Politically, I would like to see the House of Lords replaced an elected advisory body. I have various ideas for the details but the important thing is elected.
UBI. Much simpler to administer than all the many benefits that currently exist.
Re-establishment of a sufficient stock of social housing.
Rebalancing of opportunities from the SE and London across the rest of the country.
Those'd be my starting points.
I do not agree with UBI
Why?
Too expensive and unproductive.
Let's say that UBI was £200 per week. The poorest would get just £200. Everyone else would get £200 plus their wages/pension etc
The poorest would be even poorer.
Far better to target benefits to those than need them
I don't know where your arbitrary £200 per week came from, but the concept of UBI is that it's sufficient to cover basic living costs - reasonable rent, food, energy. The sort of things that many of those currently on benefits struggle to afford. By definition UBI will lift all out of abject poverty. It will lift more into paying income tax (either tax is based on UBI+other income or the tax allowance is reduced and tax is paid on the income above UBI) which will help pay for UBI. In some proposals, UBI could replace state pensions. It will also remove all the various evaluations for benefits for those fit and healthy, saving money from that which will also contribute to paying for it. And, of course, putting more money in the pockets of the poorest will significantly increase spending and hence economic output, with a resulting boost in tax revenue.
There will still be a need for some benefits - in particular to support those who are ill or disabled who have extra expenses.
Where will all this extra money come from ?
We should not pretend that it would not need extra money.
I would want to use the state to put a thumb on the scales towards more worker owned businesses like Suma, looking to places like Mondragon for inspiration. No immediate "seizing the means of production" but encouraging people starting businesses to see co-operative models as the default, perhaps offering favourable corporation tax rates for businesses organised in a democratic fashion, and certainly making co-operative legal structures more easily available.
I am really surprised that everyone has just suggested some tinkering around the edges. Nationalise a few essential services - not even rolling back as far as the 1970s! Remove tax breaks for independent schools. Introduce a UBI. A few traffic guidelines and speed limiters for the capitalist juggernaut. So far, so meh!
Come on @Crœsos@Martin54@quetzalcoatl@Caissa@chrisstiles ! If Marx's solutions "haven't worked" surely we can do better! I have an increasing amount of time for Marx's diagnostic abilities, so let's see if we can do "treatment" better than Lenin and pals!
Who's talking communism? I'm talking commonsism. Ejits can open betting shops if they like, but they will pay a very heavy rent for that. Football teams too.
I am really surprised that everyone has just suggested some tinkering around the edges. Nationalise a few essential services - not even rolling back as far as the 1970s! Remove tax breaks for independent schools. Introduce a UBI. A few traffic guidelines and speed limiters for the capitalist juggernaut. So far, so meh!
Come on @Crœsos@Martin54@quetzalcoatl@Caissa@chrisstiles ! If Marx's solutions "haven't worked" surely we can do better! I have an increasing amount of time for Marx's diagnostic abilities, so let's see if we can do "treatment" better than Lenin and pals!
I am really surprised that everyone has just suggested some tinkering around the edges. Nationalise a few essential services - not even rolling back as far as the 1970s! Remove tax breaks for independent schools. Introduce a UBI. A few traffic guidelines and speed limiters for the capitalist juggernaut. So far, so meh!
Come on @Crœsos@Martin54@quetzalcoatl@Caissa@chrisstiles ! If Marx's solutions "haven't worked" surely we can do better! I have an increasing amount of time for Marx's diagnostic abilities, so let's see if we can do "treatment" better than Lenin and pals!
Bugger me, isn't this enough for a start?! Any ijit can open a betting shop, but they will pay a crippling rent to the commons. The same with useless products. Geoism to the max. With computers to work out the exponential tax and rent! Fancy that.
I would want to use the state to put a thumb on the scales towards more worker owned businesses like Suma, looking to places like Mondragon for inspiration. No immediate "seizing the means of production" but encouraging people starting businesses to see co-operative models as the default, perhaps offering favourable corporation tax rates for businesses organised in a democratic fashion, and certainly making co-operative legal structures more easily available.
OK sounds good! What would you say is the key plus point of businesses organised in a democratic fashion? What sort of good thing do they do by virtue of their structure (and what bad things do they prevent) in comparison with a limited corporation or privately-owned business?
I am really surprised that everyone has just suggested some tinkering around the edges. Nationalise a few essential services - not even rolling back as far as the 1970s! Remove tax breaks for independent schools. Introduce a UBI. A few traffic guidelines and speed limiters for the capitalist juggernaut. So far, so meh!
Come on @Crœsos@Martin54@quetzalcoatl@Caissa@chrisstiles ! If Marx's solutions "haven't worked" surely we can do better! I have an increasing amount of time for Marx's diagnostic abilities, so let's see if we can do "treatment" better than Lenin and pals!
Bugger me, isn't this enough for a start?! Any ijit can open a betting shop, but they will pay a crippling rent to the commons. The same with useless products. Geoism to the max. With computers to work out the exponential tax and rent! Fancy that.
I.... I didn't understand what "exponential tax and rent" meant or "that that same basket can invest in" so I sort of lost track, sorry. I think I understood the bit about "tax very heavily unless something is benefitting the common good". Maybe I should have said "tell me more clearly" instead of "tell me more"?
I am really surprised that everyone has just suggested some tinkering around the edges. Nationalise a few essential services - not even rolling back as far as the 1970s! Remove tax breaks for independent schools. Introduce a UBI. A few traffic guidelines and speed limiters for the capitalist juggernaut. So far, so meh!
Come on @Crœsos@Martin54@quetzalcoatl@Caissa@chrisstiles ! If Marx's solutions "haven't worked" surely we can do better! I have an increasing amount of time for Marx's diagnostic abilities, so let's see if we can do "treatment" better than Lenin and pals!
Bugger me, isn't this enough for a start?! Any ijit can open a betting shop, but they will pay a crippling rent to the commons. The same with useless products. Geoism to the max. With computers to work out the exponential tax and rent! Fancy that.
I.... I didn't understand what "exponential tax and rent" meant or "that that same basket can invest in" so I sort of lost track, sorry. I think I understood the bit about "tax very heavily unless something is benefitting the common good". Maybe I should have said "tell me more clearly" instead of "tell me more"?
