nmarks

Occupy London Evicted But Can Take Heart

90 posts in this topic

Rubbish.

The vast majority of the wealthy have become wealthy via state sanctioned theft.

average_income1.gif

Do you think this happened by accident?

:lol::lol::lol:

what is that meant to be showing anyone with income of 40K is in the top 1% and anyone with an income of 20K is in the top 10%? its an awful graph

Edited by Tamara De Lempicka

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The often overlooked sad part of the OccupyLondon movement was that it was supposed to take place in the Square Mile or whatever, where it damn well should have been, but they were moved on by the law as that was private land or whatever so they ended up camping out in the soft option of St Paul's. That's the REAL scandal!

That's the way way I read it. Happy to be proved wrong.

Edit. See that this aspect has already been discussed. Didnt read all thread.

Edited by bomberbrown

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what is that meant to be showing anyone with income of 40K is in the top 1% and anyone with an income of 20K is in the top 10%? its an awful graph

No what it shows is how the real inflation adjusted incomes of the top 1%, top 10%, bottom 50%, and bottom 10% have changed over time.

Ergo the top 1% has seen its income increase by over 100% while for most of the rest it has increased little or has stagnated.

The state has been used to continually and gradually change the rules of the game for the benefit of the elites - state sanctioned theft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No what it shows is how the real inflation adjusted incomes of the top 1%, top 10%, bottom 50%, and bottom 10% have changed over time.

Ergo the top 1% has seen its income increase by over 100% while for most of the rest it has increased little or has stagnated.

The state has been used to continually and gradually change the rules of the game for the benefit of the elites - state sanctioned theft.

the colour key also clearly shows the top 1% at 40K and the top 10% at 20K, its chuff, it shouldnt be colour filled

Given the state only exists via effective theft i wouldnt call state sanctioned theft and redistribution much of a revelation really, redistribution is, well redistribution, whether we like that redistribution or not so its pretty much doing its job

Edited by Tamara De Lempicka

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How would people end up ordered to the Somme, without the gun of the state wedged into their ribs?

I fail to see how some royalty/politicians with egos falling out, then sending millions to their deaths, has anything to do with a state free society.

As for the cobblers about people not behaving as people, give yourself a shake. People can be just as evil as they are now and a state still isn't required. Removing the monopoly on violence, doesn't mean that no one can protect themselves or employ others to do it on their behalf (hint: the army and the police are paid a wage to do just that already).

So the Army and the Police force would still exist but as a kind of privateer force for hire. The Army and the Police forces that are arms of the state? Great idea. Nothing could possibly go wrong with that.

Leaving The First War aside for a moment, you said people can be just as evil as they are now and a state isn't required. I never said it was required, what I said is that the modern state is the least worst way of organizing humans. Least worst. That's an important point you seem to be missing.

Your solution is a Victorian dream that fails every time it comes into contact with reality. Yeah you can get rid of the state. But all that will happen is that new forms of coercion and thuggery emerge, or not so new because we know what they look like.

The West has had thirty years of ever loosening regulation and the end result was predicted. It's blown itself up because its built on a fallacy of rational individualism that is an illusion.

The idea there would be anything other an eruption of competing power interests doing each other down by any means they could is a delusion. The nineteenth century is considered something of a golden age of private enterprise and laissez-faire capitalism. It was an experiment but the end result as the experiment failed was the rise of extreme forms of nationalism. Which is what we are witnessing as the ideas of Friedman and the Chicago school disintegrate under the pressure of the real world.

I know all the tripe about "We don't have free markets" blah blah blah. We have had a catastrophic amount of deregulation and unleashing of uninhibited market forces and we are shafted. Like all idealists libertarians seem to think there is a good way of doing government. There isn't. There is no ideal of self regulating markets - it's pure dogma.

The choice of government is simple. You don't judge the state by the power it has but by the power it denies to others. Frankly keeping the power of coercion in the hands of the state and out of the control of mini fiefdoms, which libertarians seem to love, is the least worst of all the options.

