# A Social Contract



## Gmart (Aug 11, 2011)

I thought I would revive the idea of a Social Contract because some were talking about it on the 'real reasons for the riots' thread.

As this thread shows there is a key problem with the idea: people have no need to accept that they are part of such an agreement, and it is easily trivilised and scorned.

In a nutshell the idea is based on the idea of an agreement between the government which needs to exist as it would be impossible to run the country without a minimum of cooperation on that level.

It should be noticed though that in Belgium they have set up such a decentralised system that their MP's inability to form a government has not impacted on the population hugely for over a year and even now there are hopes to continue this status quo.

However lack of centralisation is not a problem in the UK where London Authorities get preferential treatment even in Law (see the latest Localism Bill quietly making its way through the HoL as we read)

In the UK we are infamous for still having parliamentary sovereignty, a key fact which keeps the UK system as one of oppression rather than cooperation, in stark contrast to the rest of the world.

I think we need one based on Popular Sovereignty. We the people... by the people, for the people. A modern, secular, representative democracy working towards it being a better place. A cooperative between people and government based on meritocratic ideals, working together with reasonable, logical laws and effective systems.

As with all ideals these statements are a bit vague, any Social Contract or written constitutions have similarly vague promises as enabling the people in their pursuit of happiness etc. trying to err on the side of freedom.

So what kinds of agreement would you want on either side of a Social Contract in the UK?

For the government I would like to see the duty to divide church and state and a commitment to getting rid of advantage due to having parents who are very rich. I do not think that it would be possible for example to have a 100% inheritence tax as cited by some as the ideal for meritocracy, not because I think it is a bad idea, it is true to the principle, just because there are too many people who believe that it is their right to leave something for their children or to spend extra on the children's education - they see it as part of their freedom too and as part of a democracy we have to listen to their complaints too.

It is luck to be born in a rich or poor family, but a progressive society will try and create a system where Albert Einstein could become an amazing physician whether he were born rich or poor. That is not the case now but is it an ideal we can all agree on?


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 11, 2011)

for ink, we can use the blood of dead tories and for parchment the flayed skin of nick clegg. And then we nail it to millibands face


----------



## Gmart (Aug 11, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> for ink, we can use the blood of dead tories and for parchment the flayed skin of nick clegg. And then we nail it to millibands face



We have never had a proper revolution of course - Cromwell was just too religious and had no idea of the concept of republic.
We are left with a system of Parliamentary Sovereignty imposed on us - an elected dictatorship as others have called it - and not surprisingly the underclass react against this when the shit is unloaded onto them and the rich get away with murder.


----------



## Gmart (Aug 12, 2011)

Maybe I should start this?

I would certainly have a statement based on the principle that laws should apply to all relevant people without exception.

That would mean that the basis of privilege would be addressed - the idea that the MP's can create one law for themselves and one law for the rest of the population.

IIRC this would please those who work in the only bar which allows smoking - the one at the houses of parliament.

Can we all agree on that one?

We could put it as a universal one which both sodes of the social contract agree to.


----------



## veracity (Aug 12, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> for ink, we can use the blood of dead tories and for parchment the flayed skin of nick clegg. And then we nail it to millibands face


Thats the only way I'm going to sign up to it.

Its not an idea I can see taking off, as surely the government would have to commit to some sort of 'minimum level of service' in order to persuade citizens that this would be a two way process. And that will probably happen just around the same time that hell freezes over.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 12, 2011)

Gmart said:


> Maybe I should start this?
> 
> I would certainly have a statement based on the principle that laws should apply to all relevant people without exception.



A statement informed by...?



> That would mean that the basis of privilege would be addressed - the idea that the MP's can create one law for themselves and one law for the rest of the population.
> 
> IIRC this would please those who work in the only bar which allows smoking - the one at the houses of parliament.
> 
> ...



What you're proposing is very similar to the "written constitution" you're proposing, though. Explicit documents with a much narrower focus than their implicit predecessors.

Now, I'm all for codification - it would help prevent some of the more egregious political manouvres that take place, but I'm at a loss to see how you can formulate either a written constitution or an explicit social contract that won't require the input of, and legislating by, parliament, and they're not going to go for something that constrains their own actions. We know that they're not bothered by large-scale protest or by public disgust and contempt, so what leverage do we have on them to commit them to ratifying a written constitution or social contract?

Or are you proposing an informal written constitution and/or social contract, in which case: Why bother?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 12, 2011)

veracity said:


> Thats the only way I'm going to sign up to it.
> 
> Its not an idea I can see taking off, as surely the government would have to commit to some sort of 'minimum level of service' in order to persuade citizens that this would be a two way process. And that will probably happen just around the same time that hell freezes over.



Quite. Even the small concessions (usually consumerism-based) to a "minimum level of service" that have previously been made (for example "the Patients' Charter") have generally quickly fallen by the wayside whenever money or politics has dictated so.


----------



## weltweit (Aug 12, 2011)

The only contract seems to be - remain broadly normal, comply with all laws, pay your taxes and within that we will basically leave you to get on with it.


----------



## veracity (Aug 12, 2011)

weltweit said:


> The only contract seems to be - remain broadly normal, comply with all laws, pay your taxes and within that we will basically leave you to get on with it.


But if you (the citizen) deviate from that path we'll throw the book at you, whereas if we (the government) go back on our promises or break the law we'll just sweep it under the carpet.


----------



## weltweit (Aug 12, 2011)

However, it has to be said, that if you do comply with the laws and remain broadly speaking normal there are a lot of things you can do..


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 12, 2011)

weltweit said:


> The only contract seems to be - remain broadly normal, comply with all laws, pay your taxes and within that we will basically leave you to get on with it.



There is a problem with this kind of contract explicitly stated. It is exactly the kind of thing that is laid out explicitly in the US, and it seems all well and good, except that breaking the law becomes something to be morally outraged about in and of itself, regardless of which law it is that you've broken and what the effects of your breaking it have been. It can lead to an extremely punitive system.

Any social contract I would want enacted would have to include some kind of acknowledgement that the law is not a perfect instrument and never can be. Then there is the sticky problem of binding people over to respect property when the distribution of property is so patently unjust.

On balance, where you have an unequal society with grossly unequal distribution of resources, I don't think I want there to be a US-style explicitly stated constitution. An absurd contradictory constitution like ours is perhaps preferable - it allows room for hypocrisy, which can be a good thing: the turning of a blind eye to voluntary euthanasia, for instance. Such hypocrisy can actually be humanising, acknowledging that the whole of human morality can't be summed up by a set of written laws.


----------



## weltweit (Aug 12, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> .... it allows room for hypocrisy, which can be a good thing: the turning of a blind eye to voluntary euthanasia, for instance. Such hypocrisy can actually be humanising, acknowledging that the whole of human morality can't be summed up by a set of written laws.



That is a good point, there are grey areas, darn, forgotten what point I was going to make!!! blast!!!


----------



## weltweit (Aug 12, 2011)

I suppose the state side of the simple contract I proposed above could include things like the provision of roads, the police, the NHS, the army .. all kinds of taxpayer funded services.


----------



## weltweit (Aug 12, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> ...
> Any social contract I would want enacted would have to include some kind of acknowledgement that the law is not a perfect instrument and never can be. Then there is the sticky problem of binding people over to respect property when the distribution of property is so patently unjust.
> ...



Yes, some people have advantages, but will there in fact ever be fairness? is it possible that outcomes could be significantly more equitable given the variety of schooling opportunities and the like?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 12, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> There is a problem with this kind of contract explicitly stated. It is exactly the kind of thing that is laid out explicitly in the US, and it seems all well and good, except that breaking the law becomes something to be morally outraged about in and of itself, regardless of which law it is that you've broken and what the effects of your breaking it have been. It can lead to an extremely punitive system.
> 
> Any social contract I would want enacted would have to include some kind of acknowledgement that the law is not a perfect instrument and never can be. Then there is the sticky problem of binding people over to respect property when the distribution of property is so patently unjust.
> 
> On balance, where you have an unequal society with grossly unequal distribution of resources, I don't think I want there to be a US-style explicitly stated constitution. An absurd contradictory constitution like ours is perhaps preferable - it allows room for hypocrisy, which can be a good thing: the turning of a blind eye to voluntary euthanasia, for instance. Such hypocrisy can actually be humanising, acknowledging that the whole of human morality can't be summed up by a set of written laws.



Yes, we've seen how the US constitution has ossified some of their laws and law-making, and how the contractualisation of social relations has meant a great deal of codified asymmetry in interaction between parties.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 12, 2011)

weltweit said:


> Yes, some people have advantages, but will there in fact ever be fairness? is it possible that outcomes could be significantly more equitable given the variety of schooling opportunities and the like?


No-one is calling for instant fairness. Less unfairness would be a start


----------



## weltweit (Aug 12, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> No-one is calling for instant fairness. Less unfairness would be a start



Where would you start?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 12, 2011)

weltweit said:


> Where would you start?



Decentralisation of central government powers - reinstate to local authorities many of the powers taken from them by the Tories in the 1980s.
Then, enact local democracy processes such as holding councillors accountable for the decisions they make (supposedly on your behalf as your representative) and enact a right of recall applicable to all political representatives from ward councillor upward.

Unless you start at the bottom, and put in place fundamental building blocks that can enable social change, you won't change anything. Top-down _diktat_ is too easily subverted by the usual interest groups and power-mongers.


----------



## Gmart (Aug 13, 2011)

veracity said:


> Thats the only way I'm going to sign up to it.
> Its not an idea I can see taking off, as surely the government would have to commit to some sort of 'minimum level of service' in order to persuade citizens that this would be a two way process. And that will probably happen just around the same time that hell freezes over.


