Blog powered by Typepad

« In which I learn to love 'Dim Dave' | Main | The Sunday Rumble: 23.8.15 »

Saturday, 22 August 2015

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

And isn't it time we tore up the deal that allows the Americans to reach across the Atlantic and haul British subjects off for trial?

You have such an agreement? Is there no requirement to establish at least a prima facie case before an extradition hearing?

Gobsmacked I am.

AussieD. The Yanks produce their evidence under the arrangement. The accused has recourse to the courts. And in this technological world those who would harm us can hide
behind the internet so they think and can get away with it. They can even claim they had an illness that compelled them to hack into the US military. AYE RIGHT. Prima Facia is just old lawyer jargon but shoukd not be used as an excuse when we are at war and we are.

Jimmy "prima facie" is more than old lawyer jargon. It is an essential ingredient in preventing "the State" taking its citizens to trial on s.f.a evidence.

I have had some experience in the practice thereof.

It's a very good question.

It leads to an even more general strategy question: How does one choose allies?

Such a question that's asking for a strategy, first requires a goal. So the first question, a goal question, is: What do we want?

And as a Libertarian, "we" ain't my favourite word, "I" is. But no man is an island, so the root question, a goal question, is: What do I want for the individual?

Now we've "tail recursed up the stack", as programmers like to call it, we can "head recurse down the stack again" to get our answer.

What do I want for the individual? A society in which the state is as small as it can be, and all social and welfare is achieved by direct redistribution to the individual as "social welfare buying power", for example, through a living wage for people at work, not by tax and spend through the public sector.

And as for the "we" word, I want this for every individual on the planet. "We" might start with Britain, but ultimately, "we" is the "true royal we": Everyone.

Why? Two reasons, in no particular order: -

One: It secures the goal permanently
Two: It's the best way for mankind to live.

So with that in mind, or rather, with that never out of mind, we can move on to the Machiavelli strategy question: How do we choose allies?

Pedigree in acceptance and commitment to the goal, imho. Irrespective of the transient fuckwits, reactionaries (to the goal), and other down swings that democracy and fortune throws up along the way, it's the deep-rooted "cultural, philosophical DNA" of the ally to look for, even if those cultural genes might be going through a reccessive generation.

Therefore the answer to the question tumbles out of the stack: -

(1) US
(2) EU
(3) Rus

Alles klaar?

SoD

No! 'Alles' is anything but 'klaar'! What, precisely and exactly does this mean:

" all social and welfare is achieved by direct redistribution to the individual as "social welfare buying power", for example, through a living wage for people at work, not by tax and spend through the public sector.

Who collects and who redistributes and on what basis?

"How do we choose allies?'

For nations as opposed to states, they are chosen for us. The US and the UK have four nations they can trust. There is nobody the governments of the US and UK can trust because they themselves are untrustworthy. Unfortunately, the USA is undergoing major demographic change which may well reduce her friends to zero.

AussieD. In time of war the truth has to be cloaked in a veil of lies. And we are at war with Islam in case anyone has not noticed. Courts are for routine matters.

"Who collects and who redistributes and on what basis?"

Nobody collects and nobody redistributes. The money never leaves the workplace. The simple rule is the living wage must be paid as a minimum to all employees. What the employer chooses to pay over and above the living wage to some employees, if anything, is up to them.

And the living wage is set to cover the "Great Eight" social necessities, without which, harm will come to you. As John Stuart Mill observed, in a Liberal society (today "Libertarian" society) you should not be able to harm someone through your action or inaction. If someone is having a heart attack and you don't help them when you have the means to do so, either because you are a doctor, or because you have a wallet with a surplus large enough to pay for a doctor, then you have transgressed. The question is simply how to discharge your Libertarian responsibility at least cost and greatest efficiency. And that is to pay directly the citizen and avoid the state completely: -

Food
Clothing
Shelter
Health
Education
Energy
Information
Transport

And the state then provides nothing, because it doesn't need to provide anything, because everyone in work has the social buying power to go get the "Great Eight" themselves from the market. And your Libertarian obligation is discharged at least cost to you.

So the living wage is funded by the reduction in corporation tax to zero, because no social or welfare public spending occurs there's no need to tax the corporates to pay for any public sector spending.

Milton Friedman called it "negative income tax".

SoD

Tell me you don't really believe all that twaddle, SoD!

To understand "Dim Dave", and his successors, that Mill and Friedman twaddle is worth a re-read.

With the minimum wage heading upwards towards the living wage, a new enduring voter base has been added to the Tory ballot count: The mass of low income earners, the ex-working class now lower middle class, mainly immigrants but also back-to-work ex-chavs, sick of shoddy state provision, yearning for more buying power and freedom from public sector non-services.

Soon the Tories will choose one of the "Great Eight" industries to fully unshackle from the state and dissolve into the market. I think it might be education.

Recent exam data shows that the Academies Schools - which are independent from the state and funded direct by pupil headcount, effectively the "Education" Great Eight delivered by the back door - have been so successful they're now outperforming the fully private schools: -

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/11815341/State-schools-outperforming-average-private-schools.html

The natural next step in this process would be to say to parents "Now feel free to take your per pupil funding to any school, Academy or Private" thereby merging both sectors into one market, with an equal baseline of social buying power for all parents on behalf of their children.

No more state owned and operated schools, Great Eight Education goal achieved: Tick.

How far the discerning new low income middle class will go remains to be seen. Will they take their £2000 per annum each and opt out of the NHS for private health care? Will the Tories keep the momentum going this far without shitting themselves, as they did last time?

Who knows, but with labour's disarray, it is an opportunity,

SoD

It's more likely to be Shelter, although it could be both. It'll be a race. If you look at what the government has done with the RTB scheme and the forced rent decrease, Social Housing has to change radically. It could be good or it could be a disaster for all low earners. It could mean the end of Social Housing. And with the cut for 18-21 year olds, there'll be a mass of kids dumped on the street with nowhere to go. No ideas from the government as to where they will go....

The comments to this entry are closed.