Oh now I understand the bit about betting shops too! And football teams! Sorry a bit slow on the uptake.
I suppose once upon a time football teams would have looked a lot more like they were for the common good though. I guess you would have to be constantly monitoring to see when the "nice thing" had become a "not nice thing".
I am really surprised that everyone has just suggested some tinkering around the edges. Nationalise a few essential services - not even rolling back as far as the 1970s! Remove tax breaks for independent schools. Introduce a UBI. A few traffic guidelines and speed limiters for the capitalist juggernaut. So far, so meh!
Come on @Crœsos@Martin54@quetzalcoatl@Caissa@chrisstiles ! If Marx's solutions "haven't worked" surely we can do better! I have an increasing amount of time for Marx's diagnostic abilities, so let's see if we can do "treatment" better than Lenin and pals!
Bugger me, isn't this enough for a start?! Any ijit can open a betting shop, but they will pay a crippling rent to the commons. The same with useless products. Geoism to the max. With computers to work out the exponential tax and rent! Fancy that.
I.... I didn't understand what "exponential tax and rent" meant or "that that same basket can invest in" so I sort of lost track, sorry. I think I understood the bit about "tax very heavily unless something is benefitting the common good". Maybe I should have said "tell me more clearly" instead of "tell me more"?
Oh now I understand the bit about betting shops too! And football teams! Sorry a bit slow on the uptake.
I suppose once upon a time football teams would have looked a lot more like they were for the common good though. I guess you would have to be constantly monitoring to see when the "nice thing" had become a "not nice thing".
You got it. Wild and local and national and global. No regression of commons rights possible. And you ain't slow, I'm old and feeble and too little too late and making it up as I go along.
Why have tax brackets? Tax income and wealth as an exponential function of both, weighted for utility, for the common good. Charge rent for all commons use the same way, which I think is synonymous with taxing wealth. The commons revenue of tax and rent is the basket, fiscus whence fiscal.
I just want a compassionate society in which the imperfections of individuals and institutions are tolerated and the hypocrisies, intolerances, and corruption of utopias are absent, and where planning is left to the "rolling English drunkard".
I am really surprised that everyone has just suggested some tinkering around the edges. Nationalise a few essential services - not even rolling back as far as the 1970s! Remove tax breaks for independent schools. Introduce a UBI. A few traffic guidelines and speed limiters for the capitalist juggernaut. So far, so meh!
Come on @Crœsos@Martin54@quetzalcoatl@Caissa@chrisstiles ! If Marx's solutions "haven't worked" surely we can do better! I have an increasing amount of time for Marx's diagnostic abilities, so let's see if we can do "treatment" better than Lenin and pals!
Well, thank you for the thread. Citing Lenin indicates the problem with any idealistic reshaping of society, that in the end it becomes top-down. When the Kronstadt sailors objected to some elements of the Bolshevik programme, the troops were sent over the ice to shoot them.
That's it in a nutshell, isn't it? Any programme has to carry people along, but what happens if some say nay? It becomes top-down, see the recent Chinese Communist party meeting.
I can't see any way round this. Of course, classical Marxism has argued that there could be a superfluity of goods, if the economic shackles were released, so no-one would object. Lots of cake!
Politically, I would like to see the House of Lords replaced an elected advisory body. I have various ideas for the details but the important thing is elected.
UBI. Much simpler to administer than all the many benefits that currently exist.
Re-establishment of a sufficient stock of social housing.
Rebalancing of opportunities from the SE and London across the rest of the country.
Those'd be my starting points.
In regards to the US, I want to respond to what is happening over here:
Energy: a mix of federal and private utilities. Federal through Bonneville Power Administration (BPA), Western Area Power Administration (WAPA), Southwestern Power Administration (SWPA), and Southeastern Power Administration (SEPA). All utilities, though are interlinked. There is also the North American power grid which includes most of Canada/
Water: there is a mix of private, state, and federal for irrigation, but most municipal water systems are local utilities.
Internet is nearly all private. There is some regulation by federal and state governments. Municipalities authorize local cable services.
Rail: nearly all private, some subsidy available through state and federal governments. Amtrak is a semi public cooperation.
Health. The American nightmare. Controlled by regulations, subject to the government in power. I would say nearly 60% of Americans would prefer a universal health care system much like Canada's.
Banks. Federal Reserve Board that controls the rates loaned between banks. State and Federal Chartered Banks--all private. Local Credit Unions controlled by their customers. Deposit guarantees up to $200,000 by the federal government.
I just want a compassionate society in which the imperfections of individuals and institutions are tolerated and the hypocrisies, intolerances, and corruption of utopias are absent, and where planning is left to the "rolling English drunkard".
Those are our normal imperfections. Plan what you like for the commons, bearing in mind that you will pay rent to it inversely according to how it benefits the common good.
I am really surprised that everyone has just suggested some tinkering around the edges. Nationalise a few essential services - not even rolling back as far as the 1970s! Remove tax breaks for independent schools. Introduce a UBI. A few traffic guidelines and speed limiters for the capitalist juggernaut. So far, so meh!
Come on @Crœsos@Martin54@quetzalcoatl@Caissa@chrisstiles ! If Marx's solutions "haven't worked" surely we can do better! I have an increasing amount of time for Marx's diagnostic abilities, so let's see if we can do "treatment" better than Lenin and pals!
Well, thank you for the thread. Citing Lenin indicates the problem with any idealistic reshaping of society, that in the end it becomes top-down. When the Kronstadt sailors objected to some elements of the Bolshevik programme, the troops were sent over the ice to shoot them.
That's it in a nutshell, isn't it? Any programme has to carry people along, but what happens if some say nay? It becomes top-down, see the recent Chinese Communist party meeting.
I can't see any way round this. Of course, classical Marxism has argued that there could be a superfluity of goods, if the economic shackles were released, so no-one would object. Lots of cake!
