All societies are unequal

[green-man-2010.livejournal.com]

But some, it seems,  are more unequal than others.

And yet it seems to be that where the masses are dirt poor and starving peasants, the rulers of these countries are not as well off as affluent people in countries where the differences between the rich and poor are not as widely seperate.
In real terms, the people who form the ' inner ring' around a dictator like Idi Amin or Saddam Hussain are not as wealthy as say, the average stockbroker in Surrey, or the top earners in industrialised democracies. And this is not hard to fathom. If you have gun toting goons around you, you might be able to steal everything the peasants have got - but the peasants won't have that much that you can steal.

A wealthy stockbroker , though, you can tax . Sure, they will moan , but they will always pay more than an illiterate peasant. So, even the rich get a payoff for closing the gap between the rich and the poor. In pre-war Germany, Krupps, the big steel magnate, made a point of payin the workers well, building homes for the workforce, and even installing showers that the steel workers could use in the workplace before they got changed  out of their overalls and went home.

When another wealthy friends questioned his generousity, Krupps remarked " it's a small price to pay to keep Communism and Socialism out of the workplace " Cynically, he bought the workforce off, undermining the sources of  discontent and greivances in order to keep the bulk of the profits for himself. Yet it was true that  his  workers were better off than many of their contemporaries.

Today, The Green party is not out to abolish capitalism, but rather to close the gap between rich and poor. a goal that some see as a sell out. " Why beg for a few more crumbs when we can seize control of the bakery?" they ask.

The SWP, years ago were preaching  revolution , and not reform. Rather than overhaul the system, they sought to sweep it away. And one day, a demonstration , up in the north, took a surprising turn. I know , because i was in the SWP at the time and I read all about it in the party newspaper, the Socialist Worker.

It turned out that a window got broken , and a small supermarket got looted. A lot of booze and cigerretes were  'liberated' and reurned to the control of the proletariat', it seemed . So, at the next big meeting that I went to, many speakers stood up to congratulate the workers who took part in the demo  for their tremendous victory over the capitalist classes and their quasi-fascist  police force. Then I got on the rostrum and asked a few questions.  Like -
" How many tins of baby food got liberated and turned over to a young working mother to feed her child?"
"Did any local OAPs enjoy enjoy a bit of beef that evening, or did as much as a single bottle of milk go missing and find its way to  someone in need?"
These questions were met with stunned silence.  I took that to mean a 'no' then. And i pointed out that if this was what happened when they siezed control of one small shop, then what could we expect of  them if they ever got control of something biigger?

Somehow, I got the feeling that we would not see a workers paradise come into being , but a selfish mad scramble as everyone stuffed as much as they could into their own pockets. Mark it well, all the booze and ciggies went - but no food. The rioters were not hungry I suppose. Even so, there was no thought for the poor who might have been. I remember it well, because I recall how dissappointed I felt at seeing these self styled revolutionaries in their true colours.
I also remeber it as the day I tore up my SWP party card.

Everyone who gets rich, or even stays rich, does so by being disciplined and well organised - or they don't stay rich for long.  If we allow the rich to keep the bulk of the wealth they create, we can still syphon off enough to keep the poorest in our society at a decent levelof comfort and well being. We can even see to it that they can create some wealth themselves, and bette the whole community as a result.

A cap on the excessive bonusses of bankers would impact so few, but save so much. Raising the level of the lowest paid in sociey would also close the gap - and societies with a more equal wealth distribution have lower crime rates, lower rates of teenage pregnancy, disease and other social ills. So, yes, we would bring back  in the 10% tax band, and the 22% basic rate, but also crack down on tax havens. why should the rich forid 'tax evasion ' when they simply call it ' tax avoidance' when they do it themselves.

More equal societies have fewer people in prison per capita, they also have less violent crime as well.
They even mange to recycle more! So, the Greens commit to making our society more equal, using a whole raft of measures.
For more info on Equality as an issue, go to the report by independant academics, found here at
http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/

Comments

[jerseycajun.livejournal.com]

If in a group of 9 people, 5 agree to take what the other four have for the betterment of the group, which is that?

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

If there is a group of nine people, there is a group of nine people. If four people wish to secede, they are free to do, but then they relinquish all claims against the other group, and revert to relations of power and violence. And then what happens is what happens, be it as it may.

[jerseycajun.livejournal.com]

If the analogy holds true to form, then this is forbidden.

And you didn't answer the question.

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

Please restate the question explicitly, since I'm not understanding the question as phrased.

[jerseycajun.livejournal.com]

Given the group as specified, is the action of the five qualified as taxation or theft?

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

That would be taxation. Theft would be one or more persons going out and stealing from one of the other people in an unofficial or unsanctioned activity. (For instance, if the five people decided to collude together and steal from the other four.)

[jerseycajun.livejournal.com]

I'm having a hard time understanding your distinction between 'sanctioned' and 'unsanctioned'. It sounds as though you're suggesting collusion (scheming in private?) is theft, but if the five openly declared their intent to the four, then it's taxation, and therefore different.

