Politics
 

It's been a while since we've done this and since it's a subject that seems to crop up in the most unlikely of places. I think it's a good idea to understand each others beliefs. I have not added a poll because I think politics is more in depth than a binary left wing, right wing selection.

I personally would consider myself economically right wing but as far as social politics go - left wing.

I do not believe the government has any right to redistribute wealth on such a scale and at the same time they have no right to tell people where they can live/immigrate and what toxins they put into their own body.

So in short I think the government should do little more than uphold necessary laws. Wikipedia seems to have labelled this ideology as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minarchism. Although I would also support laws protecting the environment for future generations.

So yeah, let the battle begin. Seriously though, lets keep discussion rational.

After reading his book a few days ago, I'm a Rawlsian. I believe that economic and social inequality is justified if it

1. Gives the greatest benefit to the most needy
2. Gives everyone the opportunity to end up at any point in the scale

Basically capitalism can only ever be more justified than socialism if the least off benefit more from capitalism than they do from socialism.

It's not

So I'm a socialist until capitalism gets better.

That's a matter of personal motivation and work. No-one, especially not the government, will or should help you with that.

Says the man with the parents that left him a fucktonne of money.

I'm an anarcho-socialist, but I don't like the label too much. I prefer a government that stays out of what it doesn't need to be in.

That has nothing to do with it. You're basically saying the government should make sure everyone can get on any position on the wealth scale while most people with a lot of money have worked very hard to get where they are today.

So is that just another way of saying Libertarianism? I don't know much on the subject, so there could be more a difference than I'm aware of.

Most people with a lot of money? Do you really believe that? And as for working very hard... why has a miner or a teacher worked any less hard than a CEO of a company? Have they worked an amount less hard you can quantify into the huge wealth difference between them? What if the CEO had far better advantages from birth? Rich parents who payed his way and had enough to send him to the best schools and university?

The world we live in is not a meritocracy. I am absolutely fine with wealth being proportional to work or merits but that is most definitely not how our economy works (It is getting there though).

What I want is a fair start for everyone. Something that's been in the heart of British welfare for decades and has just been cut out by our new government and something the USA has never had.

[*]Gives everyone the opportunity to end up at any point in the scale


Yes! Although I forgot to mention it in my original post one service I would expect from the government is education. That way regardless of what social class a child is born into their destiny is largely controlled by them. That way if they fuck up it's their fault and they shouldn't expect the tax payer to help them.

I have no idea what libertarianism is, actually. But, if I ran a government, it'd have one basic guideline. "You're free to do what you want, so long as you do not harm anyone else or inhibit their freedom."

Then why do you claim you are a socialist?

Politics? Couldn't be arsed.

I am a firm socialist and I believe that a state must help the lower rung of society however, I do not feel that a 50% tax rate for £100,000 earners is correct and the Labour party certainly is a big shit stain on Britain because they made so many mistakes. Socialism can work, just look at Tito in the Communist period however, it is harder to enforce.

I am all for the capitalist ideals of the free market, but I am also for the socialist ideals of equality. Maintaining a nice balance I believe is key to any government I support.

Alcar...

But it's not the state that is helping the lower rungs of society, it is the lower rungs of society who are helping themselves. Obviously in most societies a majority of the population are not millionaires so in a democracy the poorer (and therefore majority) will vote what's best for them (as anyone does) and the wealthy does not have a say in how much money is forcibly removed from them.

I'm not saying I support a complete anarchy but to pay for the essentials a government really only needs to tax a flat rate of 10 - 15%

The poor do not vote for what is best for them, otherwise the Republicans or any other conservative party would never get in power.

My political opinions, naive and threadbare as they are, generally focus on two things. Economic reform, and change. Blame too many hard sci-fi novels, but I have an inbuilt fear of societal stagnation. I sometimes feel like any change is better than the same old patterns. Then again, too much change results in crazy shit happening, so I guess don't go nuts. As to economic reform, I'd like to believe that one day we manage to construct the ultimate fair and free market that allows our economy to finally come together and spread cash evenly enough that social gaps lessen in size. I recognize that true equality among individuals is a very hard goal to surmount, but it's something worth striving for as every little bit helps.

The thing is, if you look at countries like China, say specifically China actually, communism works very well, the people's decisions are made for them and despite the HR atrocities committed, may denizens explain to the media that they are basically happy. Something like 80% of the Chinese are happy with their lives compared with other countries who seem only to want to complain. Maybe the way forward is to elect a powerful government with complete power to do what they like without the pestering of other groups...of course you have the INGSOC conundrum but it is fictitious.

You must be joking.

I care little for how the country is run so long as I have money, opportunity, love and safety. In an iron fist state certainly safety is always present while money and opportunity come with intelligence and skill, love is what you make it yourself. No worry for electing a party and what have you, I'm just speculating anyway.

I care for freedom. Democracy is the only form of state that respects liberty.

I'm not too bothered, I could go for titoism, socialism, perhaps capitalism.

The thing is people moan that capitalism = social inequality, I've grown up in an increasingly capitalist country (even in labour I felt it was right wing) and I have exploited every opportunity I have been presented with to reach a higher rung of wealth and social standing, from lower class/ working class background I feel if I can stick my course I can achieve at least middle class. Ergo I think that people who moan about capitalist states are lazy.

But that's a bit of a tangent.

You do know that the rule of socialism is 'No work no food' right?

Yes, people have to work unless it's physically impossible or currently there is no job available for their skills.

Sooooooo people who, without ignorance, vouch for socialism are not lazy.

I thought socialism had something to do with working for the good of society as a whole or something like that.

Sort of like how capitalism is working for the good of money.

Yes. Everyone works for the good of the whole, if you don't work then you're not part of the whole.

But those people are part of the whole, regardless of whether or not they're working. They're living people who live under that banner.

That's not how it goes. If you can work you must do some form of work.