The top is the bottom; the commons. We're all equal actual stakeholders in the commons, with further actual entitlement toward levelling up for disability, frailty, education. The commons isn't going to shoot anybody. The Johnson County War is impossible in the commons. Twelve men can still own a quarter of Scotland and rewild it like greenwashed Marie Antoinettes, but they will pay in full for the privilege until it is levelled.
Curiously, I would start by building a new political capital. Somewhere where land is cheap like Stoke-on-Trent or Scunthorpe, well away from London and its corrupting influences. The chamber would be semi-circular and each MP would have a desk. Naturally, voting would be electronic. A bonus would be to take some of the economic heat out of the London land market. It would be up to the commercial sector to decide whether to stay in London or move.
Secondly, I would make anyone aspiring to be a national politician to take an examination. A very tough examination that would cover, inter alia, critical thinking, macroeconomics and political philosophy. No f-wits would be allowed to enter the hallowed halls and still less demagogues.
Thirdly, I would insist on a proper codified constitution, enforceable by a constitutional court. There would be certain things that the government would not be allowed to do. Including, but not restricted to, taking away our human rights.
Fourthly all elections at all levels would be PR (Single Transferable Vote.)
Fifth, I would introduce a Land Value Tax because it is the most effective way of taxing capital wealth. (The main family home would be exempted.) The proceeds from this would be split between providing better public services (I would want to get nearer Scandi levels of provision) and reducing taxes on income.
Openreach needs returning to public ownership. Unless you're on cable, no matter who you get your phone/internet connection from, Openreach manages the physical lines.
Similarly the national grid.
These should be services, not sources of profit.
I would also institute a National Care Service along the lines of the NHS. This would be funded at least in part by increases in inheritance tax for the largest estates. I'd also move to end the trick of people putting their wealth into Trusts so it avoids being counted for Inheritance Tax but is still available to them and is still left to their beneficiaries.
Finally, there is a gross injustice in the way that ordinary people are denied access to justice if they do not have the funds for legal action. Legal Aid needs totally reforming so that no-one finds themselves, for example, having their home ruined by a rogue builder but left unable to take him to court because they can't afford a solicitor.
Fourthly all elections at all levels would be PR (Single Transferable Vote.)
PR and STV are different things.
A PR system is one that produces representatives in proportion to the votes for each political party or group. STV is a particular way of counting votes in a multi-winner election (and is often used colloquially to describe IRV, which is the STV algorithm where the number of winners is set to 1.)
STV by no means creates or ensures proportionality. The thing that creates proportionality is the existence of large multi-member constituencies.
STV is proportional, but is candidate proportional rather than party proportional, because there is a quota that a successful candidate has to reach (vote/seats+1). The final candidate returned, however, is the remaining two candidate with more votes than the other.
OK since no-one wants to "go large" I guess it is up to the Blairite Turquoise to fly the flag for world revolution. You are all thinking far too small. Here are my propositions.
1) If we are to do anything about anything important we need GLOBAL GOVERNMENT. It is obvious no-one wants to do anything about climate, for example, because nobody else is really prepared to unless everyone does. Or more fundamentally, look what happens when you play Civilization. You might want to build a nice peaceful polity on your little island but you are terrified that Babylonian Riflemen will appear and blast your Spearmen to kingdom come. So you yourself pull out all the stops to develop Gunpowder and Industrialisation first and blow them to kingdom come. A proper world government is essential otherwise competition between rival polities driven by greed and (more importantly) fear stuffs everything up.
2) Looking at the drivers for badness it seems to me that USURY has a lot to answer for. Look at the book of Nehemiah and you will see that 1% interest was considered exploitative and unacceptable. Or as the Koran says (I think, paraphrased): "Some ask why interest is prohibited when it is just a form of trade involving money. The answer is that God has permitted trade, but forbidden interest". I think there is a strong case that without a financial system supporting interest-bearing loans Europe would never have become dominant via the Industrial Revolution and voyages of discovery. And nowadays one problem with interest is that it forces borrowers to seek a high rate of return on capital no matter the social consequences. So the first move of the Turquoise World Government will be to FORBID INTEREST.
3) Why are we getting climate change, extinctions, depletion of world resources such as forests fish habitat etcetera etcetera? Answer: GROWTH. Partly population growth but even more so economic growth. They are both exponential and we know what Malthus had to say about that. So the Turquoise World Government's target will be ZERO OR NEGATIVE GROWTH FOR THE NEXT FEW HUNDRED YEARS. The previous policy on interest should help to achieve this. We can maybe look to Japan for some clues as to how to proceed with this in a not too intolerably unpleasant way.
These are the sorts of Turquoise policies we need for the next millenium. Vote for Turquoise if you want to LIVE.
OK since no-one wants to "go large" I guess it is up to the Blairite Turquoise to fly the flag for world revolution. You are all thinking far too small. Here are my propositions.
1) If we are to do anything about anything important we need GLOBAL GOVERNMENT. It is obvious no-one wants to do anything about climate, for example, because nobody else is really prepared to unless everyone does. Or more fundamentally, look what happens when you play Civilization. You might want to build a nice peaceful polity on your little island but you are terrified that Babylonian Riflemen will appear and blast your Spearmen to kingdom come. So you yourself pull out all the stops to develop Gunpowder and Industrialisation first and blow them to kingdom come. A proper world government is essential otherwise competition between rival polities driven by greed and (more importantly) fear stuffs everything up.
2) Looking at the drivers for badness it seems to me that USURY has a lot to answer for. Look at the book of Nehemiah and you will see that 1% interest was considered exploitative and unacceptable. Or as the Koran says (I think, paraphrased): "Some ask why interest is prohibited when it is just a form of trade involving money. The answer is that God has permitted trade, but forbidden interest". I think there is a strong case that without a financial system supporting interest-bearing loans Europe would never have become dominant via the Industrial Revolution and voyages of discovery. And nowadays one problem with interest is that it forces borrowers to seek a high rate of return on capital no matter the social consequences. So the first move of the Turquoise World Government will be to FORBID INTEREST.
