Is Government Good?

[HumanAction]

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.

Injin's posts are often hard to take seriously, he tends to make assertions that not only lack any basis either evidentially or even logically but are often fairly obviously inconsistent with what we actually know of the world based on the evidence that we do in fact have. It's a situation not helped by the fact that he often presents actual evidence that speaks against his points as though it supports them. All in all he's a frustrating individual who parrots his opinion endlessly as though mere repetition somehow makes up for the incoherent argument he advances. It'd be surprising if he didn't get occasional abuse, that will happen when you insist on talking but never listening and refuse to actually discuss the difficulties others perceive in what you are saying.

[bill still]

Thanks for the encouragement. I didn't know you could put Injin on ignore. I'll have to figure that out because he in sort of an angry guy without a plan.

It's pretty difficult to get everyone going in the same direction when you have folks like him wanting to question the very basis of what you are trying to do -- namely make a better society thru better govt. I'm sure there are even some who would argue that better is bad or some such thing. But I think the vast majority wants to do something to make things better and I know in this country, there are a lot of folks who are so confused they think all govt is simply bad. It's as if you woke up in a hurricane and therefore deduced that all rain was bad. Rain wouldn't be the cause of your problem, nor is all government bad.

Govt is good, it's just been hijacked by bad people. It's like if you leave an expensive watch on the hood of your car when you go into a store, most people wouldn't take it, but you can be pretty sure that in a few minutes time, someone will steal it. That's how it goes with freedom; it isn't free and if left unattended, scoundrels will steal it away from you. But in freedom's case, it a continuous battle that must be fought by the electorate.

All these things you list are just signs of an electorate who increasingly does not care, and so they are doomed to a return to serfdom.

There is another interesting angle to all this though; the relativistic nature of both wealth and freedom. I've lived in rich neighborhoods where I was the poorest guy on the block, and poor neighborhoods where I was the richest. May be the same with freedom as well. My point is, that perhaps by banding together in this new media, we who know the truth can help each other achieve at least relative freedom in an increasingly serfdom-bound world.

I'm sure lots of interesting concepts are going to come a croppin' as the speed of change continues to increase.

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.)

[Guest UK Debt Slave]

Thanks for the encouragement. I didn't know you could put Injin on ignore. I'll have to figure that out because he in sort of an angry guy without a plan.

It's pretty difficult to get everyone going in the same direction when you have folks like him wanting to question the very basis of what you are trying to do -- namely make a better society thru better govt. I'm sure there are even some who would argue that better is bad or some such thing. But I think the vast majority wants to do something to make things better and I know in this country, there are a lot of folks who are so confused they think all govt is simply bad. It's as if you woke up in a hurricane and therefore deduced that all rain was bad. Rain wouldn't be the cause of your problem, nor is all government bad.

Govt is good, it's just been hijacked by bad people. It's like if you leave an expensive watch on the hood of your car when you go into a store, most people wouldn't take it, but you can be pretty sure that in a few minutes time, someone will steal it. That's how it goes with freedom; it isn't free and if left unattended, scoundrels will steal it away from you. But in freedom's case, it a continuous battle that must be fought by the electorate.

All these things you list are just signs of an electorate who increasingly does not care, and so they are doomed to a return to serfdom.

There is another interesting angle to all this though; the relativistic nature of both wealth and freedom. I've lived in rich neighborhoods where I was the poorest guy on the block, and poor neighborhoods where I was the richest. May be the same with freedom as well. My point is, that perhaps by banding together in this new media, we who know the truth can help each other achieve at least relative freedom in an increasingly serfdom-bound world.

I'm sure lots of interesting concepts are going to come a croppin' as the speed of change continues to increase.

Are you familiar with the Freeman route and alternative solutions in commerce by people like Winston Shrout, Robert Menard and others, Bill?

If not, it's well worth at least reading about. Some people are definitely finding remedy with the state using some very interesting methods.

[bill still]

This is good. In general terms, anything that slows government down is good, especially if it's at the hands of public intervention.

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?

[MOP]

Bill,

Our stand-in prime minister (Peter Mandelson) is just back from a stay with the Rothschild family in Corfu. He hangs around with them quite a lot.

You say you have changed your opinions on the Rothschilds etc. Can you please explain why your views have changed?