That is the system everyone else has - they have a written constitution which is a document of lines that both sides cannot cross - it is the basis of all the other systems in the world - apart from New Zealand and Israel.
From the riot thread:


ViolentPanda said:


> I'm not talking about a social contract based on whether you're a tax-payer, but on the sort of quid pro quo Locke theorised, where the governed consent to be governed in return for certain needs being met. Government can't unilaterally withdraw from obligations and expect people, young, old or middle-aged, not to attempt "re-negotiation".


It is true that with parliamentary sovereignty the government can simply break its agreement by repealing that law, but as we have seen with the EU and the HRA that means that the government can pass a law and until they specifically take that law off the statute book they are held by it.


littlebabyjesus said:


> I don't think I want there to be a US-style explicitly stated constitution. An absurd contradictory constitution like ours is perhaps preferable - it allows room for hypocrisy, which can be a good thing: the turning of a blind eye to voluntary euthanasia, for instance. Such hypocrisy can actually be humanising, acknowledging that the whole of human morality can't be summed up by a set of written laws.


Some feel, like BabyJesus, that they would prefer to stick with the way things are because they fear that codification would make things worse. This principle, and the propaganda about how successful our system is under the 'unwritten constitution' is how Parliament has kept its sovereignty for all this time while the rest of the world have (IMO) rightly put the people at the centre of the document.
I think that there is a place for euthanasia in our system and we should discuss what checks need to be in place for it so I would prefer to give it a go...
Violent Panda came out with decentralisation; right of recall and responsibility for one's actions
I would agree with all these, and would add that the principle that we are all responsible for our own actions is a good example of the need for everyone relevant to be constrained - there is no point arguing that only the government is responsible for its actions, everyone must be - which answers VP's "A statement informed by...?" question. Another example might be the Localism Bill which is attempting to treat London and Non-London authorities differently, or the reluctance to extend the Mayoral system beyond London.
So the principle list so far is that:
Laws should apply to all relevant people and institutions without exception
The voters can recall their representative under certain circumstances
We are all responsible for our own actions
Laws should be made at the local level.
How about a statement about faith being a personal choice, leading to the necessary division of church and state?
And a list of duties for the government - so far (from Weltweit): the provision of roads, the police, the NHS, the army.
So the duty to:
Keep the roads in a good condition
Organise the NHS efficiently
Organise the Police/Armed Forces
Although these should be decentralised to the Local Authority. which begs the question: How much organisation is allowed at the national level with the principle of decentralisation intact?
Also how about: Public Officials should be elected by the local people - so the Police Leader and Public Prosecutor etc?


----------



## Gmart (Aug 14, 2011)

How about everyone is equal in the eyes of the law?


----------



## Gmart (Aug 15, 2011)

Or a duty for the government would be to inform the population of the risks involved if associated with an activity.


----------



## 8115 (Aug 15, 2011)

A social contract (to my knowledge) isn't explicit.  It's a theory of government which explains why people let governments govern (as I understand it, because it's in their interests).  What you're talking about is more a constitution or something, but with duties for citizens too.

In my view, constitutions are a terrible idea, as the right to bear arms clearly illustrates.


----------



## Gmart (Aug 16, 2011)

A constitutional system of any sort has duties for the population. Even ours! We are expected to follow the law, not be violent, follow due process, vote etc.

This thread is exploring what principles are considered to be universal in British society and beyond.

Of course such a set of principles will be imperfect, and will be open to interpretation by public officials, but during the riots many were talking about the need for a social contract but without many details.

This thread is for those who feel that the current system in the UK is broken and must be fixed. A chance for the people to be constructive about possible change.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 16, 2011)

Gmart said:


> How about everyone is equal in the eyes of the law?



Who/what do you mean by "everyone"?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 16, 2011)

8115 said:


> A social contract (to my knowledge) isn't explicit. It's a theory of government which explains why people let governments govern (as I understand it, because it's in their interests). What you're talking about is more a constitution or something, but with duties for citizens too.
> 
> In my view, constitutions are a terrible idea, as the right to bear arms clearly illustrates.



In my view there are two main isues with written constitutions:

1) You end up with a codified constitution, and have to stick to it, regardless,
or
2) You have to put in place some kind of "constitutional court system" to constantly make amendments as requirements change. This would divert a huge amount of effort, energy and finance from other initiatives.

I'm not so worried about some sort of UK 2nd amendment equivalent", because of course in the US the 2nd amendment isn't adhered to, an *interpretation* of it eliding the crucial "respecting a militia" line is adhered to. You could "police" a modern version to avoid such problems, and not give a gun lobby equivalent to the NRA room to draw breath in the first place.


----------



## Gmart (Aug 17, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Who/what do you mean by "everyone"?


All people are equal in the eyes of the law

So if two people are up in court on the same charges, with the same evidence against them then they will get the same treatment - it is a basic principle.

The idea of a Constitutional element to court proceedings would not be that much of a difference - notice how the HRA is being slowly integrated into our courts without too many problems.

And there is a current commission looking in to a UK Bill of Rights - though it has specifically stated that parliamentary sovereignty will not be changed, so the report will be about the red lines for the people and not the red lines for parliament.

You are correct that laws have to be stuck to regardless - I don't see the problem with that. Every society has a list of things which are considered wrong and things which are considered to be right - and every one of these have to be stuck to regardless by both sides - people and parliament.

At the moment one side (parliament) can move the goalposts when they want - whereas the other side (the people) has only the vote every five years. This is why Hailsham described the UK as an elected dictatorship.

Actually the system should be a well thought out, logical and efficient - then the people would be happier to follow it, but all too often we have one rule for that group of people (ie no smoking in bars) and one set for another (the MP's bar in Westminster where smoking is allowed).


----------



## Gmart (Aug 17, 2011)

Other suggestions might include:
Secret voting not only at elections, but also for any voting in government, to limit the power of the whips.
A fixed method of funding based on size of town/city - with a mayor with powers for each one. This would limit the central authority's temptation to attach strings to funding.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 17, 2011)

Gmart said:


> All people are equal in the eyes of the law
> 
> So if two people are up in court on the same charges, with the same evidence against them then they will get the same treatment - it is a basic principle.



Except that in the real world no two cases are exactly the same, cases have to be weighed on their individual merits or what you deliver becomes even less of a simulacrum of justice than we currently have.

By the way, my point was that if you say "everyone" in your codified constitution, you leave the door open to the corporate entity also assuming the rights of the individual, as has happened in the US.



> The idea of a Constitutional element to court proceedings would not be that much of a difference - notice how the HRA is being slowly integrated into our courts without too many problems.



You've missed the point. You'd need a separate constitutional "bench" to deal with the myriad of ongoing amendments caused by precedent. The HRA is an entirely different entity, it is a legislated act of much the same sort as any criminal justice act. To compare the two makes no sense.



> And there is a current commission looking in to a UK Bill of Rights - though it has specifically stated that parliamentary sovereignty will not be changed, so the report will be about the red lines for the people and not the red lines for parliament.
> 
> You are correct that laws have to be stuck to regardless - I don't see the problem with that. Every society has a list of things which are considered wrong and things which are considered to be right - and every one of these have to be stuck to regardless by both sides - people and parliament.
> 
> ...



Wow, thanks for repeating to me the same things I've been saying about "parliamentary democracy" here for the last 8 years, and elsewhere for far longer.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 17, 2011)

Better get packing gmart:

Silicon Valley billionaire reveals plan to launch floating 'start up country' off San Francisco



> PayPal-founder Peter Thiel was so inspired by Atlas Shrugged - Ayn Rand's novel about free-market capitalism - that he's trying to make its title a reality.
> 
> The Silicon Valley billionaire has funnelled $1.25 million to the Seasteading Institute, an organization that aspires to launch a floating colony into international waters, freeing them and like-minded thinkers to live by Libertarian ideals.
> 
> Mr Thiel recently told Details magazine that: 'The United States Constitution had things you could do at the beginning that you couldn't do later. So the question is, can you go back to the beginning of things? How do you start over?'


----------



## twentythreedom (Aug 18, 2011)

Gmart said:


> This thread is for those who feel that the current system in the UK is broken and must be fixed. A chance for the people to be constructive about possible change.



We're way past that. The current system needs to be destroyed, not fixed. There is no "fix".

We've reached the "fuck politics, let's riot" stage. It'll get worse before it gets better...

Good work, Thatcher & co


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 18, 2011)

weltweit said:


> However, it has to be said, that if you do comply with the laws and remain broadly speaking normal there are a lot of things you can do..



It's true, we live in the best and most elaborate gilded cage that money can buy.


----------



## Gmart (Aug 18, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Except that in the real world no two cases are exactly the same, cases have to be weighed on their individual merits or what you deliver becomes even less of a simulacrum of justice than we currently have.



Certainly no two cases are the same, but the principle remains one on which legal systems are based.



ViolentPanda said:


> By the way, my point was that if you say "everyone" in your codified constitution, you leave the door open to the corporate entity also assuming the rights of the individual, as has happened in the US.



Indeed the corporate entity also has a set of duties to uphold in a constitution - one might have a health and safety standard which applies to them - or a container system - enforced by the people who work in them.



ViolentPanda said:


> You've missed the point. You'd need a separate constitutional "bench" to deal with the myriad of ongoing amendments caused by precedent. The HRA is an entirely different entity, it is a legislated act of much the same sort as any criminal justice act. To compare the two makes no sense.



I don't think it makes sense to create new courts around the country, one could simply pass a law which states that existing courts must ensure that their rulings adhere to the constitutional document. I think the courts would be able to take that on board even if it took time to adjust, precedents would be set etc.

So if we had Freedom of speech (excluding obvious spotlight fallacies) - then I have confidence that the courts would be able to take on board such a freedom within their judgments.