Your answer is a giant socio-political experiment that already has a crap track record. No ta.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Barclays ordered to pay £500 million avoided tax

So the Rat ( sincere apologies to Rodents ) Diamond was in line for a £10 million bonus. :angry: Unless Global Governments work in unison these Rats in the Banking System will continue to take the p**s. :rolleyes:

Edited by CTT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the dog ( sincere apologies to our canine friends ) Diamond was in line for a £10 million bonus. :angry: Unless Global Governments work in unison these dogs in the Banking System will continue to take the p**s. :rolleyes:

err they are working in unison, thats fundamentally why the banks are able to continue taking the Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the Army and the Police force would still exist but as a kind of privateer force for hire. The Army and the Police forces that are arms of the state? Great idea. Nothing could possibly go wrong with that.

Why would it?

I may want some people to keep me safe. Some people may want to do a job of keeping me safe. It's a mutually beneficial agreement.

Leaving The First War aside for a moment, you said people can be just as evil as they are now and a state isn't required. I never said it was required, what I said is that the modern state is the least worst way of organizing humans. Least worst. That's an important point you seem to be missing.

States are the biggest war mongers out there! Who else could plunder the resources of the unborn and then waste them on machines of war?

The state is not the least worst. You're justifying the state's use of theft and violence, because there is a chance of others committing theft and violence. It was imposed on people through war and no amount of tinkering with it will make it civilised.

I also know for a fact that 70% of my money is stolen and if I refuse to give it up, I will get locked up in a cage. If I refuse to go peacefully, I'll be shot. This is not what I call a least worst option... it's what I would call a poor option.

Your solution is a Victorian dream that fails every time it comes into contact with reality. Yeah you can get rid of the state. But all that will happen is that new forms of coercion and thuggery emerge, or not so new because we know what they look like.

All I want is an opt out. The option to say 'no thanks' to the services of the state, in exchange for not being forced to pay taxes. Is that so much to ask?

Either you think this is reasonable or you want the thugs to come around to my house, violate me, then put me in a cage.

The West has had thirty years of ever loosening regulation and the end result was predicted. It's blown itself up because its built on a fallacy of rational individualism that is an illusion.

The idea there would be anything other an eruption of competing power interests doing each other down by any means they could is a delusion. The nineteenth century is considered something of a golden age of private enterprise and laissez-faire capitalism. It was an experiment but the end result as the experiment failed was the rise of extreme forms of nationalism. Which is what we are witnessing as the ideas of Friedman and the Chicago school disintegrate under the pressure of the real world.

That's a startlingly poor analysis of what happened.

If you give the financial sector free reign to do as it pleases, while giving it limited liability of the consequences, of course you will get what occurred. Deregulation has to go hand in hand with risk exposure or it just doesn't work - you end up privatising the gains and socialising the losses, which is exactly what has happened.

Nationalism is also an invention of the nation state. The clue is in the title.

I know all the tripe about "We don't have free markets" blah blah blah. We have had a catastrophic amount of deregulation and unleashing of uninhibited market forces and we are shafted. Like all idealists libertarians seem to think there is a good way of doing government. There isn't. There is no ideal of self regulating markets - it's pure dogma.

Free markets are where trade takes place without force. I assume you prefer trades with added threats of violence, then?

The state has turned a blind eye to financial fraud on an epic scale for decades. Without state support, badly run banks would have collapsed long ago. The state gave deposit guarantees, limited liability, implicit bailout guarantees, legal indemnity to the frauds they were committing, yet some how this isn't the state's fault? Give me a break!

Up until banks were given limited liability by the state, the owners were on the hook for losses. They were largely prudent, leverage was low and bank failures were a hard lesson learnt by those exposed to them. Limited liability, on the other hand, gives little incentive to worry about the downside - they can just collapse the company and keep the previously paid profits.

