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

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

No, I believe I told you something quite different. For instance, if there was a village of 20 people, and 15 said, "This is our government, and everyone has to give two apples a month to the community food bank," then that would constitute the same thing. It has nothing to do with millions or not-millions. It has to do with the lawful representation of the people by democratic means, which is a system generally based off of some constitutional framework whereby representatives are elected according to a majority vote.

[merig00.livejournal.com]

So basically you are saying instead of coming to you with a gun a majority (many people, in your case 15) will come to you with a piece of paper and tell you - see we wrote down here that you need to share with us?

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

No, that doesn't seem to have anything to do with what I am saying. Perhaps you would be interested in representing your own side of the matter, instead of endlessly re-interpreting what I say? This is a two-way conversation you know. Do you find it difficult to discuss things with people if you don't speak for them? Do you often find yourself winning arguments in your head, when you script out your opponent's responses? I mean, that is good practice to some extent, but it does not serve as a substitute for actual discussion.

Perhaps you would be willing to join the realm of reasonable discussion, and leave behind the ultimately unsatisfying nature of your one-way technique? I can assure you, it is a wonderful world.

[merig00.livejournal.com]

I see representative democracy as a large group of people which dictates rules, rights, behavior and how much you owe them, just because they got together and decided so. So the difference between that and some gangsters on the corner - in the numbers and what they call themselves. No difference if a thousand, hundred or twenty people decided to rob you.

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

I see representative democracy as a large group of people which dictates rules, rights, behavior and how much you owe them, just because they got together and decided so.
Well, this doesn't seem to be an accurate characterization of representative democracy, either historically or theoretically. Perhaps this where your problem originates.

So the difference between that and some gangsters on the corner - in the numbers and what they call themselves. No difference if a thousand, hundred or twenty people decided to rob you.
That is two differences, and the other difference, the one you seem so hellbent on ignoring as if nobody has ever said anything about it, is that the gangsters aren't elected. But we've already been over this.

At which point you say, "I don't recognize a valid distinction between being elected or not being elected."

And at that point the matter is reduced to relations of power and violence, since you've abandoned all other avenues of discourse. That's fine, but once it becomes a matter of power and violence, you instigate the operation thereof, and are so liable to its consequences.

[merig00.livejournal.com]

Representative democracy is a mob rule (even if they limit themselves with some agreement) with threat of force and violence to anyone who doesn't share with them.

So if you had a large gang which elected it's leaders you would be ok with them robing you every year?

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

Representative democracy is a mob rule (even if they limit themselves with some agreement) with threat of force and violence to anyone who doesn't share with them.
No, representative democracy is a rule of law. Direct democracy is mob rule.

So if you had a large gang which elected it's leaders you would be ok with them robing you every year?
If I was a part of that gang, and that gang decided that I needed to give 30 percent of my drug proceeds to that gang? No, I wouldn't have a problem with that, since that would be an exchange of benefit for cost; ie: I secure a supply of drugs to sell, and they take a cut to finance the larger scheme.

If I wasn't a part of that gang, I would petition the government to protect me since I do not have the manpower to resist. And since the gang has agreed to a relation of power and violence, I would be just ok with punishing them, imprisoning them, banishing them or killing them.

But since I have petitioned the government to protect me, I likewise am obligated to provide some measure of compensation to secure my further protection from said gang. Since it is in my interest (just like how it is in my interest, if I were a drug-dealer), I gladly agree to such.

[merig00.livejournal.com]

So let me see what we've got so far: the organization that has more member and more firepower is the lawful one in your eyes? Or just that you are the member of such organization?

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

So let me see what we've got so far: the organization that has more member and more firepower is the lawful one in your eyes?
No. I don't believe I've said anything about members and firepower determining lawfulness. In fact, I've said the exact opposite. Lawfulness derives from cooperation and agreement. Unlawfulness derives from power and violence.

Or just that you are the member of such organization?
However many organizations I am a part of, I am liable to their rules.

[merig00.livejournal.com]

Lawfulness derives from cooperation and agreement.

I've asked that question before - if the majority of the group decided to cooperate with each other and agreed to take your money. Is that lawful?

However many organizations I am a part of, I am liable to their rules.
Why?

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

I've asked that question before - if the majority of the group decided to cooperate with each other and agreed to take your money. Is that lawful?
You're not understanding what I'm saying: law, as an entity, is something that originates within agreement and cooperation. If you are not acting by agreement and cooperation, you are acting by power and violence. If you are acting by power and violence, you have nothing to appeal to and no argument to make: you have rejected any form of law whatsoever and so act within a vacuum. This means that you cannot accuse anybody of anything because you absolutely lack any ground from which to judge.

Why?
Because the group that I am a part of is not obligated to accept my participation or presence without any recourse or agreement. You know, like if I'm on a baseball team, the baseball team has the right to refuse my participation in their team if I don't cooperate.

[merig00.livejournal.com]

I'm saying: law, as an entity, is something that originates within agreement and cooperation. If you are not acting by agreement and cooperation, you are acting by power and violence.
Exactly - if I don't "share" guys with guns will show up and threaten me.

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

Is there something wrong with that?

[merig00.livejournal.com]

that's called racketeering

and weren't you the one taking about law and violence?

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

that's called racketeering
No it isn't. Racketeering is a term defined by the government. The concept doesn't even exist without their definition. You're just redefining terms on your own, and thinking that constitutes an argument.

and weren't you the one taking about law and violence?
You still don't get it. If you tell people to go to hell, they'll send you there and that is perfectly fair by the agreement so ratified in the act of telling them to go to hell.

[merig00.livejournal.com]

So only government is allowed to demand money from you?

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

Not always. For instance, debtors can demand money from you and get it. Damages can be levied. You can be sued and compelled to give money to someone else, or have your income confiscated. There really are all sorts of ways you can be compelled.

[merig00.livejournal.com]

All those examples are results of your actions. You pay taxes regardless. So not a very good examples.

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

You are taxed directly based off your actions.

[merig00.livejournal.com]

Are you saying that my taxes are determined by how many times i used one or another "public good"?

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

No. There is no tax structure in place which determines taxation based on usage of a public service.

[merig00.livejournal.com]

So I am not taxed based on my actions? The majority through government completely arbitrarily, based on what they understand to be fair, decides how much money to take from me?

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

So I am not taxed based on my actions?
You are taxed based on your actions. I already said this. Why do you keep going in circles?

The majority through government completely arbitrarily, based on what they understand to be fair, decides how much money to take from me?
I don't think fairness has anything to do with it.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

what about a toll on a bridge?

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

That is called a toll.