We should be able to agree on some of these principles - freedom of speech for one, the freedom to choose one's own faith (leading to secularism) for another, equality in law, responsibility for one's actions, freedom to associate. We can all find minor examples where these principles would not be reasonable, such as shouting 'Fire!' in a stadium causing a riot, but these are spotlight fallacies and do not deny the basic principle.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 18, 2011)

Gmart said:


> I don't think it makes sense to create new courts around the country, one could simply pass a law which states that existing courts must ensure that their rulings adhere to the constitutional document. I think the courts would be able to take that on board even if it took time to adjust, precedents would be set etc.



A constitution is an enactment just like any other in that it must be applied by the courts without some separate law telling them that they must do so.


----------



## Gmart (Aug 18, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> A constitution is an enactment just like any other in that it must be applied by the courts without some separate law telling them that they must do so.


With parliamentary sovereignty all we would need would be a parliament act which tells the courts that this document must be upheld, and that if people feel that their rights have been impinged then they have the right to take it to the courts. Then it would be up to the judges to judge each case on its merits.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 18, 2011)

Gmart said:


> With parliamentary sovereignty all we would need would be a parliament act which tells the courts that this document must be upheld, and that if people feel that their rights have been impinged then they have the right to take it to the courts. Then it would be up to the judges to judge each case on its merits.



What I'm saying is you don't need a separate act. The constitution is an act of parliament, and as such, must be upheld by the courts.


----------



## Gmart (Aug 18, 2011)

How about where you are born, you are entitled to citizenship. This could be expanded to any who have parents or grandparents being eligible. This would be qualified by us all being members of the EU.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 18, 2011)

Gmart said:


> How about where you are born, you are entitled to citizenship. This could be expanded to any who have parents or grandparents being eligible. This would be qualified by us all being members of the EU.



I can apply for a work visa in the UK because I have British grandparents.


----------



## Gmart (Aug 18, 2011)

> where you are born, you are entitled to citizenship


Seems a reasonable principle to agree on: All people need somewhere they can call home, and that country is where you were born geographically. Therefore they are entitled to a passport and the vote due to this citizenship. The recent furore about prisoners votes could go here, ie if you commit a violent crime and are in prison, then you are not entitled to vote.
Might cause a few problems in Israel though.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 19, 2011)

Gmart said:


> Certainly no two cases are the same, but the principle remains one on which legal systems are based.



Most legal systems in nation-states that style themselves as democracies operate on a principle of "each case on its' individual merits" not on "everyone gets treated equally", even if that's the principle they claim to uphold.



> Indeed the corporate entity also has a set of duties to uphold in a constitution - one might have a health and safety standard which applies to them - or a container system - enforced by the people who work in them.



A corporate entity should not be accorded the rights of an individual, though.



> I don't think it makes sense to create new courts around the country, one could simply pass a law which states that existing courts must ensure that their rulings adhere to the constitutional document. I think the courts would be able to take that on board even if it took time to adjust, precedents would be set etc.



A constitutional court or bench doesn't have to have multiple venues, but it would need to function in parallel with the criminal justice system and the legislative system overall in order to facilitate any kind of constitution that wasn't intended to be a static statement of "the final word".


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 19, 2011)

Corporate entities are a bit tricky. IMO such a thing ought not to be recognised in law - no corporation should have rights or obligations; rights and obligations are things that only people can have.


----------



## Gmart (Aug 20, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Most legal systems in nation-states that style themselves as democracies operate on a principle of "each case on its' individual merits" not on "everyone gets treated equally", even if that's the principle they claim to uphold.



There is indeed the principle to address each case on its merits, but there is also the principle that all people are entitled to equal protection by the law - ie no person can be viewed as more important than another. I admit that it is an obvious one, but it is in most constitutions in some form and provides a guiding statement along with the case by case principle.



ViolentPanda said:


> A corporate entity should not be accorded the rights of an individual, though.



Controversial! We live in a world where these entities certainly own property and so enjoy property rights. They also enjoy freedom of speech, though freedom of conscience would be crazy. I agree that care would need to be taken.

One example occurs though: Is it a right to fire someone if they are negligent in their duty as an employee?

As an employer I would consider it as an impingement on my right to make this decision if the government told me that I could not fire them - if they had adhered to their contract and not been negligent, then I would of course have no right to fire them, but if you break your contract you must surely expect to be fired?

That said there is no need to go into the rights of the corporate entity, just the need for a contract to specify the consequences of a failure to adhere to the contract - so I agree that there would seem to be little need for more than property rights for the corporate entities - maybe others will come up, but that would seem adequate to ensure they adhere to their duties.

I was reading J S Mill's On Liberty to guide my input to this thread, and he reminded me of minority rights to counter what he termed the tyranny of the majority - ie to prevent the democratic majority to pass a law to oppress a minority, so maybe one principle could be that a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 20, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Most legal systems in nation-states that style themselves as democracies operate on a principle of "each case on its' individual merits" not on "everyone gets treated equally", even if that's the principle they claim to uphold..



I think the goal is equality before the law, mitigated by individual circumstances.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 20, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> A corporate entity should not be accorded the rights of an individual, though..



How would you circumscribe the status of a corporation?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 20, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> A constitutional court or bench doesn't have to have multiple venues, but it would need to function in parallel with the criminal justice system and the legislative system overall in order to facilitate any kind of constitution that wasn't intended to be a static statement of "the final word".



There is no need for a constitutional court. The courts currently extant can and will apply the law as set out in the constitution. Canada received a constitution when it became a country in 1867; but the ultimate recourse at law was to the Privy Council. The application of the constitution was handled by the various court levels [it's more complicated than this, with a division of powers between the federal and provincial spheres].

With the repatriation of the Constitution in 1982, a new enactment was passed, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which has the force and effect of a constitutional document. The Charter is applied by the courts without recourse to any special constitutional court.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 20, 2011)

Also, it's worth remembering that giving a corporation personality allows it to be hauled into court and sued just like any other individual.


----------



## Gmart (Aug 21, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Also, it's worth remembering that giving a corporation personality allows it to be hauled into court and sued just like any other individual.


I think it is fair to state that all legal entities will be liable to the usual list of rights and laws which define any nation. This would include taxation through the usual factors of production - land, labour and capital.
I agree that the courts would be able to absorb the principles in a constitution to guide justice.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 21, 2011)

Gmart said:


> I think it is fair to state that all legal entities will be liable to the usual list of rights and laws which define any nation. This would include taxation through the usual factors of production - land, labour and capital.
> I agree that the courts would be able to absorb the principles in a constitution to guide justice.



But different legal entities have differential liability under the law. Consider the difference in liability for a partnership vs a corporation, for instance.


----------



## Gmart (Aug 22, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> But different legal entities have differential liability under the law. Consider the difference in liability for a partnership vs a corporation, for instance.


All legal entities would have duties.

So from citizens to policemen there would be the duty to act in response to certain stimuli.
All citizens have the right to vote, implying choice and the duty to obey the law, implying consequences.
A legal entity might have the duty of care to treat the land it owns well, not pollute it. As a landowner it would have a duty to use the land or be taxed if not. Areas of Natural beauty would have to be protected.
The tax load would have to be balanced between the factors of production: land, labour and capital.
How about a statement on the citizen's right to make moral decisions for themselves? No victim no crime.
Jury service for everyone
Logic tests for judges


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 23, 2011)

Gmart said:


> All legal entities would have duties.
> 
> So from citizens to policemen there would be the duty to act in response to certain stimuli.
> All citizens have the right to vote, implying choice and the duty to obey the law, implying consequences.
> ...



It's often phrased in the terminology of 'rights and responsibilities'.

Not always a good idea to have everyone do jury duty. Most people wouldn't want a lawyer sitting on their jury, for instance.


----------



## Gmart (Aug 23, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> It's often phrased in the terminology of 'rights and responsibilities'.



I don't see the advantage. Rights are a legal guarantee which can never be taken away. In a free world we can still choose, so to simplify it I choose to talk about duties and rights separately. Responsibility is fine, but seems to communicate two things: ability to respond is one thing and the duty to act in a certain way thus I return to duty.
Maybe I am missing something, but if you have an example which illustrates why my method is imprecise or negligent in some way then that would be great 



Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Not always a good idea to have everyone do jury duty. Most people wouldn't want a lawyer sitting on their jury, for instance.



I would hope that the lawyer was more qualified to follow the logic of the case - I'm sure the defence might make a case in certain situations, and it would be up to the judge to make that call. For here I am merely expressing general principles which can be interpreted as part of law over the years.

How about the right to wear what you wish, including being naked - ridiculous law that one.

The right to choose what you put in your body would be an interesting one, the government might have mandatory labels to communicate risk.

The principle to have all industries in the white sector rather than handing the 'immoral' ones to the criminal sectors - legalise it and tax it - this links with the no victim no crime principle. These are not areas that the government needs to interfere - if there is no victim any moral decision is a personal one and might be described as impolite but cannot be legislated on.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 23, 2011)

Gmart said:


> I don't see the advantage. Rights are a legal guarantee which can never be taken away. In a free world we can still choose, so to simplify it I choose to talk about duties and rights separately. Responsibility is fine, but seems to communicate two things: ability to respond is one thing and the duty to act in a certain way thus I return to duty.
> Maybe I am missing something, but if you have an example which illustrates why my method is imprecise or negligent in some way then that would be great
> 
> I would hope that the lawyer was more qualified to follow the logic of the case - I'm sure the defence might make a case in certain situations, and it would be up to the judge to make that call. For here I am merely expressing general principles which can be interpreted as part of law over the years..