The choice of government is simple. You don't judge the state by the power it has but by the power it denies to others. Frankly keeping the power of coercion in the hands of the state and out of the control of mini fiefdoms, which libertarians seem to love, is the least worst of all the options.

Oh, I judge it by the power it denies others, all right. It strips me of my power to govern my own actions. It strips me of my power to freely associate and form mutual agreements. It strips me of my power to resist being stolen from, by the biggest group of gangsters in the land.

If the state is so wonderful, why not give people the choice to opt out? Surely, anyone who does, will come back begging for the state's services.

Your answer is a giant socio-political experiment that already has a crap track record. No ta.

Evidence?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I may want some people to keep me safe. Some people may want to do a job of keeping me safe. It's a mutually beneficial agreement.

Aren't Free Markets concerned solely with personally beneficial agreements? How do you ensure the common interest is protected?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel sympathy for the occupy movement. It started well and started to gain traction. However, as soon as the big guns got a whiff of the potential for real change the media and establishment came down like a ton of bricks, labeling them wasters, smelly hippies and anti capitalists (which they were not initially). Unfortunately there was an element of truth because the movement was hijacked by the usual anarchist mob who show up at every protest event and they were indeed the only ones with the will power and determination to see it through. They ultimately became the last men standing.

IMO Occupy was before its time. The idea will return because it is inevitable. The growing inequalities and unfairness in the system that is at the core of today's problems is not going away and is fact getting worse. The government is doing nothing to resolve these issues.

It is a shame to see posters and commentators who once had favorable things to say about the protests ( which at heart was about a small minority dictating and controlling the lives of the majority) ultimately turn against it. The 1% have one agenda to further enrich themselves whilst the remainder became debt slaves and remain doomed to forever fight for a minor stake in society. The cause was honorable but ultimately lacked coherency. As with Ron Paul in the US, they also faced an impossible battle against vested interests and the establishment.

It will return in another guise because it must.

For the record, here's the court case - sets out the evidence on what was happening at the site:

http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/media/judgments/2012/cityoflondon-v-samede

I agree the movement will return, probably as the new engine of inequality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aren't Free Markets concerned solely with personally beneficial agreements? How do you ensure the common interest is protected?

In the example of security, it is a personal issue, so I assume you mean in the broader sense?

Insurance is a good way of protecting yourself against externalities. For example, if you want to pay small premiums on your car insurance, it is your interest to not cause accidents. In turn, this may mean the insurance companies, asking people to stick to suggested speeds, not drink and drive, use mobile phones etc. Therefore, the common interest for people not to drive dangerously, is also the individual's interest to keep their premiums low.

There are many other examples, but where damages have been done, there is a case for compensation to be due.

Additionally, in a free market for justice, there is a human element. The likes of common law were built from the bottom up through judgements and precedence, rather than from the top down via the legislative process. Bottom up law is a free market approach and this inevitably means your actions will be judged by arbitrators and your peers.

Furthermore, with free market justice, any obligation to comply is optional. While not complying to good judgements will see offenders being ostracised*, not complying to bad judgements may lead to little in the way of consequences. This give and take over contracts and agreements would lead to a safety valve, which is missing in our force backed legal system.

If someone decided to ring fence some land and then charge rent for people to use it, this contract may well be ignored by the greater population. In turn, this would lead to arbitrators peddling such decisions to lose respect and influence. Essentially, bad 'law' would be ignored, so if something wasn't in the common interest, it would be rejected.

[* Would you employ a convict? Would you form contracts with people who breaks them? Would you want to associate yourself with people who violate others etc?]

edit: fixed wording

Edited by Traktion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW, to add - some people may wonder how contracts would form without state backed law guaranteeing payment. People who run businesses will know that much comes down to trust between regularly trading parties. However, this isn't the only way.