3) Why are we getting climate change, extinctions, depletion of world resources such as forests fish habitat etcetera etcetera? Answer: GROWTH. Partly population growth but even more so economic growth. They are both exponential and we know what Malthus had to say about that. So the Turquoise World Government's target will be ZERO OR NEGATIVE GROWTH FOR THE NEXT FEW HUNDRED YEARS. The previous policy on interest should help to achieve this. We can maybe look to Japan for some clues as to how to proceed with this in a not too intolerably unpleasant way.
These are the sorts of Turquoise policies we need for the next millenium. Vote for Turquoise if you want to LIVE.
1) While understanding the motivation, I don’t believe that global government can ever work, nor should it be tried.
Within the UK three of the countries complain about the government being situated in the fourth, and in Europe the government has to keep shifting from one place to another (and even then the outlying countries are unhappy). I suggest that Brexit for some was more about a return to imagining that people had a say in decisions affecting their lives, rather than yet another decision made in Europe and foisted upon them.
(Yes I know they had representatives in the parliament there - but the Scottish people have representatives in the UK government too…).
I like the idea of 2) and 3). Whether they would work, who knows, but perhaps worth a try.
The criticism of the UBI that concerns me is the fact that it is a pension for everyone, and is subject to the political winds of the day. It will be used by conservatives to put user-pays ideology into everything. You get your basic income, so if you need to go to the doctor, you can pay for that. Public transport? Up the ticket price. You see where I'm going.
The idea that we can imagine an ideal society and work towards it is deeply problematic. Look at the reformers of the past. What they thought was right and good, like removing children from parents regarded as inadequate, was found in reality to be disastrous. Work houses represented cutting edge social reform once.
So imagining ideal social worlds is arguably a damaging thing to do, imposing our inadequate concepts of good and not fully understanding the consequences. That doesn't mean we should stop reforms, rather that we should recognise that even the best of us are muddling through and making mistakes, compromising to get stuff done, and trying to solve only the problems we can perceive.
Simon Toad: The idea that we can imagine an ideal society and work towards it is deeply problematic. Look at the reformers of the past. What they thought was right and good, like removing children from parents regarded as inadequate, was found in reality to be disastrous. Work houses represented cutting edge social reform once.
So imagining ideal social worlds is arguably a damaging thing to do, imposing our inadequate concepts of good and not fully understanding the consequences. That doesn't mean we should stop reforms, rather that we should recognise that even the best of us are muddling through and making mistakes, compromising to get stuff done, and trying to solve only the problems we can perceive.
Thanks, Simon, that more than says it for me: "sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof." Better Chesterton's English Drunkard than Robespierre's virtue.
Simon Toad: The idea that we can imagine an ideal society and work towards it is deeply problematic. Look at the reformers of the past. What they thought was right and good, like removing children from parents regarded as inadequate, was found in reality to be disastrous. Work houses represented cutting edge social reform once.
So imagining ideal social worlds is arguably a damaging thing to do, imposing our inadequate concepts of good and not fully understanding the consequences. That doesn't mean we should stop reforms, rather that we should recognise that even the best of us are muddling through and making mistakes, compromising to get stuff done, and trying to solve only the problems we can perceive.
Thanks, Simon, that more than says it for me: "sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof." Better Chesterton's English Drunkard than Robespierre's virtue.
I know Marx despaired of revolution in England, because we only see that false dichotomy yet.
The criticism of the UBI that concerns me is the fact that it is a pension for everyone, and is subject to the political winds of the day. It will be used by conservatives to put user-pays ideology into everything. You get your basic income, so if you need to go to the doctor, you can pay for that. Public transport? Up the ticket price. You see where I'm going.
There is no going back from the commons. No going back from private sufficiency and public, common wealth.
The clearances are an example of what happens when high priority is given to private property rights.
It's worth remembering that although everyone goes on about the Highland Clearances in particular (peeled onion clutched in hand) it was a process that had been going on for centuries. In England since the 14th century at least. Not all those 'deserted villages' are down to the Black Death, as commonly supposed. It was merely a catalyst to speed up the drive to profitable sheep farming.
According to current law, if I win Euromillions there is nothing to stop me from buying a whole village of tenanted houses and turning the tenants out into the snow - OK, there are a few restraints, but with due notice and the necessary writs...
I see a real dilemma here. Either you support 'owner's rights' to do what they will with their own property (a type of freedom) or you say no, that is socially unacceptable and this limit and that must be put on it. Do the latter, and in the UK at least, you will be seen as some sort of zany Communist.
The clearances are an example of what happens when high priority is given to private property rights.
Partly, but it's also an example of what happens when you attempt to impose an alien legal framework onto a different culture. When those Clan Chiefs who sided with the Hanoverians were integrated into the English nobility what had been held in trust on behalf of the clan (not totally unlike how a CofE vicar might hold the church building on behalf of the parish) became the personal property of the Chief, now Duke. The hand that previously would have been stayed by duty, custom, and tradition was enabled to act freely.
The clearances are an example of what happens when high priority is given to private property rights.
Partly, but it's also an example of what happens when you attempt to impose an alien legal framework onto a different culture. When those Clan Chiefs who sided with the Hanoverians were integrated into the English nobility what had been held in trust on behalf of the clan (not totally unlike how a CofE vicar might hold the church building on behalf of the parish) became the personal property of the Chief, now Duke. The hand that previously would have been stayed by duty, custom, and tradition was enabled to act freely.
Equally important - the Chiefs no longer had a requirement for large numbers of armed men. So they felt free to extract maximum value from the lands that they (legally) owned by turning to sheep farming. 'Moral rights' walk when ''legal rights' enter the building. Duty, custom and tradition are all abstracts. Moreover, I think one ought not to get too dewy-eyed about the previous social arrangement - it was just another form of tyranny, as those who refused to go 'out' with their Chiefs in the '45 rapidly discovered, with the threat or actuality of burning thatch above their heads.
The medieval knight was also supposed to protect those weaker than himself - but it would be easy to fill a book with examples of knights not doing so, both within and without the law.
Oh sure, I wouldn't idealise the feudal system but the clearances were an appalling betrayal. Though in fairness all the armies involved in the rising were substantially made up of men whose freedom to join up was somewhat constrained.
That's what I meant. There is going back from private sufficiency and common weal. The human-centric paradise of Marxism is bullcrap.
