the wizard

I'm surprised you are opposed to this idea, it is both non-violent and does not rely on a government. Why would I keep off your land? Respect for your rights? Perhaps, if you respect mine. Not if your claim to all the land in the country leaves me homeless. Then I will simply take a piece of your land. That doesn't require violence, I simply start building on some remote field. You can stop me by either using violence, or by bribing me. So if we have equal (roughly equal) rights, then I'll probably leave you alone. Otherwise, incentives or violence. Personally, I don't think violence is the way to go at all, and I don't see why incentives amount to violence.

The community being the people who would simply take the land, for their own use, if you didn't pay them to respect your claim to it. You could pay them by making a reciprocal agreement to respect their own land claims (as long as both claims are roughly equal) or you could use violence. The choice is simple. Equal distribution of land, land-tax, or violence. Which do you think we have now?

Yes, global warming is a hoax that was invented in the 19th century in order to raise taxes in the 21st century. Since no tax has ever been collected on income, alcohol, tampons, capital gains, land, houses, windows, televisions, lottery tickets, or anything else ever in the entire history of the world, scientists used 'facts' and 'evidence' to create global warming so they could finally find a way to raise taxes. In fact, all the laws of physics are all totally 100% made up. Particularly Newton's third law, which was invented by Karl Marx in the 19th century to reduce the fertility of white women, and the first law of thermodynamics, which was made up at a party in 1923, in order to impress a girl. Also did you know that all scientists all thought that there would be global cooling in the 60s? Sure, it isn't true but I 100% remember it.

Isn't this, you know, significant or something?

Thanks? Anyway, I don't disagree with the advice.

Yes.

Why should you accept injustice? I understand your point - you have to live your life now, in the world as it is - but this is a rhetorical device I have seen used a lot. As friendly advice it is excellent, as a debating point it is total garbage. You can make a difference to your own life through hard work, but it really is getting harder as labour is slowly devalued relative to capital. The reality is that most very wealthy people have done little or nothing to earn that wealth, and many very poor people have no real chance to do anything about it. In fact we need more protest, more people unwilling to accept the status quo. Tell me, does Roman Abromovitch's yacht not make you bitter? It might if you were Russian. Being angry about terrible injustice and inequality, and living a happy producive life are not mutually incompatible.

Yes, we pay too much in benefits. This is one of the reasons that so many Polish people are employed yet so many young Brits are unemployed. However, many of the points you want to dismiss are equally valid. There is no minimum wage for immigrant workers, it isn't enforced and there are many ways around it. It is often middle class Polish workers that are being preferred to the British working-class, that is a real factor. There is a glut of labour. It is also true that the benefits of working are too low relative to the cost of living in the UK. Most importantly, any discussion about work, wages, and unemployment, cannot be separated from a discussion about the massive overinflation of asset values and living costs.

People who complain about the rich are simply envious of their awesome talents. All hail the ruling-classes, let us bow before their mighty benevolence. In a capitalist country, anyone can become rich as long as they aren't idle or envious. Why not become a Russian oligarch? A bank CEO? Perhaps you could buy some land in the 70s? Bill gates got rich by writing an operating system with a couple of mates. Why not do that? Or build a car factory like Henry Ford? Or write a book about a child with magical powers that goes to a magic school? Just don't invent the blue LED, or the spreadsheet, those things are of no value to society at all. As long as you - or your father or his father or his father - have skill and massive godlike talent, you too could be wealthy and powerful just like them.

Your point about safety nets has some truth to it. However, globally, the real market value of a worker is less than the cost of living in the UK. Without a safety net, people wouldn't simply starve. They'd just start providing for themselves, growing food, starting marginal businesses, or through crime. In the UK those avenues, the right to provide for yourself in this way, have been taken away from the people by landowners, the government and other rent-seekers. Since we have lost something, we should be compensated. We agree to the rule of law, to regulations and taxes, and it is generally accepted that this makes society as a whole richer. Yet the people who lose the most from selling their freedom in this way are the ones who benefit least from the additional wealth they have created. So tax land, and other natural resources, and pay the tax to every member of society. To put it another way, if you want something from people, if you want them to play by certain rules, then pay them. If you don't want to pay them, then don't expect anything in return. Or, if you are morally abhorent, you could use violence to the same ends, but it'll also cost about the same. This raises another important point. There is nothing inherently good about work, and the less we have to do the better. A system where you have to work for someone else in order to live is called slavery.

