The Euro crisis explained..

[Clinton Huxley]

Just getting round to reading The Spirit Level, an analysis of why more equal societies, like Norway, do better at all kinds of social indices (less violence, higher levels of literacy, lower levels of depression etc etc etc). Norway comes top at nearly everything. The US, UK and, for some reason, Portugal come pretty much last at everything.

Of course, North Korea and Saudia Arabia and so on aren't included but I doubt they collect the required statistics.

Does it mention how much oil revenue the 'equal' societies have relative to the size of their populations? Not questioning the mirage only the horizon...

Finland and Japan also do well and I believe their oil reserves are modest...

[Atheist-Lite]

Just getting round to reading The Spirit Level, an analysis of why more equal societies, like Norway, do better at all kinds of social indices (less violence, higher levels of literacy, lower levels of depression etc etc etc). Norway comes top at nearly everything. The US, UK and, for some reason, Portugal come pretty much last at everything.

Of course, North Korea and Saudia Arabia and so on aren't included but I doubt they collect the required statistics.

Does it mention how much oil revenue the 'equal' societies have relative to the size of their populations? Not questioning the mirage only the horizon...

Finland and Japan also do well and I believe their oil reserves are modest...

Japan is a strange one - certainly a social outlier compared with most other nations. They still save their money up for stuff over there. Most peculiar.

[Seth]

People are a natural resource as much as land or coal is the only difference is those natural resources are mobile and can immigrate/emmigrate
Society does have at least some rights on people if they choose to remain, ie can tax labour etc to run the country

I actually agree with you in part. People are the quintessential resource, but they are not a PUBLIC resource, unless they are slaves.

The only just and legitimate purpose of civilization and government is to empower and protect the individual and secure maximum happiness to each person, not to make of them defacto slaves to the interests of others through a tyranny of the majority called "the State."

However, no government can legitimately tax "labour" merely to satisfy its own cupidinous needs. Taxes are only justly levied in fair and equitable portion to pay for the necessary operations of government that benefit the INDIVIDUAL from whom those taxes are extracted.

Thus, it is legitimate to levy a tax to pay for streets and roads that the individual uses that cannot be accurately or fairly assessed on a per-use basis. Other government services, like sewers and water, can be metered and paid for by fees, not taxes, apportioned to individuals based on how much of the service they actually consume. The military is an example of a legitimate government authority (one of a very, very few constitutionally legitimate federal authorities) and need that justifies the imposition of an equal tax on everyone for funding it.

But where government, particularly socialist governments go astray is when they decide to redistribute wealth not because some taxpayer has consumed more public resources than another, but to achieve some sort of social engineering agenda of "fairness" or "equality" or "egalitarianism."

It is not a legitimate function of government to play Robin Hood and take from the rich to give to the poor against the will of the rich, particularly as a part of a plan to consolidate and/or expand the power of government over the People by buying the votes or support of the dependent class against the interests and rights of the productive class. It's pure, unadulterated theft that is perpetrated and facilitated by the naked, raw power that government actually is. Such actions are illegitimate and immoral.

[MrJonno]

I actually agree with you in part. People are the quintessential resource, but they are not a PUBLIC resource, unless they are slaves.

If they choose to be part of a society then you give up total autonomy and part of your work output is required as a public resource as rent. You're not a slave as firstly you leave and secondary you actually get a say (not a veto) on what the social rent is

[Seth]

I actually agree with you in part. People are the quintessential resource, but they are not a PUBLIC resource, unless they are slaves.

If they choose to be part of a society then you give up total autonomy and part of your work output is required as a public resource as rent. You're not a slave as firstly you leave and secondary you actually get a say (not a veto) on what the social rent is

Nobody is arguing for "total autonomy," which is nothing more or less than anarchy, so that's a red herring argument.

But my labor is not "rent" that I owe to society. I don't owe anybody anything just for existing, people only owe others something if they consume the resources or labor of others, and they only owe compensation for things and benefits that they actually make use of. Nobody owes anyone else anything merely as a function of being a living human being. It's all about quid pro quo. You use a public amenity or service, then you pay your fair share of providing that amenity or service. If you don't use the resource, you don't have to pay for it.

