Is Government Good?

[Guest Steve Cook]

I'm aware that a lot of people measure against each other instead of against reality. It's a learned behaviour. You are paid to brainwash them to do it.

Since it is a behaviour that has proved consitent over time and space, it is incumbent on you to prove that humans do not do this inherently. Simply to state they have learned it does not make your statement true. I know this is a difficult thing for you to comprehend. The thing is, evidence requiers that it should be independant of your opinion.

Piffle.

Prove that the british arisocracy live shorter lives than the rest of the population. Otherwise you are talking unsubstantiated sh*te as usual.

because they miss out on objective happiness in order to pursue relative.

Your body lives in the real world, it's functioning, health and joy isn't dependant on it's relativity to others.

They may well miss out on absolute happiness. They may not. However, it is the pursuit of relative happiness that is driving them for the reasons mentioned above. Demonstrate how they might make decisions geard towards absolute happiness in your terms, requiring as they do absolute access to all information at the time of making the decision, in the absence of that information?

Humans make relative decisions based on imperfect information. They cannot make absolute decisions because they do not have access to perfect information. In any event, even if they did, they would still be forced to take the optimal rather than the maximal approach because they could not be certain that their competitor would not take such a short-term optimal approach.

The above is the reason why all of the "isms" are doomed to failure. Yours is no exception.

The real world as it is.

Edited August 10, 2009 by Steve Cook

[the wizard]

Easy to prove.

Do something without your body.

When you fail, come on back to me.

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.

[Guest Steve Cook]

If you are being honest

You actually come here to argue with people

In my humble opinion

No I don't,

yes you do,

no I don't

Gotcha!

I know this might be difficult for you to relate to, but I actually come here to have my views challenged and, in doing so, grow intellectually.

I also know it's a very difficult thing to have to shift your world-view on things and not just seek to validate them. But you should try it.

Edited August 10, 2009 by Steve Cook

[wickywackywoo]

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.

Why the hell did you do that?

What did the wife have to say about it?

[the wizard]

Why the hell did you do that?

What did the wife have to say about it?

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

Edited August 10, 2009 by the wizard

[Stars]

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'?

Which ones have power over you because they give something extra to you you wouldn't have without them, and which ones have power because they stop you getting access to what you could have without them?

This line of reasoning is worth spending some time pursuing

[Guest Steve Cook]

Which ones have power over you because they give something extra to you you wouldn't have without them, and which ones have power because they stop you getting access to what you could have without them?

This line of reasoning is worth spending some time pursuing

Yes, I agree. It is.

[the wizard]

Which ones have power over you because they give something extra to you you wouldn't have without them, and which ones have power because they stop you getting access to what you could have without them?

This line of reasoning is worth spending some time pursuing

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.

[Stars]

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.

You can employ yourself

No law against it (here anyway)

You are correct regarding the landlord and government though

Edited August 10, 2009 by Stars

[the wizard]

You can employ yourself

No law against it (here anyway)

You are correct regarding the landlord and government though

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'.

Edited August 10, 2009 by the wizard

[Stars]

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).

If you had enough capital you could also buy a government - the principle is the same only the scale is different.

The point being that you could only 'escape' the power of landlords or government by going through them - they both hold a monopoly on your escape routes - employers don't.

[the wizard]

If you had enough capital you could also buy a government - the principle is the same only the scale is different.

The point being that you could only 'escape' the power of landlords or government by going through them - they both hold a monopoly on your escape routes - employers don't.

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.

[Stars]

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.

Yep - but the issue was the power they have over you, so the question you have to ask is where do any efforts you make to escape go? if your efforts to escape them go into their pockets, then by 'escaping' you are simply paying off their power, which is in a sense a final admittance of their power.

You don't have to pay employers off at all, to employ yourself.

I must add that one of things that makes it more difficult to employ yourself and so use your independence from employers as a bargaining chip with them, is the real power that landlords and government have over you. So you are right that things are interlocked, but the abusive power is not actually coming from employers at all.