Not in my world mate. In Camelot. It is constitutionally impossible for common rights, freedom from, the rights of the commons itself as an entity, to be lost.
Politically, I would like to see the House of Lords replaced an elected advisory body. I have various ideas for the details but the important thing is elected.
UBI. Much simpler to administer than all the many benefits that currently exist.
Re-establishment of a sufficient stock of social housing.
Rebalancing of opportunities from the SE and London across the rest of the country.
Those'd be my starting points.
I do not agree with UBI
Why?
Too expensive and unproductive.
Let's say that UBI was £200 per week. The poorest would get just £200. Everyone else would get £200 plus their wages/pension etc
The poorest would be even poorer.
Far better to target benefits to those than need them
I don't know where your arbitrary £200 per week came from, but the concept of UBI is that it's sufficient to cover basic living costs - reasonable rent, food, energy. The sort of things that many of those currently on benefits struggle to afford. By definition UBI will lift all out of abject poverty. It will lift more into paying income tax (either tax is based on UBI+other income or the tax allowance is reduced and tax is paid on the income above UBI) which will help pay for UBI. In some proposals, UBI could replace state pensions. It will also remove all the various evaluations for benefits for those fit and healthy, saving money from that which will also contribute to paying for it. And, of course, putting more money in the pockets of the poorest will significantly increase spending and hence economic output, with a resulting boost in tax revenue.
There will still be a need for some benefits - in particular to support those who are ill or disabled who have extra expenses.
Where will all this extra money come from ?
We should not pretend that it would not need extra money.
Nobody is. Income is nothing. Wealth is everything.
@Sighthound what exactly do you mean by 'London and its corrupting influence'? Immigration? Diversity? Decent museums and galleries?
Also, why do you want to exclude those with dyslexia, dyscalculia etc from national politics? Aside from the fact that your proposal would almost certainly break disability law, being able to do well on an exam isn't how you measure intelligence. I also think it's important to have MPs from a range of backgrounds and education levels etc. The increase in professional politicians in Parliament has imo been damaging - there is a huge lack of diversity. People deserve to have MPs who really represent people like them.
Pomona People deserve to have MPs who really represent people like them.
In which case, are you suggesting that legislators would preferably be randomly selected from a list of the population over a certain age rather than elected?
I must confess that knowing a candidate for parliament had dyscalculia would make me uneasy about supporting them, given the markers of dyscalculia often include an inability to compare numbers or have a sense of how big they are. I'd want to know how they planned to work around the obvious problems that presents for a job where statistics and large amounts of money are essential features.
I want to be represented by the best available candidate. I don't actually care about their identity markers, intrinsically anyway. Draping themselves in "family values" flags is another matter, but I really think that talent is more important than diversity. In aggregate, I would expect that there wouldn't be a massive preponderance of any one group, and wonder why if there was, but in the individual instance of a particular election, I wouldn't choose between the candidates on those grounds.
I must confess that knowing a candidate for parliament had dyscalculia would make me uneasy about supporting them, given the markers of dyscalculia often include an inability to compare numbers or have a sense of how big they are. I'd want to know how they planned to work around the obvious problems that presents for a job where statistics and large amounts of money are essential features.
But how is it essential for a non-cabinet MP to be amazing at maths? Most backbench MPs spend the majority of their time dealing with issues affecting their constituencies. Even for cabinet MPs, they have staff and office equipment - calculators exist. Surely at face value, dyslexia would be the more limiting condition? But likewise, it's quite easy to deal with when you have the right equipment eg orange overlays for documents.
Disabled people deserve to have disabled people in Parliament representing them, and disabled MPs don't owe abled people justification as to why disabled people should be allowed to become MPs.
Pomona People deserve to have MPs who really represent people like them.
In which case, are you suggesting that legislators would preferably be randomly selected from a list of the population over a certain age rather than elected?
No? Why would I be suggesting that? Many industries have schemes dedicated to widening participation, it doesn't mean they randomly select candidates.
Also I don't think you know how random selection works - a random selection of say 100 people isn't more or less likely to be representative of the general population, because to be random there would have to be the same 1/100 chance of being selected. So the likelihood of eg 100 old white men would be much higher than in the general population. Like how on a 10-track playlist, having it set on random gives each track a one in 10 chance of being played - so track 1 being played ten times in a row would still be random.
I want to be represented by the best available candidate. I don't actually care about their identity markers, intrinsically anyway. Draping themselves in "family values" flags is another matter, but I really think that talent is more important than diversity. In aggregate, I would expect that there wouldn't be a massive preponderance of any one group, and wonder why if there was, but in the individual instance of a particular election, I wouldn't choose between the candidates on those grounds.
The issue is that it's hard to genuinely have the best available candidates if only a narrow group of people are being put forward. The idea that diversity is antithetical to excellence is a harmful myth - you can have diversity without compromising on quality. The issue is a lack of recognition of quality amongst particular groups, and an outsize preference for other groups. The fact that most MPs went to private school and Oxbridge doesn't mean quality candidates don't exist outside of those groups.
I must confess that knowing a candidate for parliament had dyscalculia would make me uneasy about supporting them, given the markers of dyscalculia often include an inability to compare numbers or have a sense of how big they are. I'd want to know how they planned to work around the obvious problems that presents for a job where statistics and large amounts of money are essential features.
But how is it essential for a non-cabinet MP to be amazing at maths?
Nobody said it was. Dyscalculia, unlike dyslexia, can't be got round relatively easily by changing the input method, there are actual cognitive issues. The main function of MPs is legislative, and the informed debate of proposed legislation. If you can't grasp the size of numbers involved in the budget then I think there are questions to be asked about how well you can perform that role. All of us who are disabled have to demonstrate that we can, regardless of that, fulfil our job role (with appropriate adjustments), and a "genuine occupational requirement" can make certain forms of discrimination legitimate. As the prospective employers of MPs we can and should ask these questions.
@TurquoiseTastic would your Blairite government result in more dead Iraqis or are you satisfied with the ones Blair killed?
