UncleEbenezer wrote:Dod101 wrote:UncleEbenezer wrote:dealtn wrote:UncleEbenezer wrote:
The greater blame lies in the system that privileges property ownership with a state-enforced monopoly,
What state enforced monopoly?
The one that puts the organs of the state - police and both civil and criminal justice systems - at your disposal if I and my very large and intimidating friends take up residence in your home without your permission.
What a very odd way of looking at life. So you do not believe in our capitalist society?
Dod
I believe entirely in capitalism as the means of innovation and production.
I also believe (in principle; practice may vary) in the organs of state I referred to. And that those who benefit most from them - such as those with a lot to protect - bear proportionate costs, which is not the case. Only hard-earned income is substantially taxed; unearned gains arising from property subsidies and monopoly rights are not, with productive investment falling somewhere between the two extremes.
There seems to be an unwillingness here to look at root causes, instead people are jumping onto their bandwagon of choice, punishing the rich, taxation on 'unearned' income and so on.
But if we look at root causes, we often find it is the very democratic system we so adulate. We elect politicians who particularly in the last decades, get elected by promising the unattainable to a particular sector of society. Dyed in the wool political activists will no doubt differ, but Tony Blair won his landslide not from reforming Labour, not from inventive financial policies, not from reforming public services but by targetting the specific million or so voters who wanted to stop hunting. Boris didn't win because he had a plan for Britain's future but he promised Brexit as an end in itself, without any consequential effects. As many studies point out, the split in numbers between convinced and committed voters of the major parties is currently so
We either need to educate the romantics not to vote for charlatans however enticing they may seem, or we get politicians who believe in their responsibility to run the country for the good of the inhabitants, rather than the desires of the inhabitants.
From one point of view, it would be irresponsible of a politician to interfere with the excesses of our housing system because it is the single biggest non-government industry in the country. it dwarfs all others, whether measured by the value of assets, number of people involved , the number of stakeholders, the significance (particularly to politicians as it is said that the 'happiness' factor is closely correlated to the increase in value, and they get elected by the happiness factor).
So our politicians will not tackle the problems of immigration because it drives the pressure on housing (Britain's population has risen in the last 40 years only through immigration, the indigent population is falling]. So regardless of whether we need it or want it, immigration will continue because that's where the money is; just as the motivation for socially destructive activities like on-line gambling is simply that it makes the politicians popular, whereas stopping it would make them unpopular.
Recently a review of climate change investigated Australia's coal industry, Australia is simply the third most polluting country on the planet, which is an astonishing claim for a country of 26 million people! Very simply, Australia has the biggest coal mines and they export vast quantities, enabling China for example to fuel their coal fired power-stations, which they could not do without Australian Coal. The Australian Government won't interfere withe the exports because it nets them huge amounts of money on which their famed "good life" is totally dependent. In addition the trades Unions for the coal industry will not allow the industry to be cut back (in an interview that could have come straight from 1960's Britain) unless such industry guarantees that it will be in the ability of the current coal employees, that any re-education would be entirely voluntary and fully compensated, that current coal employees would not be at a disadvantage to people being brought in to set-up the new industry and that no-one would suffer effective demotion (ie, if you were a charge hand of a team of coal miners you'd still be a charge hand of a team of computer collaborationists!)
If the world can be held to ransom while life becomes less survivable by such political obstinacy, do we really believe our politicians would voluntarily take the responsible road, or our electors choose a route not signposted by their own ideology?