Land tax. Electoral reform.

Land tax

Edited August 10, 2009 by Stars

[bill still]

I love replaying old chess games.

Bottom line is the old saying, "Freedom isn't free" and to add to it, the struggle for it is not new or exciting either, just worth defending. It's selfless work, not the kind of thing some people would be interested in. It's the kind of work parents are interested in.

quote name='Steve Cook' date='Aug 9 2009, 11:54 PM' post='2067547']

yes

Frankly, this site has provided as much intellectual stimulation for me as it is ever going to....

I'm getting bored to be honest.

[JustYield]

Very good points and I mostly agree.

I don't think that the system we have today can really be described as a democracy. We elect a dictatorship once every 4 years and have no say in whether we go to war, bail out bankers, or implement ID cards etc...

A true democracy would involve the people in all the major decisions of government, and with the technology that we have this can happen. Using simple technology like computers, mobile phones or even the postal service we should all be able to change our vote whenever we want, and it should be no more difficult than taking money out of a cash card machine or sending a text.

Major national political decisions should also be put to public vote using technology, so that we can take decisions such as whether or not we adopt the Euro or deciding on issues like war, capital punishment, immigration, land ownership, etc... Regional issues should be decided with regional votes and local issues with local voting. National government should not be deciding on local issues.

We are propagandized from cradle to grave to believe that revolutionary changes are brought about by powerful charismatic individuals, you can see it in the movies and read about it in books, it is a fiction. The only thing that can bring about change is popular struggle with people getting together, talking and organizing.

Martin Luther King was not the civil rights movement and the movement didn't die with him, there were many others who made sacrifices, organized marches, took beatings and gave their lives. Tens perhaps hundreds of thousands of people, whose names we will never know. The impact of their actions still lives on, in the changes that people now take for granted.

It is ordinary people, not leaders, that bring about change. Mainstream intellectuals, books and movies all con us into believing that when something needs to be done then its up to a great leader to do it for us. The cult of the charismatic powerful individual makes frightened children of us all "I don't know who to vote for, there all the same" say the masses, that's because the masses are all the same, they look for other people to change their lives for them. Ultimately with this kind of subservient attitude we will only ever get the governments that we deserve.

The Internet is the most powerful and revolutionary educational force since the invention of the printing press, far more powerful than radio, film and television. On these very forums we can organize ourselves and discuss issues of national importance, away of the control of the powers that run our countries and outside of the narrow context set by the media. Try getting a group of people to meet up in a public venue to discuss these issues and you will find yourself on the wrong side of the law.

Its up to us as individuals to take responsibility and to take control of the political process. The revolution starts here with you, you should be the government. People need to know about politics, economics, energy, land ownership, the money/credit system. You need to take responsibility for yourself because no one is going to fix things for you, and if you put your faith and future in a political/economic doctrine or a politician like Blair, Obama or Cameron don't expect your lot in life to improve.

Excellent post I thought and thanks for posting the Chomsky vids too.

Some of the problems with Government, which make it "other" than good are:

1. the wrong people are attracted into politics

2. big business exploits across national boundaries and jurisdictions

3. there is a tendency for all Governments to try to get bigger

4. centralised tax collection and spending is wasteful and open to abuse and is a drag on the economy

5. many political leaders are in thrall to the plutocrats and bankers

6. business control the message and set the news agenda

7. big decisions are made without the consultation you would expect in a mature democracy

But for society to function with laws and general fairness you need a Government of some form for sure. What is missing, IMO, is proper mature and regular consultation with the electorate on issues which affect us all in the long term.

(This thread is a breeze when you put Injin on ignore.)

[Dave Spart]

In the UK every five years or so The People get to vote in a general election. From that a winning party forms the government. After that the majority of bills introduced to Parliament that ultimately end up as law are introduced by the Govt. Bills are introduced and typically go through something like the following process:

• First reading in the House of Commons. Put to a vote but usually passes unopposed.
  