Not sure about UK, but in Canada, lawyers are automatically excluded from jury duty. I think the theory is that the jury is supposed to be instructed on the law by the judge. A lawyer comes to the case with his head already full of law, probably thinking he knows as much as the judge or either of the two lawyers doing the case.

You also don't want the lawyer back in the jury room, using his profession to bring undue influence to bear on the deliberations of the lay jurors.

One is supposed to have a jury of one's peers. When it comes to the law, a lawyer isn't one of the person on trial's peers.


----------



## Gmart (Aug 23, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Not sure about UK, but in Canada, lawyers are automatically excluded from jury duty. I think the theory is that the jury is supposed to be instructed on the law by the judge. A lawyer comes to the case with his head already full of law, probably thinking he knows as much as the judge or either of the two lawyers doing the case.



Oh, I see, fair enough


----------



## Gmart (Aug 24, 2011)

If you see a criminal act, a duty of being a citizen is to report it.
The duty to support oneself and one's family and there is a subsequent duty to enskill yourself to a degree where this is possible. Thus a duty to supply education must be accepted by the government up to a certain degree.
There is no point making the inheritance tax 100%, because their money will leave due to a competition to see who can offer the best tax rates to attract such assets. So tax has to be fair for all - which implies a flat rate. I would argue for a system which taxes all the factors of production, land, labour and capital in a more balanced way.
Key to making this kind of system work is to ensure that we have a meritocracy. This ideal is highly subjective, which is why it has proved so easy for those in power to ensure the opposite, leading to our current system where only the richer part of society has a decent education. Although the sovereignty issue is important (nothing can happen until both the haves stop tieing up all the assets for themselves and the havenots stop their continual rebellion against the unfair system we have), it is clear that even a popular sovereignty system would breakdown if a meritocracy is not clearly worked towards. The same goes for logical laws and efficient systems - so an institution with the power to suggest legislation would need to be set up to ensure this happens too.


----------



## Random (Aug 24, 2011)

Gmart said:


> There is no point making the inheritance tax 100%, because their money will leave due to a competition to see who can offer the best tax rates to attract such assets. So tax has to be fair for all - which implies a flat rate.


 They can keep their 'money'; we'll be happy with the fields, forests and factories.


----------



## Gmart (Aug 25, 2011)

Random said:


> They can keep their 'money'; we'll be happy with the fields, forests and factories.


That's very sweet, but in the same way as I would argue that the current trend towards making the UK a retreat for the rich is unfair on the poor who are just as British and who should be able to live in their own country without being ripped off - this cuts both ways and we should not make the UK a retreat for the poor to live in some kind of primitive society. It has to be freedom for all, not just for a certain group of people - technology happened and must be embraced - same goes for globalisation, there is no point harking back to a bygone golden age - that way lies fascism - we need to learn our lessons and create as modern a system as possible and allow future generations to fine tune it as they see fit.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 25, 2011)

You speak of the 'poor' and the 'rich' as if they somehow deserve their relative statuses regarding their wealth. That's not how it works. There can only be freedom for one person to be rich if there are people there for them to exploit. 'rich' is not an absolute term. It is and can only ever be a relative term: you are rich because you have more than others, which enables you to take more than an equal share of resources and put them to your service.


----------



## Gmart (Aug 25, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You speak of the 'poor' and the 'rich' as if they somehow deserve their relative statuses regarding their wealth. That's not how it works. There can only be freedom for one person to be rich if there are people there for them to exploit. 'rich' is not an absolute term. It is and can only ever be a relative term: you are rich because you have more than others, which enables you to take more than an equal share of resources and put them to your service.


This is like complaining that life is not fair - there will always be the richer and poorer parts of society - talking about who 'deserves' to be rich or poor is not useful - they both exist and in a modern society, neither should not be allowed to take over, and neither should be prevented from pursuing their dreams. Thus the need for a modern constitution/system.

Being rich doesn't mean that there must be losers - it is not a zero sum game - when I buy milk then the shop owner and I both win.

Sometimes there are losers in life though, I am not denying that, but that is why we must try and define a society which is as equitable as possible, a meritocracy where if you work hard: you succeed, and if you don't: you don't.

It is pointless trying to make everyone the same because they aren't. Everyone is different and so the world will turn out with everyone doing different things - and yes some people will get paid more than others. Footballers are paid that much because hardly anyone can do what they do. The same goes for music stars - people are prepared to spend a fortune to see the best acts because hardly anyone can be that good, and (in a free society) people should be free to choose to use their money as they wish, even (maybe especially) if we disagree with it.

That is the difference between a totalitarian regime where one set of people tell the rest how they 'should' live. While in a free society people can do what they like so long as there isn't a victim.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 25, 2011)

Rubbish. Imagine a world in which everyone earns £1m a year.

How much would it cost you to get a service wash done at the cleaner's? Or to be waited on at a table in a restaurant? Or for your bins to be collected once a week?

There isn't a victim? Really?

You're talking complete bollocks about 'neither should be allowed to take over'. The rich have taken over. That's how come they are rich!


----------



## Gmart (Aug 25, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Rubbish. Imagine a world in which everyone earns £1m a year.
> 
> How much would it cost you to get a service wash done at the cleaner's? Or to be waited on at a table in a restaurant? Or for your bins to be collected once a week?
> 
> ...


Just supporting the poor taking over would be making the same mistake.

Imagine a world where everyone earns a million a year - LOL


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 25, 2011)

Did you get what I meant by that?

If everyone earned £1m a year, you might as well knock off a couple of noughts and say that everyone earned 10k. Or that everyone earned £34.26.

£1m per year seems like a lot of money because it is an amount that only a tiny minority of people can earn - because it is X times the minimum wage.


----------



## Gmart (Aug 25, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Did you get what I meant by that?
> If everyone earned £1m a year, you might as well knock off a couple of noughts and say that everyone earned 10k. Or that everyone earned £34.26.
> 
> £1m per year seems like a lot of money because it is an amount that only a tiny minority of people can earn - because it is X times the minimum wage.


It makes no difference - if everyone earned that much ( a ridiculous scenario btw) then bread would cost thousands because the supply of money is so high. There would still be the rich and the poor, but with bank balances with more zeroes on the figure.

Did you get what I meant about not letting one group take over, rich OR poor?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 25, 2011)

One group has taken over! The rich. That's what being rich means - you're part of the group that's taken over.

You speak as if being rich were some kind of morally neutral position that did not depend on your position relative to others. It isn't.


----------



## Gmart (Aug 25, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> One group has taken over! The rich. That's what being rich means - you're part of the group that's taken over.
> 
> You speak as if being rich were some kind of morally neutral position that did not depend on your position relative to others. It isn't.



Being rich is not actually a crime - I have already given examples of people who might be rich because they provide a service that people want to pay money for.

I have no problem with people being rich if they are being productive.

So yes, being rich can indeed be 'morally' neutral.

I think you are getting this position confused with other rich people who didn't earn their money - maybe they inherited it - which is indeed counter to the meritocratic principles I have mentioned.

Yes the rich have taken over because we keep finding reasons not to change a system which has always been set up this way. Even you were going on about how 'flexible' our system is a few pages back - and that type of comment is what prevents true change from occurring.

There is no reason why we cannot build up a system which deals with these problems - that is what this thread is here to do - but even with the riots yet again showing us how rubbish our system is, and even with many posters talking the talk about how we need to discuss the Social Contract etc, there are still precious few people who are prepared to walk the walk and contribute.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 25, 2011)

It's not quite that 'the rich have taken over'. It is more accurate to say that some people have taken over - those that own stuff and charge the rest of us to use it, primarily - and that they have made themselves rich as a result of their position of leverage.

In such a circumstance, talk of meritocracy has no value. If you're not starting from the same place, the place you end up reaching isn't a reflection of your relative merit.


----------



## Gmart (Aug 26, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It's not quite that 'the rich have taken over'. It is more accurate to say that some people have taken over - those that own stuff and charge the rest of us to use it, primarily - and that they have made themselves rich as a result of their position of leverage.
> 
> In such a circumstance, talk of meritocracy has no value. If you're not starting from the same place, the place you end up reaching isn't a reflection of your relative merit.


We live in a world where 'stuff' is valued. These assets are valued by everyone. If someone offered you a house tomorrow then you would take it with thanks. Some families have more money than others and there is no point to trying to argue that everything should be taken away in some kind of 'start over' idea. That simply won't work - those who own assets have the freedom to use those assets as they wish in a free society and if we decided to steal their assets (yet again) then we would not be fixing the key problems in our society (this idea has been tried before).

That is the crux of it: Do you want a society where all assets are taken and organised by the centre to be fairly distributed (the revolution model) or do you want a society which accepts that everyone owns something now, and to take that from them would be theft and divisive?

Of course there is a temptation to argue for the former if you own nothing because you have nothing to lose, but that would be disrespectful to those who do. In a modern country such as the UK there are too many people who own at least something - we have 75% ish property ownership, and many people own cars and other assets - and we need to find a solution that includes them, not alienates them.

For years the haves and havenots have been fighting for these assets, but to no avail - we still have parliamentary sovereignty, no constitution and few rights. The time has come to stop fighting in that way and to forget about those assets for the moment. Create as meritocratic a system as possible, even if it takes a few decades to get right, at least we would be leaving behind a system which has failed. If we create a decent meritocracy then these issues will be dealt with later, but first things first - the system is broken and we need to join the rest of the world.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 26, 2011)

If a particular small group in a society owns and controls limited, essential resources, such as land, their 'freedom to use those assets as they wish' is contrary to the freedom of others to share in those limited, essential resources, which they need too. There are two kinds of freedom: freedom to act, and freedom not to be acted upon. To have to pay someone else simply to occupy space is contrary to one's freedom not to be acted upon.

