Off Topic Political Debate

You have hit the nail on the head Cologne. It is all about human nature. Some people think mankind is essentially honest, cooperative and wanting no more than an equal share. Others see man as a competitive animal. We accept that in early civilisations it was the strong who had the most and gradually that has been replaced by the rule of law as a replacement for strength to ensure that what people have as their own they can keep. It is strength through shared self interest - we obey the law and do not take from others so long as we know that the law will also stop them taking from us
There is no such thing as collective ownership. People have what they have earned or been gifted. Peasants had a strip of land which they were tolerated to have to keep them alive for the benefit of their lords - not because it was a birthright. The development of society and the realisation that peasants were actually people gradually changed that and people gained more and more. Once people started to work in industrial society, not only did the owners gain wealth but so did the workers. Since then it has just been a matter of the workers looking to gain more and the rich looking to keep as much as they could.
All property is theft declared the anarchists. Well maybe it was once but now what is owned is owned by law. Unfortunately for some the distribution is not equal.
It is just a class battle of those without trying to get more - they are no less competitive than the rich. In fact in societies where "the people" have risen up there was never a distribution to equal ownership just another theft from the rich to politically motivated people who simply replaced them and became the new rich.

I do not want to see people starve or live in absolute poverty but I do want people to have to work for anything they get. The Green policy of giving a wage to everyone whether or not they are prepared to work is just crazy - as it enables the lazy to benefit from everyone else.

There are thousands of examples of poor people becoming wealthy through their own efforts. I would guess that most people in today's UK are living a life which they or their fathers have built. Very few are the inherited rich. So when you raise taxes on ordinary people you are making them pay for those who do not work for themselves but expect others to provide them. I do not think that is acceptable. Everyone who can work should work - and if you are paid a low wage and want more you need to work longer hours. Nowadays everybody knows their "rights" - they have none other than the right ot provide for themselves.

However in a caring society we then build an overlay. Some peole through no fault of their own cannot provide what they need - either on a short or long term basis. A good society helps these people and as modern society as a whole accepts this then they get "state" (i.e. other people's) money. However it is still charity - not a fundamental right - the fundamental right is to simply starve to death. It is other people being compassionate. Luckily the vast majority of people are.

The battle lines get drawn on who should receive other people's money, and how much and for what. I do not want my taxes paying for so called single parents - unless they are genuinely left alone as a result of death. If you cannot make a relationship work then tough - you cannot walk away - it takes two to create a baby and both parents have a lifetime duty to it - your next door neighbour does not. Every time you give money to one person you take it from another - we all need to think why a person has the need to take from others.

 

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.

Tax avoidance is perfectly legal and of course everyone wants to pay the least amount of tax. The point I'm making to you is that many of the previous tools have been neutralised by HMRC. Consultants, small to medium sized businesses do not have access to top creative accountants that may or increasingly do not, have schemes that work. My company pays at least £20k per year to external accountants, apart from setting expenditure against income I have not seen any tax reducing ideas coming from them. Many well known footballers have been amongst people that have recently come unstuck after investing in a tax avoidance scheme unravelled by HMRC, several years after its conception.

I must say I was very surprised, looking at the figures yesterday, how paying by dividends was not grossly more beneficial than by PAYE. I was pleased however that Georgie boy did not cut the rather generous entrepreneurs relief so I can sell my shares soon, pay the tax and then concentrate on more important things like fishing.

 

You can identify 2 tendencies in nature Leo. The one is that of competition (which characterizes relationships within the same species in time of scarcity or in the search for sexual partners) the other is that of mutual aid (which comes to the fore when the species itself comes into competition with other species, or when threatened by environmental factors). I would maintain that in the early days of mankind it was the second of these which was the more dominant. Species which are perpetually in competition with each other (particularly amongst carnivores) do not survive - whereas those which practice mutual help do. Unfortunately over a hundred years of Darwinist theory, and hundreds who wanted to believe it, have convinced us that it is natural - which it isn't. Kropotkin's theories are here just as valid. You say that there is no such thing as collective ownership - sorry, but this is the form most often mentioned in the Bible and suggested as the right way for Christians. All monasteries and many other religious living communities practice this. If you say that there is 'no such thing', then I will willingly counter and say that there is no such thing as property of any sort - because it has no basis in nature.