But nobody is under any obligation to labor for the benefit of the idle, indolent or dependent merely because they happen to be idle, indolent or dependent. THAT is slavery, and I certainly won't abide it, and no civilized person should do so either.

[Cormac]

Gordon "retard" Brown is dribbling into his porridge.......again

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/busin ... 33263.html

"Gordon Brown today launches an extraordinary attack on the leaders of America, France and Germany, accusing them of being "wrong" on the big economic decisions and failing to heed his warnings over the EU debt crisis".


As usual his answer is to throw money at the problem Money that doesn't exist (hence no mention of where this money is to come from ) - I would have thought that by now even he would have twigged that you can't borrow your way out of debt.......even if you call p#ssing money up against the wall as "investment"


and of course (once again) no mention of his role in creating the problem in the first place by borrowing like a Crack Whore and spending the money on Lesbian Tree Huggers etc

Don't be silly. Gordon Brown put an end to boom and bust. Therefore, this is not a bust, that was not a boom, and anyway, it isn't his fault, it is somone elses. (Blair's probably, and if not his - then the Conservatives...).

[Cormac]

Well, you're the new Athens, where national resources are exploited by the State and the profits redistributed to the citizenry.

Nope. Athens restricted citizenry to a very few, and they also engaged in widespread slavery.

[Cormac]

I actually agree with you in part. People are the quintessential resource, but they are not a PUBLIC resource, unless they are slaves.

If they choose to be part of a society then you give up total autonomy and part of your work output is required as a public resource as rent. You're not a slave as firstly you leave and secondary you actually get a say (not a veto) on what the social rent is

What you suggest is that a person must leave his place of birth if he doesn't agree with the politics. This would seem to suit one of the definitions of genocide.

[MrJonno]

I actually agree with you in part. People are the quintessential resource, but they are not a PUBLIC resource, unless they are slaves.

If they choose to be part of a society then you give up total autonomy and part of your work output is required as a public resource as rent. You're not a slave as firstly you leave and secondary you actually get a say (not a veto) on what the social rent is

What you suggest is that a person must leave his place of birth if he doesn't agree with the politics. This would seem to suit one of the definitions of genocide.

No I'm saying someone must obey the law whether they agree with it or not, in a decent society they may have a chance to try and change that law but if they fail they still obey it or face the consequences. I think cannabis should be legal but I still accept the police have the right to arrest me if I smoke it

[MrJonno]

I don't owe anybody anything just for existing,

Yes you do, merely for breathing in a country you are required to obey the laws of the land which may include paying taxes

[Svartalf]

To which a libertarian might respond by asking "who made them MY king?"

[MrJonno]

To which a libertarian might respond by asking "who made them MY king?"

To which a anti-libertarian would say who gave you squatting and leeching rights (it all comes down to natural rights which don't exist)

[Svartalf]

to which we get back to the question of who has the authority to set up laws and how they get it...
Just because I say so and have the armed forces to make people obey and I've been in charge for centuries is a factual answer, but not one that satisfies a sense of what is right.

[MrJonno]

What is 'morally' right is just a social consensus that can be enforced. If society says rounding up undesirables into concentration camps and exterminating them is a good thing then thats is the definition of what is good until something else comes along.

That may be an uncomfortable but it doesnt make it any less true

[Seth]

What is 'morally' right is just a social consensus that can be enforced. If society says rounding up undesirables into concentration camps and exterminating them is a good thing then thats is the definition of what is good until something else comes along.

That may be an uncomfortable but it doesnt make it any less true

Ah, situational ethics and moral relativism, what a childish and simplistic way out of an argument. And what an asinine rationalization and attempt to justify the very worst sorts of evil that humans perpetrate on one another. Stalin would be proud of you. (I avoided the obvious Hitler comparison to avoid a Godwinism)

Sorry, but there are moral rights and wrongs that are not simply up to the tyranny of the majority, even though you don't understand them.

One of those moral truths is that you don't get to take what's mine for your use and enjoyment without my permission. You can try, but it's an immoral act that can be justifiably resisted with whatever degree of force is required to prevent the theft. And hiring others to do the stealing, even when you purport to give them authority to do so, is no less theft than you sticking a gun in my face and demanding my wallet. It's a moral wrong, plain and simple, no matter how many people think it's a good idea.