You're right that some kind of 'start over' is hardly practical, that the big question remains how to get from here to there. But not to touch the present concepts of ownership - where one person's livelihood can be owned by another person - is not to touch anything. Everything starts with who owns what. The iniquities and inequalities flow from there.

I don't want a 'meritocracy', fwiw. Not at all. I want a system that gives people the resources they need to flourish, and expects from them in return that they should provide those resources to others in their turn. But a system that doesn't define success as 'taking more than your share', which is the definition of monetary success as currently defined.

How do we get from here to there? We may never get from here to there. But we may start to take the first steps. And those first steps involve the securing of limited, essential resources, such as land, to be held in collective hands. This does not mean directing everything from the centre. Not at all. If anything a system where such resources are owned by a small minority is one that is directed from a centre. It does mean, for instance, that any money system that is based on the creation of debt, as ours is, should be creating that debt primarily at the level of the collective. Nobody should have to go into debt merely to secure the essentials of life, or indeed any of the basics that are needed in order to flourish. If you want to take a gamble on something else, well, that's another matter, perhaps.

Such things can be done piecemeal. As capitalists fuck up, as they always do in the end, they are not bailed out - the resources they control are rather taken into collective ownership. Not as a stop-gap or as an emergency measure, but as something that is a desirable and proper state of affairs. All banks should be in some form of collective ownership, for starters. That's the only way to stop the people who control the flow of money from taking the enormous slice of the pie that they currently take because they can, because they are in a position of leverage. Bankers don't create wealth. They take it from others. There's one step in the right direction that could have been taken three years ago, had the political will to do so existed. That leads to the sticky question of overcoming vested interests who exercise a virtually hegemonic control over decision-making processes - but then your idea of a 'meritocracy' is going to come up against them too. It is when those vested interests mess up that the chance comes to challenge them, perhaps.

Without changes in the patterns of ownership, the finest constitution with the fairest-minded social contract imaginable will change very little. And if that constitution guarantees current patterns of ownership legal protection, it in fact acts to prevent change. Yours is not a project I would sign up to. It is a project that I would rather ignore. That is what I meant when I said that, given current patterns of ownership and wealth distribution, perhaps the UK's current mess is preferable to a 'clean' constitution like that of the US.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 26, 2011)

To my mind there can be no social contract when the rich extract from the poor. It doesn't require a grand explanation. It really is this simple. We work, they take. Until the levelling we simply cannot talk of a contract, a contract implies free agents entering into an agreement. A social contract under current terms is a joke, an exercise in legalistic masturbation that enshrines a servitute- it's lube. Fucking lube. And guess what? I'd just rather not be fucked thanks.

I wipe my shitty ringpiece with a social contract.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 26, 2011)

God fuck the liberals who want to negotiate surrender. Implicit, explicit- complicit. I'm so damn tired of it. don't negotiate a society based around this shit idea that we are all men standing together. We aren't. Some of us stand on the backs of other people. They should be torn down.

argh- the supine mealy mouthing of liberals has got my goat good and proper today because I've seen one in action, diluting the will to fight with nonsense about getting round the table and playing it calm. Sell you down quicker than you can say 'tuition fees'


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Aug 26, 2011)

Only communism, friend.  Or unicorns.


----------



## Gmart (Aug 27, 2011)

As a basic response to both you and Dotcommunist I think your positions are defeatist. The idea that we cannot change this country is just avoiding the difficult task of describing the vision in detail while concentrating on current ills to distract from this need is lazy.

Limited resources



littlebabyjesus said:


> To have to pay someone else simply to occupy space is contrary to one's freedom not to be acted upon.



So maybe everything should be owned by the people? - but even then there would have to be an authority which organises those who don't believe in your vision and presuming that we still have an elected parliament in your vision then with parliamentary sovereignty people would just rebel against it.

We do indeed have limited resources, land, labour and capital can all be used to produce and are scarce. I talked about them earlier though you did not comment.



littlebabyjesus said:


> not to touch the present concepts of ownership - where one person's livelihood can be owned by another person - is not to touch anything



The idea of ownership will not change - you own things and so do I and it would be difficult to run a political campaign which impinges on such basic rights. People just don't want to change it.

The idea that one person can 'own' another's livlihood against their will is abhorrent - indeed it is slavery, so a basic right would be the freedom to enter contracts of your own free will. Thank you for your engagement.

So ownership as a concept will not be touched because people don't want to touch it, and yes inequality will result from this decision, but that is the world you live in - it is unfair on a basic level in that different people might be born with better talents than another, or into a family with more assets - but I cannot see how this train of thought has any practical benefit in the modern world. We need to create a world where both the rich and the poor are involved, getting out of the death grip they have got themselves into.

Many other countries have addressed these issues and have gone down the road of a modern system of the form I am suggesting - but you are reluctant to embrace what that entails - and so your default setting is to stick with the system you have - that way lies conservatism.



littlebabyjesus said:


> I don't want a 'meritocracy', fwiw. Not at all.



So you don't want a system where people succeed if they have talent and work hard? Do you expect praise if you do a good job at your work? Do you expect better pay? We live in a rational world, and the ideal of a meritocracy could be a constructive part of that.



littlebabyjesus said:


> I want a system that gives people the resources they need to flourish



So you want a system which just gives out resources to everyone? Maybe you mean from each according to his ability, to each according to his need? The problem is that it doesn't reflect the world we live in - some people end up being more equal than others - it ignores many aspects of life and ends up as a totalitarian nightmare as the state tries to impose its ideals on a population which is suffering due to the poor system this creates.

Anyone who has travelled a little can see great strides being made in countries which have decided to build a repubic in a reasonable way, (France, South Korea etc). Ironically, after refusing to engage in the ideals of a social contract/constitution you then talk about the duties you expect from the people:



littlebabyjesus said:


> and expects from them in return that they should provide those resources to others in their turn



Why refuse to engage in discussion about your principles? Your idea is a revolution, but without a constitution to replace the existing one you would be replacing one authoritarian nightmare with your own.



littlebabyjesus said:


> But a system that doesn't define success as 'taking more than your share', which is the definition of monetary success as currently defined.



How would you define success? How would you deal with people who do not share your vision? This thread is for principles we can all agree on.



littlebabyjesus said:


> How do we get from here to there? We may never get from here to there. But we may start to take the first steps. And those first steps involve the securing of limited, essential resources, such as land, to be held in collective hands.



Systems need to be developed certainly and my idea of moving towards a more modern constitutional framework is similarly unlikely, but we need to try. Tax the land based on square metrage.



littlebabyjesus said:


> This does not mean directing everything from the centre. Not at all.



Except that if it isn't directed from the centre it will not work, as the population does not share your vision and they will rebel against your authority especially without a constitution which puts the people first - 'we the people' has to be at the root of a modern constitution.



littlebabyjesus said:


> If anything a system where such resources are owned by a small minority is one that is directed from a centre.



Certainly the UK suffers from the overly centralised system imposed after WW2, and parliamentary sovereignty and the lack of a modern constitution add to this problem.


----------



## Gmart (Aug 27, 2011)

Debt and Banking



littlebabyjesus said:


> It does mean, for instance, that any money system that is based on the creation of debt, as ours is, should be creating that debt primarily at the level of the collective.



If we accept that banks can lend to both people and business entities and that it would be impractical to make fractional-reserve banking illegal - then we are left with ensuring that the government-owned bank provides a no-frills service which ensures the market does not collectivise to the detriment of the customer. This is another issue, and if you do wish to continue this then I would be happy to post this in a Banking thread.



littlebabyjesus said:


> Nobody should have to go into debt merely to secure the essentials of life, or indeed any of the basics that are needed in order to flourish. If you want to take a gamble on something else, well, that's another matter, perhaps.



No one is going to argue that people should go into debt to secure food and shelter etc.



littlebabyjesus said:


> Such things can be done piecemeal. As capitalists fuck up, as they always do in the end, they are not bailed out - the resources they control are rather taken into collective ownership. Not as a stop-gap or as an emergency measure, but as something that is a desirable and proper state of affairs.



So here we are at the government owning all the assets for the people again but without a constitution to control parliament and without popular sovereignty to ensure this control is effective. Are you arguing for the abolishment of private industry for personal gain?



littlebabyjesus said:


> All banks should be in some form of collective ownership, for starters. That's the only way to stop the people who control the flow of money from taking the enormous slice of the pie that they currently take because they can, because they are in a position of leverage. Bankers don't create wealth. They take it from others.



Although I agree that the banks could be organised better, the idea of forcing them to be collectives is authoritarian at best. And people want to borrow money to better their lives, and to invest - would such usury be illegal for the individual? If only we had a publicly owned bank which could provide a no-frills service...



littlebabyjesus said:


> There's one step in the right direction that could have been taken three years ago, had the political will to do so existed.



We do actually have a bank in (mostly) public ownership at the moment.



littlebabyjesus said:


> That leads to the sticky question of overcoming vested interests who exercise a virtually hegemonic control over decision-making processes



Indeed it does, and they are hardly likely to go for your idea where they lose everything



littlebabyjesus said:


> - but then your idea of a 'meritocracy' is going to come up against them too.



I would humbly suggest that my idea is more realistic. Your idea is to take everything from everyone and to impose an authoritarian utopia along the lines of Cuba (at best). Although your ideals have merit, indeed I share some of them but in the end your idea is revolution or nothing - resulting in nothing - which suits the status quo fine - whereas my idea is to argue for popular sovereignty and to use that basis as a starting point for creating a better society with a written constitution. Similarly unlikely, but more likely to result in lasting change.



littlebabyjesus said:


> It is when those vested interests mess up that the chance comes to challenge them, perhaps.



