Politics of provision

[JoeChuff]

MM - but surely agreeing to obey democratically-devised laws, and paying for their enforcement is a means of participating in society in order to serve selfish needs. so really this is just a question of degree.

Also a lot of the classic libertarian case studies, e.g. your Goose Green example, assume that a certain level of reciprocity is inherently in everyone's interests to a broadly similar degree - i.e., I will help GG residents lest in the future, Barry Road is flooded and I need their help - or that the ED economy that I depend on will be negatively impacted by GG residents being removed from it. These are neat textbook assumptions that do not correlate to the real world. Human beings, like all animals, are born economically unequal - some are stronger, more intelligent, more attractive than others. These advantages will always be exploited. In the past, when there have not been strong states to guarantee individual rights, societies have almost invariably been run on feudal lines.

[Jonboy]

CWALD - Theres really no need to punch yourself. Millions of people every day find themselves agreeing with me! You should embrace it, not fight it. Hehe.

As to joining the political process - i would be able to only for a short while until the media dug into my less than squeaky history. I didn't spend my formative years planning to be a politician so now have "history". Oh well.

[citizenED]

Private enterprise made a great fist of the Railways. I for one, don't mind tax money going to pay the wages of a few railway workers who are probably surplus to requirements. I would rather that than tax money going to those same workers, in the form of social security. I do mind tax money lining the pockets of those wealthy individuals who now own the railways. We ought to stop thinking of everything simply in terms of its economic worth.

citizen

[tiddles]

Look I know I failed the 11 plus, but I did get a degree. Can't understand a flippin thing you are on about. Leave the EDF alone and become a whinging journo.

Yes we are all anti big chain but secretly like them if they are the right sort. Of course we dislike all govt intervention and ID cards, tho actually if you have nothing to hide....

we all hate traffic wardens and speed cameras but don't like people who drive too fast esp near schools. We all get cheesed off by taxes but know we have to pay them. We all hate private education but thats because we can't afford it ( unless we get into Habs and then we know we are sorted)

Lighten up buddy and welcome to the chattering classes - ED not islington stylyee

Ps I love the guardian and Observer but lets face it the Times is a much easier read

[ChavWivaLawDegree]

Jonboy - "As to joining the political process - i would be able to only for a short while until the media dug into my less than squeaky history. I didn't spend my formative years planning to be a politician so now have "history". Oh well."

If we allow the media to dictate who we should have as our politicians, or demand they are squeaky clean, then we will always have the same types of people running things and nothing will change.

I've got a very dodgy past, which I declared, but still got selected to stand for the Green Party against Simon Hughes in the next election (probably cos I'm not gonna win anyway!!)

We need to challenge this ivory tower attitude to politicians, and encourage people from all walks of life, with all kinds of backgrounds to stand up and get their voices heard by engaging in the political process if we ever want to stop the corruption and self-interest that is corroding our dying democracy.

[Marmora Man]

ChavWivaLawDegree Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Jonboy - "As to joining the political process - i

> would be able to only for a short while until the

> media dug into my less than squeaky history. I

> didn't spend my formative years planning to be a

> politician so now have "history". Oh well."

>

> If we allow the media to dictate who we should

> have as our politicians, or demand they are

> squeaky clean, then we will always have the same

> types of people running things and nothing will

> change.

>

> I've got a very dodgy past, which I declared, but

> still got selected to stand for the Green Party

> against Simon Hughes in the next election

> (probably cos I'm not gonna win anyway!!)

>

> We need to challenge this ivory tower attitude to

> politicians, and encourage people from all walks

> of life, with all kinds of backgrounds to stand up

> and get their voices heard by engaging in the

> political process if we ever want to stop the

> corruption and self-interest that is corroding our

> dying democracy.

Dodgy past or not once you've joined a political organisation you become a politician with the danger, that goes with the role, of becoming obsessed by the process and not the output / services to the community to be served. I note your Green Party has issues with heirarchy - some seeing a need for leadership, others wanting more democracy. Both parties / factions seems to see this as a really important point for discussion - when surely given the green manifesto it should be something else.

In an ideal libertarian world - government would be small, there would be far fewer politicians and, ideally, they'd only meet for a few weeks a year. Taking time off to read good books, meet interesting people and engage with the real world.

[ChavWivaLawDegree]

I am against hierarchical structures myself and in the Green Party there is a big thing about localsism as being the only way to really survive in a sustainable way, but there would need to be some central government (with reps accountable to their local people) to ensure minorites are not abused and to prevent domination by one interest at the expense of others.

I don't have all the answers, and in reality no-one can have, we need to be aware that as things change, the solutions to problems will change, but the fundamental structure of non-hierarchical localism needs to be kept to ensure all our heads work togther and everyone is empowered to keep finding the best solutions.

[mockney piers]

I can't help but feel that libertarianism boils down two things.