If there isn't an oversupply of workers, then why are there job interviews? Selection processes? Why have these things become more onerous over time? There are so few willing workers that they have to import workers, and yet they can afford to be choosy? Wow.

Post #148 - The rules, part 1. 1. My Greed is good. 2. Your Envy is bad. 3. Get off my land. 4. Get back to work.

Not quite. I think that the EMH says it is impossible to reliably make a profit from currently available information, a much tougher requirement, which I believe still allows for bubbles (especially when you add in government bail-outs for failed gamblers). However, I am not an expert. Anyway, I have no idea what the market is thinking, I'm just pointing out that claims of expertise for anyone working in economics or finance, or indeed for the market itself, should be taken with a pinch of salt.

How much did the same experts value pets.com? Northern Rock? Enron? The efficient market hypothesis does not mean that prices reflect reality.

What will Brown be remembered for? What was the distinct difference between his policies and those of Blair, Major or Thatcher? Economically, the Blair/Brown policy was simply more of the same. Disasterous, but hardly different to Thatcher and Major. These policies are Thatcher's legacy and not Blair's or Brown's. Similarly, it is possible that if we keep moving in the same direction, then the increase in authoritarianism may be seen as the most important trend of the last 20/30 years, although all four governments had more or less the same policies. Various social reforms such as the growth of identity politics (political correctness), government by propoganda and quango, are probably just passing fads. The conservatives had government by the accounting and finance departments, new-labour prefers rule by the human resource and PR departments. Bad, but will probably of no long-term significance. No, I think that the single largest change in the UK under Blair/Brown has been unrestricted immigration. This policy, which I do not think was supported by Major or Thatcher, will have lasting consequences - economic and cultural - for years to come. The UK is now a different place for ever, and so I think that this will be their main legacy when viewed from a historical perspective. The next most significant policies are the various wars, which will have lasting effects in those countries affected. That really is about all I can think of. Many small shitty changes - university fees, the London olympic debacle, hate crime legislation - but nothing that really defines an era. Therefore I would say Thatcher<Blair<Brown<Major. In that order. Brown has not yet had a chance as PM to really be classed as the worst ever. Who knows how he would have been in 1997? We will have to see what he does in the next parliament, after he wins the election. The Blair government was a disaster not because of what they did, but because of what they didn't do. With 12 years and a massive majority they could have changed so much. Instead they found the most expensive, intrusive, oppresive way of doing nothing at all. Thatcher on the other hand, made massive deliberate changes, only a very few of which were necessary, mostly in the name of ideology. Her dominance meant that 'market capitalism' became an accepted truth, in the way that multiculturalism is now an accepted truth. She created new-labour, the way that Tony Blair created the all new multi-culti call me Dave Cameron conservatives. She led us to where we are today.

Positive people are lovely. Really. They make great friends, throw cool parties, and are generally popular. They are, however, mostly decorative. Civilisation does not need decorative people. What it needs are people, infused with realism, who are unsatisfied with the status quo. Every improvement made by humans since they came down from the trees, was made by someone who had a complaint. Someone who thought something was totally rubbish, and should be better. "This walking is tiring, we should float down rivers, on logs.", "This cave's really cold, we should bring some of that fire stuff inside", "Don't you really hate getting up to change the TV channel? What a waste of time". It doesn't matter at all whether things have been worse, or could be worse. Things could also be so much better. It is the disatisfied, and only the disatisfied, that can make the world better. Florence nightingale was very unhappy with the state of nursing. Ghandi complained endlessly about British rule in India. Alexander Flemming thought that the way battlefield wounds were treated was stupid. As a consequence, people who criticise 'whingers' or 'complainers' who are 'blaming other people for all of their own problems' are in fact holding back all human progress. Or maybe we should all just stop grumbling, go back to our worker storage facilities, and enjoy some hard earned soylent green? Follow the example of our great leaders. You never hear them complaining.

