Really, I ask you, what is to be done? Whatever way you look at it 'Social Democracy' has failed - spectacularly. But what can one expect from such weasel words as 'social democracy'. A society is either democratic or it isn't. A society can be socialist, but then it cannot be democratic, because for socialists to permit democracy may well end up in them being voted out - end of socialism.
It is ludicrous for 'social democrats' to blame the free market for failing, when the state runs over half the economy and massively regulates the rest of it. There clearly is no 'free market' under such conditions.
There is an alternative, liberty, but no major UK political party seems willing or able to make the argument for liberty, ever. Yet when the population is accurately questioned to assess their attitudes the results clearly show that the people prize liberty and responsibility. But no party makes arguments for that.
Question. How can we change this...?
Saturday 8 October 2011
What, really, can be done...?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
Mark, what have you been smoking?
Voting is about interests, not abstract theories. What on balance people think is in their interest changes all the time. You know that.
The US Constitution does make some presumptions for liberty, but as amended since the 1930s is fatally compromised. We never had such a presumption and will never create one.
In practice the only way to stop the modern state from destroying liberty and taking all the wealth is
(a) stop it from waging war
(b) grid-lock it by procedure so it can't do anything, especially make new appointments
(c) delay all new schemes requiring more money in any way possible, ideally in the courts (they provide maximum delay)
We are in a new phase with finance capital taking over the state. All of the above become essential.
"Question. How can we change this...?" Ask the public to be more honest about their indifference to Liberty and dislike of Responsibility.
Democracy: The freedom to choose your next dictator.
Whatever way you look at it 'Social Democracy' has failed - spectacularly.
Most 'social democratic' western countries: Sweden, Germany, Netherlands. Least 'social democratic' western country: USA. The suggestion that the former have failed more dramatically than the latter is, erm, interesting.
Liberty would free us from the shackles of political bondage our politicos have over us, hence the distinct lack of giving us anything that leads down that road.
What we really need is a few years of dictatorship, only trouble our Top Brass are so damned useless they couldn't even manage a junta here.
So - we're doomed!
CB, I didn't write this post, your bullet points a to c make sense superficially, but clearly we disagree on who the real "state" is in the first place and therefore on who is hoovering up the "wealth".
L, re what JohnB says, the USA is surprisingly 'social-democratic' (in good ways and bad).
As far as your post goes, a more interesting comparison is between Home-Owner-Ist countries (USA, UK, Ireland) and less-Home-Owner-Ist ones like Sweden, Germany, NL etc.
I'd be happy with the return of a proper Liberal party without any 'social democratic' baggage. With due respect to readers of this blog, *Most* libertarians I know have a huge blind spot over the nature of land rents and will protect, until death, their right to collect them privately.
N.B. This is one policy that appears to be readily adopted by more popular political parties!
QP, I don't understand your last sentence.
Do you mean that the policy that land rents should be collected privately is currently espoused by all political parties (except Scottish Greens)?
Or are you aware that any of the "more popular" ones have a policy that says land rents should be taxed?
Mark - sorry to have misdirected my original comment. The post didn't seem quite like you!
Theory of the State. I agree, mine is very unreflective and can't deal with things once there is a purpose to the characterisation. I also think it probably owes most to US models, which don't help with aggressive wrecking-balls like the EU.
My points (a) to (c) are intended as immediate, conceivably practical steps. They wouldn't deal with the problems at base, just apply a brake to the juggernaut.
Technology has tipped the scales pretty heavily in favour of personal liberty in recent years - it's fairness and justice (whatever they are) that have taken the big hits. Both as ordinary people see them, and as law is applied. But then, gloabl this that and the other have not emerged from stable systems.
The corrective to just about all policical dyfunction is righteousness, but to be able to project that and stay true to the principles, you probably need some moral-relgious predicate, and most of us (me included) don't have one. If we think a leader has it, (s)he attracts voters - and if (s)he really does, we are set for improvement. Does anyone have it right now? Not that I can see.
CB: "My points (a) to (c) are intended as immediate, conceivably practical steps. They wouldn't deal with the problems at base, just apply a brake to the juggernaut."
In which case I completely agree with you and withdraw my earlier reservations.
The former Mark, that most 'popular' parties support (albeit in many cases unconsciously) the private collection of land rents.
QP, damn, you had my hopes up for a minute :-(
Thank you all for these comments. I am very pleased with the response to the hare I set running.
1. In re the 'Scandinavian miracle' see here http://mises.org/daily/4146
2. I'd already come to the homeownerist distortions in the UK and the US. Both countries have massively distorted the free market with correspondingly massive h-o-i subsidies.
Lola: I agree re Scandinavia and economic freedom - this is exactly why measures indicating % of GDP taken in taxation are irrelevant. If the tax take is used primarily for transfer payments, the % doesn't matter much; if it's used to pay for pointless crap, then it does. In this context, the UK also scores well, as indexes from people like the Heritage Foundation highlight.
It's a tough one. In the end, you need new blood in politics and you won't get that with our current voting system. The STV vote was a tragedy in this regard.
Because I'm not a hippy socialist, I try to look at things in terms of what I personally can do, not what would be nice to happen.
My No. 1 piece of advice is that if you live in a Con marginal, vote for UKIP. The more seats that the Conservatives lose at the next election because of UKIP, the more likely that you'll get rid of the Cameron types, or better, create a situation that splits the Conservative Party.
(my advice to UKIP would be to turn all fire on marginal seats).
Burn down every BBC building, preferably with employees inside until such time as they are they are willing to show the "balance" their charter requires. Instead of being, on ALL occasio9ns, propgandists for whatever scare story, extra tax&spending or bombing the government wants.
A more moderate alternative would be not to pay the licence fee. After all their legal right to it depends on them keeping that Charter promise.
Post a Comment