Edited August 10, 2009 by MOP

[bill still]

Unfortunately, this may run up on the rocks of "pure democracy". That's one of the things that our Founding Fathers wrestled with. They ended up preferring a Republic over a pure democracy as the people will always vote for more and more money (entitlements) for itself. In a Republic, we elect our decision makers and that balances the whims of the general public. So one should consider balance here as well.

This ability for the general public to directly influence legislation to an excessive degree is the greatest weakness to government issued debt free money (which I advocate). This is the main argument used by the goldbugs against it. In the case of the U.S., the solution is to cap the money supply by a Constitutional Amendment. This makes it much more difficult to change. The money supply would be capped at "x" amount of dollars per capita, then let the population fight it out for their share.

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.

[Injin]

Unfortunately, this may run up on the rocks of "pure democracy". That's one of the things that our Founding Fathers wrestled with. They ended up preferring a Republic over a pure democracy as the people will always vote for more and more money (entitlements) for itself. In a Republic, we elect our decision makers and that balances the whims of the general public. So one should consider balance here as well.

This ability for the general public to directly influence legislation to an excessive degree is the greatest weakness to government issued debt free money (which I advocate). This is the main argument used by the goldbugs against it. In the case of the U.S., the solution is to cap the money supply by a Constitutional Amendment. This makes it much more difficult to change. The money supply would be capped at "x" amount of dollars per capita, then let the population fight it out for their share.

Pure evil.

You are advocating slavery.

[weebag]

Pure evil.

You are advocating slavery.

And you are a fraud.

[bill still]

No, I merely now see that it is a mistake to highlight them any further. Jews find this offensive and I now understand those sensitivities. I have many Jewish friends and I have found that they take this personally. In addition those who love to brand monetary reform as a conspiracy theory seem to have an easier time getting traction by using this line of criticism.

Their central role in the creation of the privately owned central bank scheme is historic fact, but singling them out just doesn't work well. There were many other people involved -- especially in the UK. The essential tenet of the privately owned central bank scheme is that banks loan governments money and in exchange, government allows banks to take control of the quantity of the national money supply, in essence lending a government its own money and then having the audacity to charge them interest on it, despite the fact that the government has just given them a monopoly to multiply their real money by a factor of 10! It's outrageous! However, in today's world, the personalities don't matter; the concept of National Debt is the essential point to be debated. Chasing Rothschilds or Rockefellers only opens us up to unnecessary criticism and diverts us from the real problem -- No More National Debt.

Bill,

You say you have changed your opinions on the Rothschilds etc. Can you please explain why your views have changed?

[bill still]

Excellent! I couldn't put this any better -- and I've tried.

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.

[bill still]

Absolutely not true. I'm putting my life on the line to do something good. I have no financing. I work for a living. I devote myself to this cause.

You, sir are the voice of chaos, trying to confuse this group.

Pure evil.

You are advocating slavery.

[MOP]

No, I merely now see that it is a mistake to highlight them any further. Jews find this offensive and I now understand those sensitivities. I have many Jewish friends and I have found that they take this personally. In addition those who love to brand monetary reform as a conspiracy theory seem to have an easier time getting traction by using this line of criticism.

Don't let fear rule you Bill. I prefer to call a spade a spade.

Wrong is wrong, no matter what religion is involved.

Edited August 10, 2009 by MOP

[Injin]

And you are a fraud.

You mean because I haven't moved away from your mad fantasy area?

Amusingly, I am not allowed to leave by the statists.

[Injin]

Absolutely not true. I'm putting my life on the line to do something good. I have no financing. I work for a living. I devote myself to this cause.

You, sir are the voice of chaos, trying to confuse this group.

Nope.

You want to force others to use one form of money.

You want to make them acquire it to pay taxes and truibute to your favoured form of government.

That's the textbook definition of slavery - forcing others to work for you.

It's evil.

Knock it off.

[weebag]

You mean because I haven't moved away from your mad fantasy area?

Amusingly, I am not allowed to leave by the statists.

Ill chip in for a passport for ya!

[Dave Spart]

This is good. In general terms, anything that slows government down is good, especially if it's at the hands of public intervention.

And its very easy to implement.

In the UK people are better qualified to drive a car than they are to vote. To drive a car you have to take practical and theory tests at Test Centres. It is only when you have passed both those tests do you get your driver's licence.

However, to vote you simply have to register, no assessment of your fitness to vote is made.

On UK digital TV channel 81 everyone is - even today - able to watch Parliamentary debate. Also just about everyone has access to the internet. So what is there to stop us introducing the change I proposed above?

