SNACR Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 That makes for very interesting viewing - Kenneth obviously didn't get the BBC memo that gay men should be left-liberal. Throws into sharp-relief the vacuity of modern chat shows - which are just essentially a TV shopping channel for celebrities hawking films and books. ______________ My problem with socialists is they talk a good game about a caring, sharing and co-operative society where everyone works together for the common good. However, I suspect in such a society, I would be out in a field breaking my back digging up turnips whilst they were indoors somewhere still talking a good game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomandlu Posted February 25, 2012 Author Share Posted February 25, 2012 Yeah, I agree, but what? is there any system of democracy that works anywhere, there must be some that are more successful and fairer than others. That would be somewhere to start, but I don't think it's a lack of ideas more a lack of will to change the status quo which is the problem, everything is just fine as it is for those who have the 'power' to decide to change these things. Maybe it's about time the MP's are reminded WHO THE F*CK THEY WORK FOR!! Interesting times ahead as we find out I suppose, but will it be a slow motion evolution so we hardly notice or a revolution / anarchy shit storm? The problem with most modern democracies is that the left/right axis seems to be the only thing we are allowed to vote on. Perhaps it's party-based democracy that is the real barrier to a meaningful political system. I'd be very interested to see a parliament made up of independents, with a parliament-elected cabinet who have a constitutional mandate to enact the expressed will of parliament. It seems a no-brainer that the current system will in the end promote statists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Traktion Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 Yeah, I agree, but what? is there any system of democracy that works anywhere, there must be some that are more successful and fairer than others. That would be somewhere to start, but I don't think it's a lack of ideas more a lack of will to change the status quo which is the problem, everything is just fine as it is for those who have the 'power' to decide to change these things. Maybe it's about time the MP's are reminded WHO THE F*CK THEY WORK FOR!! Interesting times ahead as we find out I suppose, but will it be a slow motion evolution so we hardly notice or a revolution / anarchy shit storm? IMO, some sort of distributed, state free, mutualism/anarchism is probably a good destination. For me, it is all about choice. Being threatened to do anything, just isn't civilised or fair. It's just bullying. If people want to group together, share things etc, that's great. If others would rather have their independence, that is just dandy too. We need a system which can allow this, rather than forcing a 'one size fits all' solution upon people (especially when the hock the productivity of future generations into the mix). Key to this, is allowing people to opt out of state governance, IMO. Ofc, there are complexities in de-coupling, but nothing impossible to solve. TBH, it's a similar issue to what Scotland is going through, with its plans to regain sovereignty - it's just at the personal level instead. Parents could be asked if they wanted their kids to be contracted to the state at birth, with them being asked the question personally at 18 (or some such). They could then negotiate terms for the next number of years, with various terms for breach of contract. You then have a system with an opt-in/opt-out mechanism. Why is it important? Without choice, we are slaves to the state. Being able to influence (if you can call an election every 4 years 'influence') what your slave owners do periodically, is not sufficient. Even if it was, it is mob rule, with the minority be ordered about. With an opt-out, you can choose to leave the whole thing and negotiate new contracts, with new service providers. These would include health care, unemployment insurance, security services, arbitration services and so forth. Alternatively, you could decide a pay-go model and just pick and choose what you wanted and when. People seem to have got in their heads that some things the state must do, when it isn't the case in reality. While many are happy to live in blissful ignorance, for those who disagree, they spend a life time being unhappy with the situation. Finally, if there is one thing which will improve how the state goes about its business is competition. Being able to opt-out would stop the politicians making decisions which may lead people to stop using their services. This would likely improve the state for those happy to use it too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
camem' Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 I've always been happy to label myself as a socialist, but I'm never entirely sure how accurate the label is. What you need, methinks, is this two axis test on where you stand politically. Make sure to check out the historical world leaders and us presidential candidates they've plotted too. Political Compass Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winkie Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 What you need, methinks, is this two axis test on where you stand politically. Make sure to check out the historical world leaders and us presidential candidates they've plotted too. Political Compass Found this...they have all come out in the 'green' area.....calling 'The New Democratic Party'...not read the comments but strange the results were all similar. http://forums.canadiancontent.net/canadian-politics/94403-political-compass.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattW Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 No, you're a hopeless idealist. I'm in that category too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LJAR Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 To put it another way, my problem with free-market capitalism is that it's not free-market capitalism. very true - the only politician actually talking about real free markets in the USA is Ron Paul. In the UK I think its Douglas Carswell who you might like to look up. Both the conservatives and Labour are very similar in the substance of what they do, they talk about different things, but ultimately they pass very similar laws. Just bear in mind that when we actually did have free markets - they were very bad for entrenched wealth and very good for ordinary people - look at the decreasing inequality over the latter half of the 19th and start of the 20th century. Unfortunately we now have horrible corporatist socialism, a welfare trap and subsidies and tariffs to protect entrenched wealth. with the result that we are headed back to the problems of the 18th century. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpewLabour Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 Would Thatcher have applied this to the bailing out the bankers when they too ran out of other people's money? It may have escaped your notice, but it was a Labour government that bailed out the banks. It was a Labour government that installed Stephen Hester as RBS chairman and negotiated his contract. Fast forward to 2012 and they moan like stink when he was due to get £1m (under the contract that they negotiated). When BCCI and Barings failed (under a Conservative government), they didn't get a bean. Yet it's the Tories that are painted as "the banker's friends"..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PopGun Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 Seems socially liberal, and economically liberal too. As a contrast to many state socialists who are socially liberal but economically controlling. Or the American style libertarians who are economically liberal but socially controlling. Now I'm confused.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PopGun Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 It may have escaped your notice, but it was a Labour government that bailed out the banks. It was a Labour government that installed Stephen Hester as RBS chairman and negotiated his contract. Fast forward to 2012 and they moan like stink when he was due to get £1m (under the contract that they negotiated). When BCCI and Barings failed (under a Conservative government), they didn't get a bean. Yet it's the Tories that are painted as "the banker's friends"..... I'm sure Cameron and Osbourne would have allowed the banks to fail... I'm sure Cameron and Osbourne would have allowed the banks to fail... I'm sure Cameron and Osbourne would have allowed the banks to fail... I'm sure Cameron and Osbourne would have allowed the banks to fail... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpewLabour Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 I'm sure Cameron and Osbourne would have allowed the banks to fail... I'm sure Cameron and Osbourne would have allowed the banks to fail... I'm sure Cameron and Osbourne would have allowed the banks to fail... I'm sure Cameron and Osbourne would have allowed the banks to fail... You have no idea what they would have done and as they weren't in power it's fairly irrelevant. The fact is Labour were in power and it was Labour that bailed out the banks, not the Conservatives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PopGun Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 You have no idea what they would have done and as they weren't in power it's fairly irrelevant. The fact is Labour were in power and it was Labour that bailed out the banks, not the Conservatives. I don't remember them trying to block or lobby against it. In the rush to privatise everything, the banks seem to be at the end of the que, for some bizzare reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.