1. I'm alright jack, keep your hands off my stack.

2. It's somebody else's problem, somebody else will sort it out.

The hilarious thing is that in the US the champions of it have managed to con those in most need, to vote for them, perversely by sowing seeds of mistrust in government in general and attaching themselves to 'moral' issues. Then they take cash of all those who work hardest and the most vulnerable and feed it to their buddies in big business and the defence industry.

It would be utterly absurd if it wasn't true; and one reason why I hope it never catches on here.

[ChavWivaLawDegree]

Mockney - too late, it already has unfortunately, but even in the States this 'freedom' from the state doesn't seem to apply when it comes to pissed-off-chav crowd control.

[Marmora Man]

mockney piers Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I can't help but feel that libertarianism boils

> down two things.

>

> 1. I'm alright jack, keep your hands off my

> stack.

> 2. It's somebody else's problem, somebody else

> will sort it out.

>

> The hilarious thing is that in the US the

> champions of it have managed to con those in most

> need, to vote for them, perversely by sowing seeds

> of mistrust in government in general and attaching

> themselves to 'moral' issues. Then they take cash

> of all those who work hardest and the most

> vulnerable and feed it to their buddies in big

> business and the defence industry.

>

> It would be utterly absurd if it wasn't true; and

> one reason why I hope it never catches on here.

MP & CWALD - you've both misread my point or perhaps I've made it badly.

Libertarianism is a belief that individuals know better than governments, that groups of people will come up with better and more optimal solutions than political parties, countries or huge organisations. As has often been pointed out how do you think we'd all fare if government ran food distribution in UK - would we have Marmite on the shelves for CWALD, William Rose organic beef for carnivores, street stalls selling Jamaican patties, home made cakes, quiches and bread freely available. Almost certainly not - we'd have a national menu with 5 portions of veg a day and potatoes specified by size. Salt would be rationed cos it's not good for you and as for alcohol - 25 mills a week of watery beer.

So for me - localism is better than the national politics with annual conferences, plebicites and blcok votes.

The EDF does a better job of keeping this community involved and informed than a national newspaper or Google.

Medicin Sans Frontiere is better than the UN at responding to medical disasters.

Me and my neighbours could achieve more in terms of street cleaning / area improvements than Southwark council.

A village school with an independent head and four teachers can achieve more in terms of educating and inspiring children than any amount of centralised national curriculum set by whatever we call the Ministry for Education theses days.

A local hospital, funded and supported by the local community would be cleaner, more responsive and better run than an outpost of the NHS.

A problem at present is that too much of our time is taken earning our livings to pay our taxes so that government can then spend our taxes inefficiently in delivering the services we be better off organising for ourselves.

Libertarians want to set individuals free to do their own thing - not wrap them in government rules, regulations and constraints.

[ChavWivaLawDegree]

So what about areas who don't currently have the skills to organise these things? Margaret Thatcher's sink or swim policy left many kids growing up with junkie and alcoholic parents who sunk. They have now grown into the youths who are shooting and stabbing each other in Peckham.

I do agree they we are over-regulated and the state has abused it's powers and mis-spent our taxes, but I'd like to know what the libertarian answer is to the current inequality of social position and wealth and also inequality of inate ability.

I was thinking about the council tax thing too, I personally would love to have a bit of land and just exist with my family, opting out of the capitalist system, but I would have to have some kind of income to pay for council tax, so couldn't really opt out completely. So not sure how this should be organised. Don't like local income tax, because rich people are already adept at avoiding income tax, so the burden will most probably fall to the less well off.

Then I started thinking about business rates. If you tax business rates according to the size of the premises etc, it unfairly benefits geeks or traders in an office, over manufacturing businesses (and farmers?) who actually produce stuff.

Come on, lets put our collective heads together and see the fairest ways to deal with these things instead of taking polarised stances and firing at each other, cos we have more in common than we have separating us if you re-read the posts.

Then lets take power and do it! (sorry couldn't resist!)

[Brendan]

Ok so how about this. We divide the country up into local communities. All the money that each community makes is kept in a pot (kinda alike a communist collective). This is used to provide services etc. Then once a year all the people and businesses in the community compete for what is left over in a big village-fair style games day with events like arm wrestling, bobbing for apples and such. Perhaps in the case of places like ED we could have croc throwing and buggy racing or a best-dressed staffie competition.

[LadyDeliah]

ChavWivaLawDegree Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Jonboy - "As to joining the political process - i

> would be able to only for a short while until the

> media dug into my less than squeaky history. I

> didn't spend my formative years planning to be a

> politician so now have "history". Oh well."

>

> If we allow the media to dictate who we should

> have as our politicians, or demand they are

> squeaky clean, then we will always have the same

> types of people running things and nothing will

> change.

Hmmn, premonitions?