 

It is all about human nature... and I was going to say but now find it mentioned that the basis for successful species survival as per Darwin is collaboration. e.g the best football teams are the ones that work together as God (GT) showed us.

I have shared a true story some time back but will re-iterate it re property.

A friend of mine was walking across some fields around Bolton Abbey, Skipton and a man on a horse approached him and said he was trespassing. My feisty friend asked who the land belonged to. The man replied himself and my friend asked who he was. The rider then said he was the Duke of Devonshire and this land was part of his Estate. Mick asked him how he got it. The Duke explained that the land was given to his ancestor as a reward for a battle centuries back. My friend then said to him "I'll fight you for it..." True story.

Regarding inherited wealth. Wealth is in the hands of relatively few. Why should we support a world in which there are mega rich flaunting their opulence when people are starving in Africa or even perhaps in some homes in the UK... ??

Alexander the Great... the richest man in his domain who asked on his death to have his arms outstretched and his hands opened so all could see he came into this world with nothing and left with nothing.

This was originally a thread discussing political theory and I notice now there is some denigration of higher principles here.. It is those who dream who have the ideals for a better world. Hey ho there are still some of us around too...

 

Can't agree with any of that as I would be the one collecting protection money in your idea of stateless government!

 

We can certainly agree on that. Co-operation is always within a hierarchy in nature where the spoils go to the winner and the animal society is subserviant to the master. Not sure of a single example of where competition does not exist.

 

It is fine to dream but it is the practical people whose actions create a better world. Interesting as it is, Cologne's world is as realistic as Wayne's World.

 

Who is Wayne ?

 

Wayne Campbell

1992 American comedy film - improbable fictitious story.

 

Can a bee survive if she is in competition with all other bees ?

 

ants and termites

flocks of starlings

dolphins, sharks etc all work collaboratively

Wildebeest

all work collaboratively

 

Evolution

Is humanity going to evolve from its basic animal nature and cultivate and develop its higher qualities?

The most depraved you could say basic destructive aspect of nature is evident in the main from groups and individuals who feel marginalised and under threat. When people are not under threat they enjoy . They collaborate together be it in music, games etc.

etc etc

please log in to view this image

 

I don't take my political views from 2000 year old myths. If Jesus even existed his views are those of one man - so what? Marx and Lenin are slightly more relevant.

Collaboration is fine - in the right circumstances - it involves all parties agreeing. Having one class take from another is another example of competition NOT collaboration though.
"Mega rich flaunting their opulence" Is that what they do? I thought most people just live their lives. I am not green or greedy though so have no problem with David Beckham or anyone enjoying their life. Shame so many people are so jealous.
I really do not know why you read this thread Yorkie - you are the ONLY person who constantly criticizes the thread itself for not being as you want it to be. The massive contributions made by others I think demonstrates that most who do read and participate are able to deal with both a little wumming and also genuine friction. We cannot all be like buddhists. Where there are strong views and real emotion there will be genuine argument. We are not made of sugar. There is precious little rudeness on even this thread. Try visiting even football threads on other boards and you will see how tame we are. It is all about disliking the argument NOT the person. I could not be further from Cologne (for example) politically but like and respect him and all his posts I find interesting - is that so bad?

We are humans not bees or ants so let's stick to human behaviour - that is complicated enough isn't it?

 

Do you have share in Maslow Yorkie - you quote his limited views so frequently

 

I think man has evolved from his basic human nature. Hence the rule of law.
What we do not have to evolve towards though is a society that encourages some (very few) people to believe others owe them a living

 

At last Leo we agree on something (I knew it was a matter of time) - We are not Bees ! The argument was only put forward by me because others had quoted Darwinistic competition as being the central moving force of evolution and advocated it as being relevant for us as well.

 

Duh - we are hornets -

 

Thing is that survival is the dominant force for evolution - and that means adaptation - which could include collaboration to a degree - see it is Christmas Eve so I am putting out an olive branch - to mix biblical stories

 

Seasonal greetings to all my political sparring fellow horns partners.

Apologies for any offence which I may have caused to some of the more sensitive souls on this forum. My wife is always telling me that nobody gets my sense of humour. I will try to be less controversial next year but somehow I don't see that happening, a bit like the diet.

 

What is a trifle without sherry?