.Also, because the US is larger and has state governments, I believe many services you expect of your national government would work better at our state or local levels.


Not that so much but I have an impression that many in the US seem to think the question shouldn't even be raised. Bear in mind also that the NHS may be funded nationally but it's controlled locally although there is a tendency, especially with the current lot to try and control more from the centre.

You seem to have an exaggerated idea of what people get in this country. It's hardly being coddled-sure if you're ill you get free treatment and that's one worry you don't have but if you can't go back to work due to long term illness and haven't taken out proper insurance on your mortgage you end up losing your house and being homeless (A surprising number of people here think it will be paid for them). then OK other benefits kick in when you're destitute and you won't starve but it's hardly the life of riley. it just keeps the poverty from being abject.

Same with unemployment, if you can't get a job and have a mortgage no one pays your mortgage for you, even the insurance you get only covers you for a year. after that you're stuffed and have to sell or get a job if you can. I have every sympathy for the unemployed but I would not be happy about benefits covering things like mortgage payments beyond a few months at most.

It's funny how even the most rabid right winger feels hard done by when they find they can't keep their house in the suburbs and the lifestyle they were used to if they lose their job through downsizing or through ill health cos they expect the welfare state to kick in. Everybody else thinks tough **** what did you expect. You'll find the greatest hostility to those who abuse the system amongst their neighbours

It's unAmerican to be overly dependent on society, that's all. All the rest are phantoms from your imagination.#

It's un every other country as well, your work ethic was imported along with the language, the people and much of your culture:sneaky: we've taken a different approach to similar problems. both approaches are coloured by our different histories.

Why do you think socialised medicine is such a bad thing?