• Second reading in the House of Commons. Put to a vote, can either be rejected (in which case it dies) or passes provided it gets a majority vote. If it passes it goes to the House of Lords for its first reading there.
  
• First reading in the House of Lords. Read and returned to the House of Commons with recommendations for change if any.
  
• Third and final reading in the House of Commons. Put to a vote, can either be rejected (in which case it dies) or passes provided it gets a majority vote. If it passes it goes to the House of Lords for its second reading there.
  
• Second and final reading in the House of Lords. Usually passes unless something of significant concern.
  
• If passes goes to Royal Assent and becomes and act of law.
  

What's the problem with this process? Once the general election is over The People are completely unable to intervene, that's what. (Given the voting system in the UK and the influence of the media even general elections are of questionable value). The problems with our current democratic system are:

• 
  
• There is no mechanism for The People to prevent bills going to Royal Assent once they have passed both Houses of Parliament.
  
• There is no mechanism for The People to introduce bills directly themselves (excepting Private Member's Bills but they need a sponsoring MP).
  
• There is no mechanism for a call from The People for a general election to be enforced (with the exception of a general revolt).
  

Essentially once a government is formed it has five years to behave in any way it sees fit and the people can do nothing about it. Too much of The People's power is abrogated for too long to such a small group of potenitally corruptible individuals. We trust they will serve our best interests but so much public disatisfaction suggests otherwise. I contend that if The People were given more control over Parliament - and given the state of technology today that is easy - there'd be no need for talk of revolution.

The Current System

Proposed New System

By putting The People between Parliament and the Monarch The People can intercept rogue legislation before it becomes law. Politicians have their wings clipped and The People take more interest in the affairs of their own country. The dark blue arrow indicates The People's ability to introduce legislation and call general elections - effectively rendering MPs and Lords as little more than legal advisors to The People.

Radical thoughts, eh?

Edited August 10, 2009 by Dave Spart

[Bloo Loo]

snip The problems with our current democratic system are:

• There is no mechanism for The People to prevent bills going to Royal Assent once they have passed both Houses of Parliament.

• There is no mechanism for The People to introduce bills directly themselves (excepting Private Member's Bills but they need a sponsoring MP).

• There is no mechanism for a call from The People for a general election to be enforced (with the exception of a general revolt).

snip

the Queen has her uses...we are her subjects and she will look after us, for without our consent, she has no kingdom.

[the wizard]

In the UK every five years or so The People get to vote in a general election. From that a winning party forms the government. After that the majority of bills introduced to Parliament that ultimately end up as law are introduced by the Govt. Bills are introduced and typically go through something like the following process:

• First reading in the House of Commons. Put to a vote but usually passes unopposed.

• Second reading in the House of Commons. Put to a vote, can either be rejected (in which case it dies) or passes provided it gets a majority vote. If it passes it goes to the House of Lords for its first reading there.

• First reading in the House of Lords. Read and returned to the House of Commons with recommendations for change if any.

• Third and final reading in the House of Commons. Put to a vote, can either be rejected (in which case it dies) or passes provided it gets a majority vote. If it passes it goes to the House of Lords for its second reading there.

• Second and final reading in the House of Lords. Usually passes unless something of significant concern.

• If passes goes to Royal Assent and becomes and act of law.

What's the problem with this process? Once the general election is over The People are completely unable to intervene, that's what. (Given the voting system in the UK and the influence of the media even general elections are of questionable value). The problems with our current democratic system are:

• There is no mechanism for The People to prevent bills going to Royal Assent once they have passed both Houses of Parliament.

• There is no mechanism for The People to introduce bills directly themselves (excepting Private Member's Bills but they need a sponsoring MP).

• There is no mechanism for a call from The People for a general election to be enforced (with the exception of a general revolt).