If we try and impose a complete change on them, then all our enemies will gather together to ensure that it will not happen, however if we all refused to talk about anything until the sovereignty issue is finally addressed, then we could have a slow evolution towards a better system - it would take time, but at least we would be going in the right direction. We would need to be united against the common enemy.



littlebabyjesus said:


> Without changes in the patterns of ownership, the finest constitution with the fairest-minded social contract imaginable will change very little.



I can imagine a bit better than you on this maybe, but I have seen modern countries who are making a better go of this.



littlebabyjesus said:


> And if that constitution guarantees current patterns of ownership legal protection, it in fact acts to prevent change.



I do not hold out much hope for your revolution based on changing ownership - even if it were possible, with parliamentary sovereignty intact the population would rebel against it automatically.



littlebabyjesus said:


> Yours is not a project I would sign up to. It is a project that I would rather ignore.



You along with most posters on here



littlebabyjesus said:


> That is what I meant when I said that, given current patterns of ownership and wealth distribution, perhaps the UK's current mess is preferable to a 'clean' constitution like that of the US.



So if you cannot have your own utopia, you would prefer to have none?


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 27, 2011)

> Limited resources



Limited for us, plentiful for them. Don't give me lazy, don't give me defeatist. I'll feed you the cant back from your fluttering lips. Is it lazy to refuse the shit sandwich? no. Is it defeatist to ask which sauce might sweeten the taste? Yes it is. Carry on with your social contract- fool.


----------



## Gmart (Aug 27, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> Limited for us, plentiful for them. Don't give me lazy, don't give me defeatist. I'll feed you the cant back from your fluttering lips. Is it lazy to refuse the shit sandwich? no. Is it defeatist to ask which sauce might sweeten the taste? Yes it is. Carry on with your social contract- fool.



That's sweet 
Until we engage constructively
and produce an alternative

Including everyone, not just the 'Us'
then all our efforts will just lead to no change

Fighting amongst ourselves,
calling each other names etc
is just what those in power want you to do

We should be demanding a Popular Sovereignty
Writing a proper written constitution,
With divided powers
between church and state
between executive, judicial and legislative
Freedom of Conscience
Freedom of Speech
All the basics
first and foremost
Yes, we can!


----------



## Random (Aug 27, 2011)

why do you want to create a capitalist dictatorship like in the usa?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 27, 2011)

> So if you cannot have your own utopia, you would prefer to have none?



I specifically addressed the notion of utopia.

Yours is an impoverished idea of freedom because it seeks to guarantee certain types of freedom, such as freedom to own as much property as you can get your hands on, where that freedom runs directly counter to the freedoms of others. There are 'freedom to act' and 'freedom not to be acted upon', and you only really address the former. But these freedoms are often in conflict. There is no such thing as absolute freedom within a society of individuals. You would have the lines drawn between the two freedoms I mention pretty much where they are now in your legal document: particularly by giving 'freedom to own' primacy over 'freedom to live'. This is why I say it would change little and in fact serve to resist change.

You give me no reasons to sign up to your project. Address the issues of ownership. All else is just rearranging the deckchairs.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 27, 2011)

> Although I agree that the banks could be organised better, the idea of forcing them to be collectives is authoritarian at best. And people want to borrow money to better their lives, and to invest - would such usury be illegal for the individual? If only we had a publicly owned bank which could provide a no-frills service...



Again, you have a very odd idea of 'authoritarian'. The banks have just fucked up. And WE have bailed them out. Privatise profits, socialise losses. This is what capitalism does.

So yes, I would ban anyone from lending money at interest unless they are a cooperatively established institution - ie state-owned or mutuals. I'm not going to go into the reasons why here in too much detail, but basically private banks make money by lending. The more they lend, the more money they make. Now you might say that a legitimate lending of money would be to a person with a good idea for a business. But that kind of lending only makes banks a decent living, and in recent decades, banks have not been content with a decent living. They want an obscene living. So they encourage ponzi schemes - asset bubbles in places like housing markets. As prices go through the roof, so people have to borrow more for mortgages, etc, and the banks make more profit. But nothing is created. No wealth is created at all in such ponzi schemes, but the banks take billions in profit from them. That's theft. That wealth was created by people working to create value, and more and more and more and more and more and more and more of that value ends up in the pockets of bankers. Make no mistake: the cunts should be in prison. They should be out cleaning our streets for the rest of their lives. But whatever, life's too short and too difficult, so what you do instead is take their assets from them when they fuck up with their greedy, evil ponzi schemes, and legislate to prevent them from doing it ever again.

Basic principles: making money from doing = legitimate; making money from owning = illegitimate. So, once we've taken the money-lending system back so that it serves our needs and not the needs of avaricious bankers, we start down the road of reducing the money that's made from owning and giving that value back to those who are doing. How do you do that? Well, for starters, the new banking institutions only lend money to businesses that are incorporated as worker-owned businesses. Nothing too radical about that: John Lewis is already run on that basis and thrives as a business in the capitalist world. In fact, such businesses, as they do not have to pay out shareholder dividends, have a competitive advantage over shareholder-owned businesses. Over time, shareholder-owned businesses will shrink in importance, worker pay and conditions will improve and wealth will be redistributed somewhat in a downwards direction.

There's lots that can be done. Without revolution. Without authoritarian imposition from above. In fact the exact opposite: by changing patterns of ownership, you allow for power to be exerted from below. There's lots that can be argued about. And there are arguments that can and should be won over such things as banking, where at least 95 percent of the population is currently being ripped off. But _everything_ comes down to ownership. If you won't address that, I'm simply not interested in anything else you might have to say. It is irrelevant.


----------



## A Dashing Blade (Aug 27, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Basic principles: making money from doing = legitimate; making money from owning = illegitimate.


So a basic principle is that ownership of wealth (wealth = an asset that generates income) is "illigitimate"?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 27, 2011)

The basic principle seems clear enough to me. It is exactly as I laid it out. Now we have the tricky situation whereby a lot of people will rightly say that they took the decision to buy something in order to charge for its use and thereby gain an income from its ownership in good faith that this was a legitimate thing to do. This is why such a situation cannot be resolved overnight - lots of morally illegitimate things are allowed and indeed positively encouraged by the current system. It is a balloon that needs deflating rather than popping.

But yes, I openly challenge the logic and morality of capitalism. Of course. It's the only way to properly see what it is that you are doing. gmart's ideas would simply lead to a further entrenchment of the iniquity that s/he appears to want to resolve. I think the reason they don't see that is because they haven't examined exactly what it is that is going on now, exactly what it means to 'own' something. Unfettered rights to own as much as you can get your hands on - Peter Mandleson's idea that one can be 'intensely relaxed' about individuals making themselves extremely rich - need to be challenged. The idea that there is such a thing as a 'fair share' needs to be employed. Otherwise all you have is capitalism with a few legal protections against a closely circumscribed set of abuses that don't include any of the most egregious abuses. You have the USA, basically, and I for one don't want that.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 27, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> The basic principle seems clear enough to me. It is exactly as I laid it out. *Now we have the tricky situation whereby a lot of people will rightly say that they took the decision to buy something in order to charge for its use* and thereby gain an income from its ownership in good faith that this was a legitimate thing to do. This is why such a situation cannot be resolved overnight - lots of morally illegitimate things are allowed and indeed positively encouraged by the current system. It is a balloon that needs deflating rather than popping.
> 
> But yes, I openly challenge the logic and morality of capitalism. Of course.



First off, we need to try and imagine what set of social relations and real life conditions need to exist to allow these people to be in this position to buy the means of production. Secondly, profit/surplus value (not the same thing in reality, but it's ok for this thread) is made not from _charging for use_, but by use by the owners. You keep saying it, and i agree - you need to read Marx on Capital.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 27, 2011)

I might be talking about something a bit different. At its most basic, if you own land, for instance, you charge for its use. You don't gain a profit from using that land - you gain a profit from the use others make of it.

Problem is that lots of people have been coopted into this system - that's the set of social conditions that have made it possible. As for how you change that, well, first off, I would say that you change it in the way I've been saying - by ensuring that nobody has to take out debts in order to be provided with the basics of life, and that includes a secure home, food, clothing, education, health care, pensions, a whole range of things. You provide a viable alternative so that people don't feel forced into playing dirty capitalist games. And you do that by taking the capitalists' assets from them when they fuck up. It can be done and it is what people should be arguing for, imo.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 27, 2011)

If you want to talk about the most basic, then you have to talk about point one in my post.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 27, 2011)

That's what I've been attempting to do. Addressing social relations at their most basic and seeing what ways there might be to change them.

If you were to sum up what I've been trying to say on this thread so far, it would be this:

Who owns what is the most fundamental social relation that is at the root of inequality and injustice. Changing the patterns of ownership is the only way to address questions of inequality and injustice.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 27, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> That's what I've been attempting to do. Addressing social relations at their most basic and seeing what ways there might be to change them.
> 
> If you were to sum up what I've been trying to say on this thread so far, it would be this:
> 
> Who owns what is the most fundamental social relation that is at the root of inequality and injustice. Changing the patterns of ownership is the only way to address questions of inequality and injustice.


You're not though, that's my point. You addressing them after loads of other things have had to have both happened and be supported to exist. Not in the most basic at all. Your posts assume that loads of things already exist - you're almost naturalising the things that you don't recognise that you're assuming.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 28, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> You're not though, that's my point. You addressing them after loads of other things have had to have both happened and be supported to exist. Not in the most basic at all. Your posts assume that loads of things already exist - you're almost naturalising the things that you don't recognise that you're assuming.


Such as?


----------



## Gmart (Aug 30, 2011)

Getting rid of the principle of making money from ownership is just not realistic though - it would make renting out your spare room illegal.

I would agree that the banking system needs to be regulated, which is why I stated that we should be using the publicly owned bank we have to provide a no frills service so that the market cannot collude into overcharging.