Surely it should be possible to have broadly Blairite economic / social policies without necessarily invading Iraq or similar? Of course this would ony appeal if (like me) one thinks that maybe capitalism might be OK within limits.
On the other hand if a capitalist economy is intrinsically bad - and I can see some of the arguments for this - then one needs to propose an alternative. So my World Government propositions are not supposed to be Blairite. They are my suggestions of what to do if capitalism cannot be OK.
To my mind the evils of capitalism are self-evident. That doesn't mean that anything we can come up with will automatically be better; that's a major lesson to take from the 20th century. What we can think about is direction. I think the medicine to ameliorate capitalism is democracy, applied to workplaces just as it is to nations. Now, you might well have checks and balances in a democratically run commercial organisation so people can't just vote themselves unfunded pay rises or dissolve the company, sell the assets and pocket the cash but maybe not - those sound a lot like how private equity operates but here people would be voting themselves out of a job.
@TurquoiseTastic would your Blairite government result in more dead Iraqis or are you satisfied with the ones Blair killed?
Surely it should be possible to have broadly Blairite economic / social policies without necessarily invading Iraq or similar?
The conditions that made Blairism possible no longer exist. The public realm is a shadow of what it was during the Blair era - partly due to the policies like PFI he started, the implicit bargain he struck with finance is no longer available.
Neither are we living in the early part of the great moderation - where wages could be kept down, but the economy kept growing by a combination of rising asset prices on the back of the Greenspan put, expanding credit and cheaper consumer goods from the entrance of China into the world market.
I must confess that knowing a candidate for parliament had dyscalculia would make me uneasy about supporting them, given the markers of dyscalculia often include an inability to compare numbers or have a sense of how big they are. I'd want to know how they planned to work around the obvious problems that presents for a job where statistics and large amounts of money are essential features.
But how is it essential for a non-cabinet MP to be amazing at maths?
Nobody said it was. Dyscalculia, unlike dyslexia, can't be got round relatively easily by changing the input method, there are actual cognitive issues. The main function of MPs is legislative, and the informed debate of proposed legislation. If you can't grasp the size of numbers involved in the budget then I think there are questions to be asked about how well you can perform that role. All of us who are disabled have to demonstrate that we can, regardless of that, fulfil our job role (with appropriate adjustments), and a "genuine occupational requirement" can make certain forms of discrimination legitimate. As the prospective employers of MPs we can and should ask these questions.
I have dyscalculia. It doesn't have more cognitive issues than dyslexia, which also has cognitive issues - but like all disabilities they vary in symptoms and severity from person to person, and not all people with dyscalculia will have issues with grasping the size of numbers.
@TurquoiseTastic would your Blairite government result in more dead Iraqis or are you satisfied with the ones Blair killed?
Surely it should be possible to have broadly Blairite economic / social policies without necessarily invading Iraq or similar? Of course this would ony appeal if (like me) one thinks that maybe capitalism might be OK within limits.
On the other hand if a capitalist economy is intrinsically bad - and I can see some of the arguments for this - then one needs to propose an alternative. So my World Government propositions are not supposed to be Blairite. They are my suggestions of what to do if capitalism cannot be OK.
You did also say that you would vote for Blair tomorrow in a heartbeat though, which is a more restrictive set of conditions than Blairism as a concept. It's one thing to say that capitalism can be OK within limits, but endorsing a specific person is another. I don't think it can be ignored that Blair caused serious harm to democracy in the UK (it's pretty hard to ignore 1 million+ people marching in protest against a policy you brought in and also be good at democracy), which does also raise questions about the idea of a World Government. How can free and democratic elections possibly function in such a scenario? Why not support democratic socialism instead?
Comments
Where will all this extra money come from ?
We should not pretend that it would not need extra money.
Who's talking communism? I'm talking commonsism. Ejits can open betting shops if they like, but they will pay a very heavy rent for that. Football teams too.
Sounds great @Martin54 ! Tell me more!
Bugger me, isn't this enough for a start?! Any ijit can open a betting shop, but they will pay a crippling rent to the commons. The same with useless products. Geoism to the max. With computers to work out the exponential tax and rent! Fancy that.
OK sounds good! What would you say is the key plus point of businesses organised in a democratic fashion? What sort of good thing do they do by virtue of their structure (and what bad things do they prevent) in comparison with a limited corporation or privately-owned business?
I.... I didn't understand what "exponential tax and rent" meant or "that that same basket can invest in" so I sort of lost track, sorry. I think I understood the bit about "tax very heavily unless something is benefitting the common good". Maybe I should have said "tell me more clearly" instead of "tell me more"?
Oh now I understand the bit about betting shops too! And football teams! Sorry a bit slow on the uptake.
I suppose once upon a time football teams would have looked a lot more like they were for the common good though. I guess you would have to be constantly monitoring to see when the "nice thing" had become a "not nice thing".
You got it. Wild and local and national and global. No regression of commons rights possible. And you ain't slow, I'm old and feeble and too little too late and making it up as I go along.
Why have tax brackets? Tax income and wealth as an exponential function of both, weighted for utility, for the common good. Charge rent for all commons use the same way, which I think is synonymous with taxing wealth. The commons revenue of tax and rent is the basket, fiscus whence fiscal.
Well, thank you for the thread. Citing Lenin indicates the problem with any idealistic reshaping of society, that in the end it becomes top-down. When the Kronstadt sailors objected to some elements of the Bolshevik programme, the troops were sent over the ice to shoot them.
That's it in a nutshell, isn't it? Any programme has to carry people along, but what happens if some say nay? It becomes top-down, see the recent Chinese Communist party meeting.
I can't see any way round this. Of course, classical Marxism has argued that there could be a superfluity of goods, if the economic shackles were released, so no-one would object. Lots of cake!
In regards to the US, I want to respond to what is happening over here:
Energy: a mix of federal and private utilities. Federal through Bonneville Power Administration (BPA), Western Area Power Administration (WAPA), Southwestern Power Administration (SWPA), and Southeastern Power Administration (SEPA). All utilities, though are interlinked. There is also the North American power grid which includes most of Canada/
Water: there is a mix of private, state, and federal for irrigation, but most municipal water systems are local utilities.