Without contracts enforced by the state, other means of reducing the impact of broken contracts would likely blossom. Third parties which insured contracts may become common place. We know these work, as it is what factoring companies do already - they guarantee the payment to the supplier, then negotiate payment terms with the customer. If the latter doesn't pay, the former still is and it is the job of the factoring company to resolve the problem.

If contracts became more fluid, terms of payment and different factoring/insurance options would become far more important. If you had a reputation for breaking contracts, it would be very hard to get 'contract insurance' (or whatever it would be called), making it difficult for you to trade. Therefore, it is mutually beneficial for contracts not to be broken.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Insurance is a good way of protecting yourself against externalities. For example, if you want to pay small premiums on your car insurance, it is your interest to not cause accidents. In turn, this may mean the insurance companies, asking people to stick to suggested speeds, not drink and drive, use mobile phones etc. Therefore, the common interest for people not to drive dangerously, is also the individual's interest to keep their premiums low.

There are many other examples, but where damages are due, there is a case for compensation.

Compensation requires assets of some nature. What is my motivation for allowing others to risk harming me when they cannot "compensate" me for it (poor choice of word I know).

Additionally, in a free market for justice, there is a human element. The likes of common law were built from the bottom up through judgements and precedence, rather than from the top down via the legislative process. Bottom up law is a free market approach and this inevitably means your actions will be judged by arbitrators and your peers.

Justice is then determined by your immediate social group? What mechanism resolves conflicts between groups?

Furthermore, with free market justice, any obligation to comply is optional. While not complying to good judgements will see offenders being ostracised*, not complying to bad judgements may lead to little in the way of consequences. This give and take over contracts and agreements would lead to a safety valve, which is missing in our force backed legal system.

Our legal system already allows varying sentences (and optional prosecution). I'm not sure the idea of optional justice is going to be practical.

If someone decided to ring fence some land and then charge rent for people to use it, this contract may well be ignored by the greater population. In turn, this would lead to arbitrators peddling such decisions to lose respect and influence. Essentially, bad 'law' would be ignored, so if something wasn't in the common interest, it would be rejected.

You might argue the same is true for a state. What is the difference? Presumably at one point we had a free market, then someone ringfenced some land and charged people rent for it. If your system is stable then why wasn't the contract ignored and how do we have a state today?

Would you want to associate yourself with people who violate others etc?

With an optional justice system I'm not sure how I could dis-associate myself from them.

Out of curiosity, do you consider violence to be immoral or amoral?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Compensation requires assets of some nature. What is my motivation for allowing others to risk harming me when they cannot "compensate" me for it (poor choice of word I know).

If they couldn't afford compensation, they would likely be ostracised, until such a time as they could afford it (or they were forgiven by the victim or family of the victim).

Justice is then determined by your immediate social group? What mechanism resolves conflicts between groups?

I would liken it to a chain of individual association, rather than many groups. Put another way, every person has overlapping groups, not always contiguous geographically either.

Resolution of conflict could be from free market arbiters, some of whom were regional, others who were national (depending on experience and reputation, I would imagine). They would ultimately be judging two individuals, regardless of their location or grouping, possibly with the support of a jury.

Our legal system already allows varying sentences (and optional prosecution). I'm not sure the idea of optional justice is going to be practical.

It depends how you define optional. Being rejected by society, would leave you very exposed, with no access to arbitration. An outlaw having little in the way of legal rights, would be vulnerable to attacks by the victim too, if the crime was terrible enough.

Voluntary prisons would likely be a good option for people in such positions, where they could work off their debts to their victims, in an insured/secure environment.

You might argue the same is true for a state. What is the difference? Presumably at one point we had a free market, then someone ringfenced some land and charged people rent for it. If your system is stable then why wasn't the contract ignored and how do we have a state today?

You could argue that the state is just a mafia which won and gained monopoly powers over the others. However, that shouldn't give them legitimacy and it doesn't mean it will remain this way indefinitely. The mask of legitimacy appears to be slipping at the moment.