I agree that my principles would not usher in the revolution that many would wish for - the problem is that people don't go for it yet, so I am suggesting a method to empower the population and to give ourselves a modern constitutional system so that we can be more defined by logic than dogma. If in time your points turn out to be well made, then we would be more able to change the system. If we stay with the current system we will see no change and no possibility of change.

i do not agree that my ideas would lead to "further entrenchment of the iniquity" far from it. How could the principles of Freedom of Speech and Conscience, and the other principles stated possible lead to that?

It is a bit like leasehold - I don't think it is fair to allow an owner to lease out his property while not paying any tax on it - s/he still owns it and they are making money from it, and so instead of banning it I would charge a tax per square metrage on all land. This would ensure that the tax burden is more balanced between land and labour, rather than the skewed situation we have now. It would also be harder for the landowners to stop because everyone who pays tax on their income would recognise that they would pay less tax under such a system.

Authoritarianism is where one set of people are able to impose their beliefs on another set of people without their permission or persuasion. Usually a constitution would protect such a 'tyranny of the majority'...


----------



## Gmart (Aug 30, 2011)

We are, I hope, all aware that there is currently a commission which is reviewing the idea of a UK Bill of Rights, set up by the Tories. Not surprisingly it has already stated that parliamentary sovereignty is not up for discussion.
If this principle remains unaddressed, this commission will eventually come out with a list of duties for the population, but without a list of duties for the government - and who is going to fall for that?


----------



## Random (Aug 30, 2011)

Gmart said:


> Authoritarianism is where one set of people are able to impose their beliefs on another set of people without their permission or persuasion. Usually a constitution would protect such a 'tyranny of the majority'...


 Has the US constitution worked this way? What would be different about a UK constitution?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 30, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Such as?


?

I'll take that as 'nothing to say', then?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 30, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> ?
> 
> I'll take that as 'nothing to say', then?


Or, you can take it as i've not been here much over the long holiday weekend. What things were you assuming just exist that are actually the result of directed historical processes (and so they - not the result - should be the basic starting points for this discussion). Well, the private ownership of the means of production and land for starters -  this necessarily involves the prior (and ongoing) dispossession of the direct producers from the land (or from use of the land), which itself involves a set of power/social/force relations and so on. That's what i was pointing out to you in reply to your post about "the tricky situation whereby a lot of people will rightly say that they took the decision to buy something in order to charge for its use".


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 30, 2011)

It does involve the prior dispossession, yes. But that doesn't overcome the tricky situation. Instead of buying land, say, a person could say that they could have spent the money on a great big holiday, or whatever. You can't just dismiss decisions taken under the current system if you want people to get on board with changes to ideas about ownership. And I would want people on board - there are a lot of people who now have a stake in the current system through mortgages, pension funds and other savings schemes, all of which involve ownership of some kind or another. How do you win them over to a programme of change? That's the tricky bit.

If you buy a stolen car in good faith and the legal owner of the car finds it, by law your ownership is forfeit and you lose the money you paid for it. But that isn't the situation with many kinds of property - you are buying the property from the legally recognised owner. Now the law is wrong, but that doesn't change the fact that people will say, and legitimately, that they are acting within the law and playing the game by the rules.

You misunderstood me if you thought I was ignoring the act of dispossession that has led to the current set of social relations. But I'm trying to propose a way of getting along the road from here to there.


----------



## love detective (Aug 30, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I'm trying to propose a way of getting along the road from here to there.



you're not though - you're not proposing a way of getting along the road from here to there - you're simply stating the easy bit of what 'there' should be 

to tie it in with the title of the thread you're simply doing a kind of utopian/idealist rawlsian thought experiment


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 31, 2011)

Not quite sure what you've been reading,  but I have tried to give an idea of from here to there, and very explicitly stated that that was what I was doing.

Instead of vague hand-waving, why not engage with the points? Between you, neither you nor butchers has actually engaged directly. Butchers has just been attempting to patronise me while you make a point about 'rawlsian' which has little bearing with anything I've written.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 31, 2011)

It's a gmart thread ffs.

My brief intervention  did actually directly engage with you in order to attempt to put right a key misconception that you were holding about where profit comes from (and so societies surplus and social organisation etc - a pretty bloody important point). You've said so many times over the years that you really need to read marx, i simply said that marx is the best person to show you where it does, in fact, come from. Now, you replied to that by saying that you were talking about something more basic than that, i said that you weren't, that there is nothing more basic than how societies produce their surplus, their means of subsistence and expansion. What you were talking about in the post i replied to is what happens after this form of surplus production and the social relations that it are an expression of have been established, and that is doing so you come dangerously close to naturalising this form of social organisation. Then you got in a huff.


----------



## love detective (Aug 31, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Not quite sure what you've been reading



I'm reading your posts



> I have tried to give an idea of from here to there, and very explicitly stated that that was what I was doing.



Stating very explicitly what you think you're doing does not equate with actually doing what you say you are doing



> Instead of vague hand-waving, why not engage with the points?



I engaged with your assertion that you were setting out the means of getting from here to there. I pointed out that you were doing no such thing, and simply saying that you are doesn't change a thing. Your roadmap to getting rid of substantial chunks of inequality caused by capitalist social relations simply involves restating the ultimate aim as a means. i.e. we can get rid of inequality by getting rid of inequality



> Butchers has just been attempting to patronise me



No, he simply pointed out that if you are venturing into this area, then you'd do well to read up on what has went before us in doing the very same thing. I've said the very same on the various threads you've started about money & value - i.e. you invariably start from a point you think is the beginning but it's not, this then makes all subsequent analysis built upon it suspect. You then get the huff.



> while you make a point about 'rawlsian' which has little bearing with anything I've written.



You're doing exactly what Rawls did - closing your eyes and saying wouldn't it be good if things were like 'this' - and then positing those 'ends' as 'means'.

Liberal utopianism/idealism at its worst - think our way into a new set of social relations.


----------



## love detective (Aug 31, 2011)

And just a general point about your whining at not engaging with your points

I've spent an inordinate amount of time in the past dealing in meticulous detail with your 'points' in a number of threads on money, value, credit & the banking/financial system in the past

I've found this to be a fairly pointless exercise as you ignore most of them, and their substance, and usually just maintain that you're right regardless, despite a wealth of both empirical & logical arguments as to why you are not. Or, you rather conveniently say you have no time to go into them at that moment and will return to them later, every time of course you never do. You don't want a debate on the issues you talk about really, you just want a platform for your own voice to be heard and a place where you can stand back and admire your own posts. And don't like things getting in the way of this.

There's very little attraction in engaging in any kind of detail with someone who 'debates' in such a manner


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 31, 2011)

You're still upset that I didn't agree with you on the 'Capitalism needs 3 percent growth' thread?

I'm afraid I find you everything you find me to be. You consistently misinterpret things I say and then get the hump when I don't agree with you. Tell you what, if you won't engage, just ignore me. I find your comparison to Rawls ridiculous, tbh. But if you won't back it up, what is there to say. All you are doing is engaging in empty, gratuitous abuse.


----------



## love detective (Aug 31, 2011)

i'm not 'upset' about anything you do - I merely comment on your rather predictable style & approach to what you think is debate

Re Rawls i've told you why I think the comparison is valid - all you've done is assert that it's not - if you won't back it up, what is there to say

And I think i'll decide who I ignore and who I don't and what discussions I take part in thanks


----------



## Gmart (Aug 31, 2011)

How lovely that you all chose my thread to complain about how you all ignore each other.

Meanwhile you are all reluctant to state principles that you would support on any constitution for a changed society.

Ironic doesn't even cover it.

Or maybe you all don't envisage your various utopias having a written constitution. I wouldn't know...

I am thankful for any input of course, but I would humbly suggest that just whinging about different things just allows parliamentary sovereignty to continue, and the status quo to persist.

There are many countries which make a much better attempt at dealing with the problems of the modern world without having to abolish ownership or applying an authoritarian marxist state where the rich have their freedoms abolished.

Freedom has to be for everyone, not just the people who agree with you.


----------



## krtek a houby (Aug 31, 2011)

Gmart said:


> How lovely that you all chose my thread to complain about how you all ignore each other.
> 
> Meanwhile you are all reluctant to state principles that you would support on any constitution for a changed society.
> 
> ...



Well said, that fella


----------



## Random (Aug 31, 2011)

Gmart said:


> Or maybe you all don't envisage your various utopias having a written constitution. I wouldn't know...


 That's certainly my position.


----------



## Random (Aug 31, 2011)

Gmart said:


> There are many countries which make a much better attempt at dealing with the problems of the modern world without having to abolish ownership or applying an authoritarian marxist state where the rich have their freedoms abolished.


 Like which countries? So that we know more about this political programme you want us to support.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 31, 2011)

Gmart said:


> How lovely that you all chose my thread to complain about how you all ignore each other.
> 
> Meanwhile you are all reluctant to state principles that you would support on any constitution for a changed society.
> 
> ...



Lego bollocks


----------



## Random (Aug 31, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Lego bollocks


But krtek liked the yellow 4-block.


----------



## krtek a houby (Aug 31, 2011)




----------



## Random (Aug 31, 2011)

legless, lol


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 31, 2011)

Lego utopia and airfix freedom.


----------



## krtek a houby (Aug 31, 2011)




----------



## butchersapron (Aug 31, 2011)

Great posts krackers. Many thanks.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 1, 2011)

love detective said:


> Re Rawls i've told you why I think the comparison is valid - all you've done is assert that it's not - if you won't back it up, what is there to say



I haven't backed it up because I don't recognise it in my posts. I have already identified the potential moments at which capitalists can have their assets taken from them without revolution - and have them taken into public ownership.