Essentially once a government is formed it has five years to behave in any way it sees fit and the people can do nothing about it. Too much of The People's power is abrogated for too long to such a small group of potenitally corruptible individuals. We trust they will serve our best interests but so much public disatisfaction suggests otherwise. I contend that if The People were given more control over Parliament - and given the state of technology today that is easy - there'd be no need for talk of revolution.

The Current System

Proposed New System

By putting The People between Parliament and the Monarch The People can intercept rogue legislation before it becomes law. Politicians have their wings clipped and The People take more interest in the affairs of their own country. The dark blue arrow indicates The People's ability to introduce legislation and call general elections - effectively rendering MPs and Lords as little more than legal advisors to The People.

Radical thoughts, eh?

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.

[enrieb]

Part of the problem is that many people see 'politics' as something politicians do, something external to their lives. They leave politics to politicians and yet somehow expect that politicians will work in the peoples interests. In order to have a good government we need regular maintenance. You won't get a good garden if you don't bother to spend time weeding and pruning unwanted growth, removing pests and dead leaves. Without regular maintenance the garden will quickly revert into a wild state, where the stronger organisms dominate the weaker ones.

[weebag]

I dont want you to do anything with my blonde teenage twins, thanks.

I asked you (3 times) if you would rather live in the UK (or the landmass commonly known as the UK ) with government, or in one of te failed states.

You failure to answer can only mean that you are embarrassed to answer.

Despite all your posturing, you need to comfort and security that the state affords you.

You are a fraud - if you were not a fraud, you wouldnt be living under government.

Injin = Fraud - STILL no answer to the question above.

You really should put up or shut up Injin!

[Guest Parry aka GOD]

Yes, all people are always rational, self interested and moral.

They also have imperfect knowledge.

Injin dude, you've yet to hang out with me.

[HumanAction]

Don't be silly

We have to have threats becase if we didn't someone might steal our f*cking stuff.....

If someone tries to take my stuff I threaten to hurt them. Better still, I make it publicly clear that if anyone were to try and take my stuff I would hurt them. This way, most of the time, no-one tries to take my stuff and i get saved the hassle of having to carry out my threat. It's called a deterrent.

However, there are occassions when the person taking my stuff turns out to be bigger than me. Under such circumstances, I could elect to join forces with several of my like-minded neighbours and pool our resources together to pay someone to protect our stuff for us. The problem with this approach, of course, is that it is open to abuse. And so we are where we are.

Either it's every man for himself, in which case the biggest, nastiest, most ruthless bastards get to run the show.

Or, we pay someone to protect our stuff for us, in which case we run the significant risk that they will use the power we have invested in them to take over.

There aint no simple answer and anyone who thinks there is merely displays the simplicity of their own thinking.

You'd think this would be fairly obvious stuff wouldn't you.....

[Alan B'Stard MP]

No, I suggest no government.

Seeing as we are dreaming - can I have a ferarri?

Remind me what happened to John Lennon.

[Alan B'Stard MP]

Tell that to William of Normandy you idiot.

His direct descendants and the descendants of his men still own over 40% of the land in this country.

Jesus, you are just about the most divorced-from-reality plonker I have ever come across

Fell off my chair

[Game_Over]

I know this might be difficult for you to relate to, but I actually come here to have my views challenged and, in doing so, grow intellectually.

I also know it's a very difficult thing to have to shift your world-view on things and not just seek to validate them. But you should try it.

If you genuinely came here to have your 'World view challenged' you wouldn't persistently call people who do not agree with you idiots.

Personally, I do not think your own 'World view' stands up to even basic intellectual scrutiny and this means that you have automatically put me in the idiot category along with Injin and many others.

Well, people who disagree with you may or may not be correct, but this does not make them idiots, in fact many of them are clearly far more intelligent and better qualified than yourself.

I do not agree with Injin, but he is not an idiot, nor is he generally rude, arrogant or condescending.