Well, we would need to make sure the new system worked properly. For example we don't want media barons to dictate to the public on how to vote.

One way to eliminate that and give the system credibility is to introduce Theory Tests like we have for driving. Here's how it would work:

• When the bill gets introduced to Parliament you register yourself at the Parliamentary website declaring that you want to take part in The People's vote for that particular bill.

• Before you can vote, you have so sit an assessment test at a test centre (ensuring a controlled environment). During the test you take say 50 multiple choice questions testing out your knowledge of the subject matter. The higher your score the stronger your vote - there would be no "pass" mark. This way someone could score 50 points and someone else just 1. The strength of their subject knowledge gets reflected in their vote, but either way everyone gets to vote.

• You get given a unique key. You know the sort: FDG3G-P7GDS-TD7RF etc.

• When its The People's turn to vote on the bill, you enter your key into the website, then express your vote.

Digital Democracy. Now everyone sits in Parliament.

Edited August 10, 2009 by Dave Spart

[Guest Steve Cook]

Ill chip in for a passport for ya!

I'll stump up the re-location grant....

[Injin]

I'll stump up the re-location grant....

I'll gladly go.

All you have to do is first prove I am in a country.

[bill still]

Fear doesn't rule me -- or I wouldn't be putting my face on the line when I have 4 children.

This is a matter of practical politics. Go this way, better results.

Don't let fear rule you Bill. I prefer to call a spade a spade.

Wrong is wrong, no matter what religion is involved.

[sdc395]

I'll gladly go.

All you have to do is first prove I am in a country.

Presumably, whether you like it or not, you are subject to laws enforced by police who recognise the boundaries of each other's jurisdictions (whether you do or not). Never mind leaving the country, I'd like to see you leave this jurisdiction for one where the rule of law is ineffective.

Off you go.

[Injin]

Presumably, whether you like it or not, you are subject to laws enforced by police who recognise the boundaries of each other's jurisdictions (whether you do or not). Never mind leaving the country, I'd like to see you leave this jurisdiction for one where the rule of law is ineffective.

Off you go.

Proof of the deluded acting on their delusion isn't proof that their delusion is real.

[Dave Spart]

Proof of the deluded acting on their delusion isn't proof that their delusion is real.

Time for a movie clip :

Neo puts a hand to his head and touches his hair

Morpheus : Your appearance now is what we call residual self image. It is the mental projection...of your digital self.

Two chairs appear in front of them, and Neo reaches out to touch one. He runs his hand along it's back.

Neo : This....this isn't real?

Morpheus looks at him

Morpheus : What is real? How do you define real? If you're talking about what you can feel, what you can smell, what you can taste and see, then real is simply electrical signals interpreted by your brain.

A television appears in front of the two chairs, as Neo sits down in the chair beside Morpheus. Morpheus picks up the television control and turns it on.

Morpheus : This_is the world that you know. The world as it was at the end of the twentieth century. It exists now only as part of a neural-interactive simulation, that we call the Matrix.

Morpheus turns to Neo

Morpheus : You've been living in a dream world, Neo. This...is the world as it exists today.

[sdc395]

Proof of the deluded acting on their delusion isn't proof that their delusion is real.

I'm not sure that's a sentence you've formed there, Injin, but I am sure it's a pathetic attempt to avoid dealing with your naïvety.

Edited August 10, 2009 by sdc395

[bill still]

Never heard of it, but I'll give it a look see. Thanks.

Are you familiar with the Freeman route and alternative solutions in commerce by people like Winston Shrout, Robert Menard and others, Bill?

If not, it's well worth at least reading about. Some people are definitely finding remedy with the state using some very interesting methods.

[bill still]

Gotta love that.

I'm not 100% anti-government like some autistic right-libertarian who would have Omni Consumer Products running the nation but politicians are obsessed with 'doing something' when what they come up with is infinitely worse than doing nothing at all.

We don't have to sit around waiting for the government to do something when we can just do it ourselves, whether as individuals or communities. When there was no welfare state mutualism was popular - building societies, co-ops, friendly societies. They tended to serve the skilled working class more than the unskilled poor so there was a gap that needed to be filled but now everyone is so heavily taxed that they assume the state will and should 'do something' for them. It won't - it's there to socialise capitalist greed, making it a one-way bet for rich parasites.