The land used to be common and belong to no one. Who is to say that we are in a transient period where this isn't the case? State granted ownership of land (which could be maintained/managed) is a relatively recent phenomenon, after all, especially in the heavily planned/managed system we have now. For millennia, this was not the case.

We also have communications now, which are horizontal (ie. the Internet), rather than vertical (ie. press, tv, radio etc). The printing press certainly helped maintain a state hierarchy, where the Internet is returning the power to the individual again.

Perhaps the answer to your question, is that history is still being written and the story isn't finished yet. Land which has been taken, may yet be returned. Perhaps this will be written in the next chapter of our social evolution.

With an optional justice system I'm not sure how I could dis-associate myself from them.

Out of curiosity, do you consider violence to be immoral or amoral?

To dis-associate, you wouldn't trade with them, socialise with them, help them etc. If they insisted on attempting to steal your stuff against your will (as in, forced association), self defence (by yourself or a third party on your behalf) may put an end to them if it was unavoidable. However, such situations would surely be best avoided by everyone involved.

I consider violence a last resort. I certainly wouldn't want to associate with people who are violent and I would protect myself against them. I would say most people have a similar feeling, which is why they fear the removal of state protection.

I would also say that whether violence is moral or immoral is beside the point. Nature can certainly be violent, but it can also be cooperative. Ultimately, free association and mutual agreements lead to more prosperity though, so it is in our interests not to be violent.

edit: typo

Edited by Traktion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what is that meant to be showing anyone with income of 40K is in the top 1% and anyone with an income of 20K is in the top 10%? its an awful graph

Yes. People on £40k are in the top 1% - in 1975. Years along the x-axis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bottom up law is a free market approach and this inevitably means your actions will be judged by arbitrators and your peers.

Sounds like crowds of peasant waving pitchforks and screaming "Burn the witch!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like crowds of peasant waving pitchforks and screaming "Burn the witch!"

Science and education have come a long way since the dark ages.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like crowds of peasant waving pitchforks and screaming "Burn the witch!"

Don't worry, we'd have a completely voluntary People's Optional Justice Organisation which would make sure that everyone was free from government and the threat of coercion from anyone else..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Science and education have come a long way since the dark ages.

So have political science and philosophy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't worry, we'd have a completely voluntary People's Optional Justice Organisation which would make sure that everyone was free from government and the threat of coercion from anyone else..

Why would the government have a different view to the common people? Why should they even?

If a government is supposed to be representative, they should reflect the views of the people.

So have political science and philosophy.

Indeed it has, which is why we are discussing post-state systems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would the government have a different view to the common people? Why should they even?

So if the view of the majority is that 2+2=5 then the view of the government should be the same?

If a government is supposed to be representative, they should reflect the views of the people.

Yes, but they should also take reality into account.

You seem to succumb to the fallacy of most extreme free-marketeers in assuming that because the price mechanism/market/wisdom of crowds works for a wide range of problems, it will work for all problems. In reality it will fail for problems that have long time horizons (i.e. infrastructure), problems where expert knowledge is required for informed choice (i.e. medicine) and problems of composition/ diffuse externalities (i.e. global warming).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So if the view of the majority is that 2+2=5 then the view of the government should be the same?

Why would the majority think that, but a subset called 'the government' think otherwise?

Yes, but they should also take reality into account.

You seem to succumb to the fallacy of most extreme free-marketeers in assuming that because the price mechanism/market/wisdom of crowds works for a wide range of problems, it will work for all problems. In reality it will fail for problems that have long time horizons (i.e. infrastructure), problems where expert knowledge is required for informed choice (i.e. medicine) and problems of composition/ diffuse externalities (i.e. global warming).

A free market is just one without force.

By implying that a free market cannot solve all issues, you are saying that force needs to be wielded, by a subset of the very same people, in order for things to be done.

Why would that subset of people have a different opinion, when they are just people like the rest of us?

Why would that subset enforce their informed choice, rather than suggest it as their informed opinion?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.