The victory of the right, the defeat of the left and particularly the capitulation of the labour party. Capitalists are wealthy, and gain power from that wealth. However, there used to exist an ideology that stood in opposition to this power. This ideology provided organised opposition and, whether you believed in it or not, provided an important balancing force. What we see today is a result of the capitalist class - landowners, corporations, oligarchs - being given free reign to do what they like. Vested interests want you to see all your problems arising from 'corporate socialism' or 'leftism, and that your salvation lies in entreprenurialism and 'business'. Most young people seem to have fallen for these lies, because they have never known any alternative. Capitalism is corporate socialism. It is welfare for the rich. It is the political front for the landlord, or the factory owner. Anarchists, marxists, communists - at this point in time all of these groups' interests would have been aligned with the younger generations. Except they no longer exist. Again, it doesn't really matter which ideology you subscribe to, what matters is who has power. Right now capitalists have power, workers do not. Political resistance needs an organised political opposition, a party you can join, who know how to organise strikes, demonstrations, sit ins, or debates. We need organised political representation for the working classes.

How ironic, I think that this perfectly describes the situation in the UK right now. Capitalism is based on the idea that smart productive people will choose to work as slaves for the stupid and unproductive controllers of capital. Perhaps Britain could earn foreign currency by exporting useful idiots? They could come in handy, perhaps in Eastern Europe, to help prevent victims of the credit crunch from lynching the local plutocrats. We seem to have a surplus.

This is a part of the problem but not the only one. The voting system is unfair, and we need to replace it. There is no fair system of voting unless voters can express intensity of preference. I think the following system is interesting:- The head of state distributes voting tokens once a year. Tokens can be given away but not sold. The people with the most tokens get to sit in parliament, but anyone can vote on any bill using any number of their tokens. Essentially bills are auctioned. This means that the government gets only as much power as it is given. The opposition parties can block legislation, or get their own laws passed, if they believe in them strongly enough. Single issue parties have a chance of affecting law, if they have enough support. Interested individuals can participate in a true democracy, everyone else can choose a representative.

Not sure if I agree or disagree. My point is only that all of these entities sit in a complex power structure. I can change employers, to a degree and with some effort I might be able to opt out of the employment system altogether. I could also opt out of government. Plenty of people do this, although most end up in prison. We live in the anarchy imagined by Injin, right now. Some people in this anarchy have grabbed more power for themselves. At a high level this is oligarchs and politicians, and at a lower level BTL landlords and the people who create the parking restrictions for local councils. We should be discussing how to remove any concentration of powers, whoever has it. Focussing on the westminster government is a distraction. Land tax. Electoral reform.

If I have capital. I could also buy a house. What i can't do is vote for a new goverment (my vote doesn't count). Capital gives you power, all other sources have been diminished. EDIT: There is an assumption on this site, that being self-employed is somehow different to being employed. Employees are single person companies, whose business is to sell labour to a single customer, their employer. The government interferes in the contract but that doesn't change anything in principle. This is just another false classification in what is really a continuum of differently sized 'companies'.

I can opt out of any, to some degree. I can move home, job, country or continent. However, I will always be under the thumb of an employer, a landlord, or a government. It's not that one is in power and the others are not. Its about degrees of power.

Wife was pretty shocked when she found out what I'd been doing. She thought our shopping came from waitrose.

I left all my bodies in my chest freezer when I went to Aldi. Does that count? I think that the problem with this discussion, is that it is based around a false classification. Does government exist as a real definable entity? My landlord has some power over my life, as does Gordon Brown, my employer, the EU. Which is 'the government'? Get rid of westminster, and you don't instantly make everyone free. This is only one point in a complex web of power hierarchies. What we need instead is to create a system in which power is more evenly spread, so that people have control of their own destiny. We used to have many more power centres - unions, churches, universities, democracy. Now we have only capital. That needs to be reversed. So we need land tax and electoral reform, at least to start with.

Everyone makes mistakes, this person is the victim of a criminal gang. Why have we created a society in which every single decision in life is a risk that has to be managed? I don't want to be an expert in plumbing, or contract law, or GNER ticket regulations. Civilisation only works because we can specialise, and trust other people to take care of the rest. What happened to that?