Internet is nearly all private. There is some regulation by federal and state governments. Municipalities authorize local cable services.
Rail: nearly all private, some subsidy available through state and federal governments. Amtrak is a semi public cooperation.
Health. The American nightmare. Controlled by regulations, subject to the government in power. I would say nearly 60% of Americans would prefer a universal health care system much like Canada's.
Banks. Federal Reserve Board that controls the rates loaned between banks. State and Federal Chartered Banks--all private. Local Credit Unions controlled by their customers. Deposit guarantees up to $200,000 by the federal government.
Those are our normal imperfections. Plan what you like for the commons, bearing in mind that you will pay rent to it inversely according to how it benefits the common good.
The top is the bottom; the commons. We're all equal actual stakeholders in the commons, with further actual entitlement toward levelling up for disability, frailty, education. The commons isn't going to shoot anybody. The Johnson County War is impossible in the commons. Twelve men can still own a quarter of Scotland and rewild it like greenwashed Marie Antoinettes, but they will pay in full for the privilege until it is levelled.
Secondly, I would make anyone aspiring to be a national politician to take an examination. A very tough examination that would cover, inter alia, critical thinking, macroeconomics and political philosophy. No f-wits would be allowed to enter the hallowed halls and still less demagogues.
Thirdly, I would insist on a proper codified constitution, enforceable by a constitutional court. There would be certain things that the government would not be allowed to do. Including, but not restricted to, taking away our human rights.
Fourthly all elections at all levels would be PR (Single Transferable Vote.)
Fifth, I would introduce a Land Value Tax because it is the most effective way of taxing capital wealth. (The main family home would be exempted.) The proceeds from this would be split between providing better public services (I would want to get nearer Scandi levels of provision) and reducing taxes on income.
Openreach needs returning to public ownership. Unless you're on cable, no matter who you get your phone/internet connection from, Openreach manages the physical lines.
Similarly the national grid.
These should be services, not sources of profit.
I would also institute a National Care Service along the lines of the NHS. This would be funded at least in part by increases in inheritance tax for the largest estates. I'd also move to end the trick of people putting their wealth into Trusts so it avoids being counted for Inheritance Tax but is still available to them and is still left to their beneficiaries.
Finally, there is a gross injustice in the way that ordinary people are denied access to justice if they do not have the funds for legal action. Legal Aid needs totally reforming so that no-one finds themselves, for example, having their home ruined by a rogue builder but left unable to take him to court because they can't afford a solicitor.
PR and STV are different things.
A PR system is one that produces representatives in proportion to the votes for each political party or group. STV is a particular way of counting votes in a multi-winner election (and is often used colloquially to describe IRV, which is the STV algorithm where the number of winners is set to 1.)
STV by no means creates or ensures proportionality. The thing that creates proportionality is the existence of large multi-member constituencies.
1) If we are to do anything about anything important we need GLOBAL GOVERNMENT. It is obvious no-one wants to do anything about climate, for example, because nobody else is really prepared to unless everyone does. Or more fundamentally, look what happens when you play Civilization. You might want to build a nice peaceful polity on your little island but you are terrified that Babylonian Riflemen will appear and blast your Spearmen to kingdom come. So you yourself pull out all the stops to develop Gunpowder and Industrialisation first and blow them to kingdom come. A proper world government is essential otherwise competition between rival polities driven by greed and (more importantly) fear stuffs everything up.
2) Looking at the drivers for badness it seems to me that USURY has a lot to answer for. Look at the book of Nehemiah and you will see that 1% interest was considered exploitative and unacceptable. Or as the Koran says (I think, paraphrased): "Some ask why interest is prohibited when it is just a form of trade involving money. The answer is that God has permitted trade, but forbidden interest". I think there is a strong case that without a financial system supporting interest-bearing loans Europe would never have become dominant via the Industrial Revolution and voyages of discovery. And nowadays one problem with interest is that it forces borrowers to seek a high rate of return on capital no matter the social consequences. So the first move of the Turquoise World Government will be to FORBID INTEREST.
3) Why are we getting climate change, extinctions, depletion of world resources such as forests fish habitat etcetera etcetera? Answer: GROWTH. Partly population growth but even more so economic growth. They are both exponential and we know what Malthus had to say about that. So the Turquoise World Government's target will be ZERO OR NEGATIVE GROWTH FOR THE NEXT FEW HUNDRED YEARS. The previous policy on interest should help to achieve this. We can maybe look to Japan for some clues as to how to proceed with this in a not too intolerably unpleasant way.
These are the sorts of Turquoise policies we need for the next millenium. Vote for Turquoise if you want to LIVE.
1) While understanding the motivation, I don’t believe that global government can ever work, nor should it be tried.
Within the UK three of the countries complain about the government being situated in the fourth, and in Europe the government has to keep shifting from one place to another (and even then the outlying countries are unhappy). I suggest that Brexit for some was more about a return to imagining that people had a say in decisions affecting their lives, rather than yet another decision made in Europe and foisted upon them.
(Yes I know they had representatives in the parliament there - but the Scottish people have representatives in the UK government too…).
I like the idea of 2) and 3). Whether they would work, who knows, but perhaps worth a try.
The idea that we can imagine an ideal society and work towards it is deeply problematic. Look at the reformers of the past. What they thought was right and good, like removing children from parents regarded as inadequate, was found in reality to be disastrous. Work houses represented cutting edge social reform once.
So imagining ideal social worlds is arguably a damaging thing to do, imposing our inadequate concepts of good and not fully understanding the consequences. That doesn't mean we should stop reforms, rather that we should recognise that even the best of us are muddling through and making mistakes, compromising to get stuff done, and trying to solve only the problems we can perceive.
Thanks, Simon, that more than says it for me: "sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof." Better Chesterton's English Drunkard than Robespierre's virtue.
I know Marx despaired of revolution in England, because we only see that false dichotomy yet.
@Simon Toad 's missing para,
There is no going back from the commons. No going back from private sufficiency and public, common wealth.
