Off Topic Political Debate

They also need large scale improvements to things that we take for granted, such as decent water and electricity supplies. Do you believe that localized workers cooperatives are able to provide such expensive neccessities over a whole country in some cases?

 

Even Northern Ireland, during the troubled years had severe investment problems due to the violence and extortion rackets.

 

Not one cooperative - but an amalgamation maybe.........what we definately do not need is for the World Bank to make privatization of water a condition for future loans - a step which increased the price of water by a factor of 8 in some African communities.

 

This sounds a bit like Greece before they were given barrow loads of cash!!

 

I am sorry cologne, but I have given examples in the past of cooperatives stepping into areas where they do not have the money to make viable operations and have gone bust because of it. Would you rather have people receiving clean water in a village, or not, regardless of the cost?

 

They were not actually given the money, they borrowed it under conditions. If they will ever be able to pay it back is a different question.

 

There are many such examples in indigenous communities.... many now swept aside by the occupiers of their lands.

Sadly such ideals are now marginalized as those people are.

A world in which communities of people make decisions for the health and well being of all is a world to be respected.

Look at what the imperialist and his (sic) values have done and continue to do worldwide.

Who knows if such a world is recoverable... particularly when so many of those who seek political offices are filled with greed and egotism

 

I would have said they have as much chance as Watford winning the EPL but maybe I should change that to Luton FC!!!!

 

I can certainly go along with that Yorkie, but as you know to provide the facilities that people are entitled to takes money. The facilities that people should have might be very different to those in the UK or France, but basic things like clean water are essential just to maintain life and in many places they do not exist. Where is the money to come from? It is not possible for a small group of people to raise the funds in many cases, so it comes down to either government borrowing the money, or allowing a private company to provide it providing they can see a return on the investment. If the government borrows the money the people will have to pay for it either through taxation, or for the amount that they use. Which ever way you look at it some compromise is required as it is preferable to supply it and help people to stay healthy.

 

Illegal funny business no but minimization of tax liability is ever present and is very significant, its an area I will not quote examples for obvious reasons.

Our ideas of disproportionate are different! You seem to believe that taxation should be a tool of wealth equilibialisation for the sake of it whereas I believe tax should have a relation to the benefit it is bringing, as such I see no basis for taxation on land that has been earned by hard toil of previous generations, my one desire is to leave land to future generations our family having had lands stolen many generations ago....In your system you pay tax once, then you pay again, and again and are then still not in control of your wealth, I detest such systems and would never work as a slave to such a money grabbing government, its bad enough as it is! 'Therein lies your problem, the majority of mankind does not want to cede control of their lives to government. "Well reputed economists" by which I guess you mean academics living in their theoretical utopia.

 

Yes they did. We voted to join the EU, the people recocgnise the need for trade. We voted for a system of limited trade controls and have never had our democracy diminished except in states that ironically try and follow your ideas where governments are elected on ideals and implement excessive controls the uneducated people did not realize were coming. Seriously you argue your case well from a point of obvious conviction but I along with the democratic majority vehemently reject your ideas believing they are contrary to a sustainable modern standard of living and result when implemented in repression by those academics who think they know best followed by enrichment by the only means possible in such a system, corruption. I absolutely hate your ideas and would take up arms against a state imposing such a system.

 

You only own your wealth because of the state. If the state did not exist you would need to pay protection money to somebody - like in parts of Africa. It is the existence of the state which guarantees your possession as a right. Elsewhere I have argued that I believe in Communism from below (ie. Anarcho Communism) - which sees the erosion of the state as its end goal. In this scenario all of the means of production belong to the workers themselves (not to the state) and all power comes from the base of the pyramid. I am not trying to change the World, or even to change my state, because my reference point is different to that. I begin with myself, and then start with my immediate surroundings and hope others do the same.

 

I think you will find that you are describing tribal society. Good luck if you want to convince any of us that that is the future. I thought your ideal era was 500 years ago but it seems it is more like 3000 years ago.

 

Levity needed today

and ...... ? i am retired for goodness sake ( My son in law with his scottish accent always manages to make retired sound like ******ed )

Draw....

please log in to view this image

 

See the transition towns network Leo. Where towns have a vision of how they will establish a carbon free future.....how they plan a long term future where they are not reliant on worldwide fossil fuel networks and financial systems which could dissolve at any minute. I am talking about the future not the past.

 

I think we have really lost something. The price of Globalization.....

 

The difference between us Aberdeen is fundamental. It stems from the fact that you see the World as a kind of Darwinian jungle ie. one in which unrestrained competition is the norm between people. I see mans inherant nature as being different to this....I see more cases of cooperation in nature than I do of direct competition and I have built my politics accordingly.

 

Maybe if some of these countries used the aid funds they get and spent it on simple local schemes like providing clean water instead of lining the pockets of their rulers, or funding local wars or space programmes or even nuclear weapon research, some of these fundamentals would be addressed.

 

But that is simply not true in nature. Yes there are some examples of symbiotic relationships between different species, but for the vast majority it is Darwin all the way. Yes, some of the larger more advanced species will group together for protection, but they will fight each other to protect themselves and for food if it is in short supply. It is inherent in nature.
We are now in the 21st Century and wistfully recalling a period when men grew their own food for their families that is long over has no relevance - someone has to pay for the PC you are using and the electricity you are using to power it!

 

Where that happens, and it does, you have to wonder why the rulers are prepared to see the people suffer so they can live in comfort. Man's greed? I have said before that I think some of the small schemes are better managed by charities that will only spend the money on providing the essentials, but I think a different solution has to be found for some of the more expensive national requirements.