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

Well it seems like your confusion regarding taxation and theft stems from deeper deficits. Here, let me help you:

For instance let us say these 9 people get together and sit at a table, let us say a round table, and they have an issue before them:

Person 1: I think we should institute a tax of 5 percent of harvest to prepare for the winter.
Person 2: I think we should institute a tax of 10 percent since the witch-doctor tells me it is going to be a long and harsh winter.
Person 3: I think we should sacrifice a tenth of all our goats to please the gods.
Person 4: I think we should sacrifice a fifth of all our goats to really please the gods.
Person 5: I agree with Person 4!
Persons 6-9: We don't want to do anything!

And then they have a vote! And they decide, through some further arguing and bickering, to sacrifice 8.4 percent of their goats to the gods, and institute a tax of 8 percent. And so the measures passes the council.

On the other hands, if Persons 1-5 said, "Come, let us go to our brother's houses and take their goats and sacrifice them to the gods!" that would be theft.

Perhaps you can see the distinction between sanctioned and unsanctioned, now?

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

If four people wish to secede, they are free to do

And then the other 5 people would seal the doors and beat these 4 up and force them to stay within the Union. ;-)

[xforge.livejournal.com]

And that!! Is why some call it the War of Northern Aggression.

Not me of couse, nope, it was the War to End That Awful Practice of Slavery to me, yup, yes it was, mmhmm. ::nod::

[nevermind6794.livejournal.com]

It depends on whether those 9 people consented to government by democracy.

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

Not to these people. They seem to think that they can mount a truly moral attack by deciding if and when and how they'll be apart of the group, and when and where they won't be a part of the group. We call these people vampires.

[jerseycajun.livejournal.com]

To be consistent with the condition most of us find ourselves in, say all of them were born into these circumstances. What does consent consist of?

[nevermind6794.livejournal.com]

This is obviously a tangent, because it is probably impossible today not to be born under some government, but consent consists of staying. If someone in the U.S. doesn't like the taxes, they are free to leave to another nation with lower taxes - but they can't take the land with them, which I suppose throws a wrench in things.

It also gets complicated when people can't realistically leave - they have no money to find lodging or food, they have no transferable skills, they don't speak any other language, they are not mobile, etc.

[jerseycajun.livejournal.com]

Not a tangent, a point. What I gather then from this, then, is that consent consists of continued existence in many if not most circumstances, where ultimately the only option may be suicide?

[nevermind6794.livejournal.com]

I suppose suicide is an option, but the "only option" I had in mind was leaving the group/municipality/state/nation. If you stay, you consent.

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

Consent obviously consists of those things which are able to be objects of consent. Since nobody chooses to be born and nobody chooses to be born where they are born, there is no inequality or unfairness to those aspects which are consentable.

[jerseycajun.livejournal.com]

So, if circumstance of birth isn't default consent, when and in what form does consent take place?

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

It takes place when people make agreements and give their consent. Are you seriously this dense, or are you just asking questions to fuck with me?

[jerseycajun.livejournal.com]

See, I don't recall making any agreements giving my consent to majority rule at any point between my birth and this moment, and the fact that I participate in the political process by voting is meaningless, as the taxes (or just about all of what ends up getting passed) will still apply to me whether I do or not.

I don't fuck with people. I do ask questions to gain perspective on what foundations others' are basing their perspectives are based on. I do like to question conventional wisdom on such things.

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

That's fine. The consent of the people isn't contingent upon [Bad username or site: @ livejournal.com]'s recalling or not recalling something about agreeing to something.

The problem with the ' Libertarian ' system.

[green-man-2010.livejournal.com]

I am seriously interested in the argument that "taxation = theft" and thought about it.

i reached the conclusion that if I said to the government that protected me from birth " thanks for the offer, but I no longer want to pay taxes, I will look after myself" - I will try imagining the consequences of them taking my offer seriously.

If they took it seriously, they would say "Ok - you don't pay taxes, so you don't get any benifits accruing to you any more, unless you pay directly for what you use."

Now, at first, this is great - I don't have any kids myself, so i don't pay for anyone's education. but then I flush my toilet, and instantly get a bill- the government put the in sewage pipes that go under my town, and every time it gets dark and they bill me for turning the lights on as well, unless I buy a torch and carry it around everywhere...

" Hold on , I think" I either buy my own street lighting , fit my own sewerage system and run my own amenities from scratch, or i go back to being a tax paying citizen."

As I citizen I get to vote - as a citizen I get to choose if I want my country defended by nukes or more conventional forces. I still get state protection if we are invaded. i have some say in how the police gets run, but don't have to hire my own protection squad.

I feel a lot of people may be pleased about the benifits of opting out of paying taxes, but have not researched the costs. most people don't think of sewer pipes, they never see them, but you cannot run a decent society without sewers and most people cannot afford to lay in their own sanitation system.

[chessdev.livejournal.com]

This is like the restaurant argument:

Imagine going into a restaurant, ordering a meal, and then when presented with a bill going "What?? I dont recall signing an agreement..."

Some agreements are implicit (or explicit in this case, since the Constitution gives the government the right to raise taxes), which is akin to paying cover to be in a club...

[dukexmachismo.livejournal.com]

or are you just asking questions to fuck with me?

You say that like it's a bad thing.

[chessdev.livejournal.com]

Your continued presence here, beyond the decision of your parents bringing you here = consent.