Another practical development I can envisage would be a shift in thought about the goodness of private rather than public debt - as ever more debt is piled onto individuals, more and more individuals will hopefully start to question why this debt cannot be held collectively.

It's a big ask given that, for instance, two thirds of homes in the UK are occupier-owned and they will still see a short-term gain to themselves in the price of property going up, in the continuation of the UK's housing crisis. However, one generation is already seeing its children unable to buy a house, soon to take on massive debts to get an education, etc. I can see an appetite for universal provision growing in the coming years. And at the time of the next crisis in capitalism, what will happen? Could someone win an election on the proposition that nationalising the banks, for instance, is the right way forward. How long can capitalism remain moribund - if it continues to remain moribund - before those who before might have seen themselves as broadly approving start to disapprove?

One place where I almost agree with gmart is in the need to carry most people with you, the need to show them something - most notably universal provision of essential services - that would make their lives better. (Most people already see this, of course - perhaps it's more to do with showing them that there's no reason they can't have them.) That is where it seems to me that the post-war settlement was so successful for so long: it bound people together and showed people that state provision of free services is a really good thing for virtually everybody. I don't see why a renewal of that kind of settlement with extra safeguards against capitalist excess cannot be possible, nor why it can't be deepened over time: with bank-funding of only worker-owned businesses, for instance.

I'm not proposing the kind of revolution that would rectify the injustice of the dispossession of the past. Not because I wouldn't want one, but because I can't see how it wouldn't be bloody, and in any armed revolution, the armed revolutionaries take power with their arms, and they necessarily need to have leaders. And those leaders necessarily soon become the new boss by virtue of their monopoly of violence. I do think I am proposing ideas that would address that dispossession, however, ensuring that there is a gradual but inexorable shift away from the injustices it caused. Who knows which ideas might then become practical.

Where you and I probably differ is that I genuinely believe that charismatic people pushing these ideas could get somewhere. You mention Rawls presumably because you think I think people will just magically realise what kind of society they would really like to live in. But what I propose is something more direct than that: this is what it is possible to do, now or in the next few years, and it will have this effect. That isn't appealing to anything other than old-fashioned self-interest.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 1, 2011)

Gmart said:


> There are many countries which make a much better attempt at dealing with the problems of the modern world without having to abolish ownership or applying an authoritarian marxist state where the rich have their freedoms abolished.
> .



Better than the UK? Really? I would take issue with that a little. There are some countries that make a better attempt at it than Britain, but not that many. And many of those that might be said to have been more successful are countries with a far smaller gap between rich and poor and with higher taxes on the rich, such as Scandinavia.

I think you're still confusing the idea of freedom with the idea that people should be allowed to do what they want with 'their' money. But money is itself a symbol of a social contract, and as such, it isn't just 'your' money: it is a representation of how much the system owes you, a promise from the system to you.

I think you also have to draw a distinction between spending money and 'investing' it: for 'investing', read 'lending at interest'. While the state might not want to have any say in how people do the former - except where the thing bought is harmful to others in some way, in which case freedoms need to be balanced - I don't see any real freedom of any important kind that is infringed by the denial of the opportunity to lend your money at interest to someone else. It is something people do when they open a savings account or a pension fund, but in our everyday lives and relations with each other, it is something that most of us never, ever do. Who would dream of charging interest on a loan to a friend? I'd actually not necessarily see a problem with some kind of mutual that did allow this to happen - and I could see benefits to allowing it to happen - but nobody's fundamental freedoms are impinged by the setting of strict limits on such activities.


----------



## A Dashing Blade (Sep 2, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I think you also have to draw a distinction between spending money and 'investing' it: for 'investing', read 'lending at interest'.


You may think that but I know that you're confusing "investing" with "loaning".

Investing = "providing money in return for a share of future potential profits"

This is certainly NOT 'lending at interest'


----------



## Gmart (Sep 4, 2011)

There is no doubt that Scandinavia has worked out a decent system, (though the Swedish prohibition of the prostitution trade is very harmful). They are popular sovereignties though, which are more involved with the idea of working together. The same goes for Korea, and France has showed that they are progressing too, even if their recent actions I would argue go too far.

The common problem with larger countries is a reluctance to embrace change - especially the Elite part of the people who convince themselves that everything is alright and just needs a bit of tweaking (harsher sentencing/more discipline etc)

A system cannot be created without the cooperation of the population - and that is what Scandinavia etc have set up - a more meritocratic norm.

We lack the ideals to unite us, I can see that, but one day we will have to have this discussion. Maybe things need to get even worse first. I would argue that we are already behind the world in quality of life, law, education and the system in general and it is a matter of how long until we all come to the table and engage our intellects.

To argue that we should not have a written constitution is implying two arguments: the people are untrustworthy, and are as such animals to be controlled as opposed to people to be empowered. And that we cannot work out our own ideals in the same way as the rest of the world.

I know that education is not of a high quality at the moment, and people use fallacies as a matter of habit, but that is not a reasonable reason to perpetuate the electing of the Elite to dictate to us for five years until we vote the next one in.



littlebabyjesus said:


> But money is itself a symbol of a social contract



It is, but more importantly it is a device of exchange. For two people to engage in mutual gain which enriches them, and society in general is part of freedom. I can see no possibility of changing this realistically.



littlebabyjesus said:


> I don't see any real freedom of any important kind that is infringed by the denial of the opportunity to lend your money at interest to someone else



This line shows you choosing to impose your will on others. You might wish to choose not to engage in such exchanges, but if two other people both gain from the exchange then what gives you the right to interfere? Surely there is a basic mind your own business when there is no victim? No one is forcing these people to enter into this contract.



littlebabyjesus said:


> I'd actually not necessarily see a problem with some kind of mutual that did allow this to happen



There is indeed space for us to use the publicly owned bank we have, to provide a no frills service which ensures that the profits in this market are not excessive.



littlebabyjesus said:


> One place where I almost agree with gmart is in the need to carry most people with you, the need to show them something - most notably universal provision of essential services - that would make their lives better.



Almost eh? 

In comparison with the rest of Europe we are already way behind - anyone who has been there will confirm - more green areas, town squares with seating, cafes late into the night - France, Holland, Italy etc. Their standard of living is the shame of our system.

Further away Korea has public areas we could only dream of and public services which are clean and efficient. Even the US, though obviously also coming up short in the duty of meritocracy, is dealing with the banks problem. It is a mistake to take the UK problems and think that they represent a consistent world problem.



littlebabyjesus said:


> And those leaders necessarily soon become the new boss by virtue of their monopoly of violence



The government will always end up having a monopoly on violence and so it makes sense to define exactly what is permitted and what is not. That is how basic this need is to have written document which covers both sides instead of just one.



littlebabyjesus said:


> I do think I am proposing ideas that would address that dispossession, however, ensuring that there is a gradual but inexorable shift away from the injustices it caused.



Capital Gains tax addresses excessive profits from such usage of assets. Everyone should contribute appropriately and evenly, but there are some lines which cannot be crossed. Privilege is the problem - having a system which allows one set of rules for one set of people and one set of people for another. Just imposing another form of privilege which helps a different set of people to indulge in the same abuse is just more of the same. Which is why Butcher's authoritarian nightmare seems so great to him/her - privilege always looks great from the side of the winners and BA wants to be on the other side rather than addressing the key problem.



littlebabyjesus said:


> Where you and I probably differ is that I genuinely believe that charismatic people pushing these ideas could get somewhere.



I have no doubt that there are many people who mean well - but it is important not to just replace the existing authoritarian system with another.


----------



## Gmart (Oct 23, 2011)

Maybe the government should have a duty to keep the markets competitive to ensure that abnormal profits are not being made out of the markets for the essentials in life?

At the same time, it has to be accepted that markets, competition and property are here to stay, and that no 'Change' vote is going to work without these principles being accepted.

We must work hard to prevent the changes needed from being a simple replacement of one set of people under foot with another. We need to talk about what ideals unite the UK, rather than concentrating on the differences.


----------



## Random (Oct 25, 2011)

Gmart said:


> At the same time, it has to be accepted that markets, competition and property are here to stay, and that no 'Change' vote is going to work without these principles being accepted.


 Why? Shouldn't you be discussing with people, rather than telling them what they "have" to believe, in a cloed-minded quasi-religious way.


----------



## Gmart (Oct 26, 2011)

Random said:


> Why? Shouldn't you be discussing with people, rather than telling them what they "have" to believe, in a cloed-minded quasi-religious way.


It is difficult to make the distinction between what is obvious and what isn't - for example I generally argue for democracy, and so find myself 'telling' people that any system has to have a democratic mandate. Maybe people will disagree with this and like you will take offence at my assumption.

As far as markets, property and competition are concerned, I take it as read that no political change is going to come to any party arguing to abolish such things. If you feel that somehow you can make a case for abolishing these things then feel free to make your case, but I just don't reckon that with property ownership so high you will get very far. I will try not to pre-judge though.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 26, 2011)

Gmart said:


> It is difficult to make the distinction between what is obvious and what isn't - for example I generally argue for democracy, and so find myself 'telling' people that any system has to have a democratic mandate. Maybe people will disagree with this and like you will take offence at my assumption.
> 
> *As far as markets, property and competition are concerned, I take it as read that no political change is going to come to any party arguing to abolish such things*. If you feel that somehow you can make a case for abolishing these things then feel free to make your case, but I just don't reckon that with property ownership so high you will get very far. I will try not to pre-judge though.



you have the brain of a wotsit gmart. It's like you weren't even reading anything at all on the EU thread.


----------



## Random (Oct 26, 2011)

Gmart said:


> I just don't reckon that with property ownership so high you will get very far. I will try not to pre-judge though.



No, property ownership is actually very low. Most people own very very little.


----------