It's worth remembering that although everyone goes on about the Highland Clearances in particular (peeled onion clutched in hand) it was a process that had been going on for centuries. In England since the 14th century at least. Not all those 'deserted villages' are down to the Black Death, as commonly supposed. It was merely a catalyst to speed up the drive to profitable sheep farming.
According to current law, if I win Euromillions there is nothing to stop me from buying a whole village of tenanted houses and turning the tenants out into the snow - OK, there are a few restraints, but with due notice and the necessary writs...
I see a real dilemma here. Either you support 'owner's rights' to do what they will with their own property (a type of freedom) or you say no, that is socially unacceptable and this limit and that must be put on it. Do the latter, and in the UK at least, you will be seen as some sort of zany Communist.
Partly, but it's also an example of what happens when you attempt to impose an alien legal framework onto a different culture. When those Clan Chiefs who sided with the Hanoverians were integrated into the English nobility what had been held in trust on behalf of the clan (not totally unlike how a CofE vicar might hold the church building on behalf of the parish) became the personal property of the Chief, now Duke. The hand that previously would have been stayed by duty, custom, and tradition was enabled to act freely.
Equally important - the Chiefs no longer had a requirement for large numbers of armed men. So they felt free to extract maximum value from the lands that they (legally) owned by turning to sheep farming. 'Moral rights' walk when ''legal rights' enter the building. Duty, custom and tradition are all abstracts. Moreover, I think one ought not to get too dewy-eyed about the previous social arrangement - it was just another form of tyranny, as those who refused to go 'out' with their Chiefs in the '45 rapidly discovered, with the threat or actuality of burning thatch above their heads.
The medieval knight was also supposed to protect those weaker than himself - but it would be easy to fill a book with examples of knights not doing so, both within and without the law.
Not in my world mate. In Camelot. It is constitutionally impossible for common rights, freedom from, the rights of the commons itself as an entity, to be lost.
Nobody is. Income is nothing. Wealth is everything.
nope, but I have seen Monty Python and the Holy Grail, and that's where my mind goes when someone mentions Camelot.
Also, why do you want to exclude those with dyslexia, dyscalculia etc from national politics? Aside from the fact that your proposal would almost certainly break disability law, being able to do well on an exam isn't how you measure intelligence. I also think it's important to have MPs from a range of backgrounds and education levels etc. The increase in professional politicians in Parliament has imo been damaging - there is a huge lack of diversity. People deserve to have MPs who really represent people like them.
In which case, are you suggesting that legislators would preferably be randomly selected from a list of the population over a certain age rather than elected?
I didn't think it was enormously helpful to make a joke of the wilful blindness of the hard right ideologues at the expense of the genuinely disabled.
But how is it essential for a non-cabinet MP to be amazing at maths? Most backbench MPs spend the majority of their time dealing with issues affecting their constituencies. Even for cabinet MPs, they have staff and office equipment - calculators exist. Surely at face value, dyslexia would be the more limiting condition? But likewise, it's quite easy to deal with when you have the right equipment eg orange overlays for documents.
Disabled people deserve to have disabled people in Parliament representing them, and disabled MPs don't owe abled people justification as to why disabled people should be allowed to become MPs.
No? Why would I be suggesting that? Many industries have schemes dedicated to widening participation, it doesn't mean they randomly select candidates.
Also I don't think you know how random selection works - a random selection of say 100 people isn't more or less likely to be representative of the general population, because to be random there would have to be the same 1/100 chance of being selected. So the likelihood of eg 100 old white men would be much higher than in the general population. Like how on a 10-track playlist, having it set on random gives each track a one in 10 chance of being played - so track 1 being played ten times in a row would still be random.
The issue is that it's hard to genuinely have the best available candidates if only a narrow group of people are being put forward. The idea that diversity is antithetical to excellence is a harmful myth - you can have diversity without compromising on quality. The issue is a lack of recognition of quality amongst particular groups, and an outsize preference for other groups. The fact that most MPs went to private school and Oxbridge doesn't mean quality candidates don't exist outside of those groups.
Nobody said it was. Dyscalculia, unlike dyslexia, can't be got round relatively easily by changing the input method, there are actual cognitive issues. The main function of MPs is legislative, and the informed debate of proposed legislation. If you can't grasp the size of numbers involved in the budget then I think there are questions to be asked about how well you can perform that role. All of us who are disabled have to demonstrate that we can, regardless of that, fulfil our job role (with appropriate adjustments), and a "genuine occupational requirement" can make certain forms of discrimination legitimate. As the prospective employers of MPs we can and should ask these questions.
Surely it should be possible to have broadly Blairite economic / social policies without necessarily invading Iraq or similar? Of course this would ony appeal if (like me) one thinks that maybe capitalism might be OK within limits.
On the other hand if a capitalist economy is intrinsically bad - and I can see some of the arguments for this - then one needs to propose an alternative. So my World Government propositions are not supposed to be Blairite. They are my suggestions of what to do if capitalism cannot be OK.
The conditions that made Blairism possible no longer exist. The public realm is a shadow of what it was during the Blair era - partly due to the policies like PFI he started, the implicit bargain he struck with finance is no longer available.
Neither are we living in the early part of the great moderation - where wages could be kept down, but the economy kept growing by a combination of rising asset prices on the back of the Greenspan put, expanding credit and cheaper consumer goods from the entrance of China into the world market.
I have dyscalculia. It doesn't have more cognitive issues than dyslexia, which also has cognitive issues - but like all disabilities they vary in symptoms and severity from person to person, and not all people with dyscalculia will have issues with grasping the size of numbers.
You did also say that you would vote for Blair tomorrow in a heartbeat though, which is a more restrictive set of conditions than Blairism as a concept. It's one thing to say that capitalism can be OK within limits, but endorsing a specific person is another. I don't think it can be ignored that Blair caused serious harm to democracy in the UK (it's pretty hard to ignore 1 million+ people marching in protest against a policy you brought in and also be good at democracy), which does also raise questions about the idea of a World Government. How can free and democratic elections possibly function in such a scenario? Why not support democratic socialism instead?
If you are in a group of 67 people and one or two of them disagree, even strongly, with a group decision then that decision will still go ahead.
I’m not sure why that should change if the number of people is multiplied by a million.