Neoliberalism is good (or at least ok).

[henry quirk]

That's a question for the employer/owner, not the gov/central planners/politiburo (unless, of course, an individual doesn't have a right to his property, in which case: just slap any old shackles you want on the employer/owner [bleed 'em dry]).

[henry quirk]

'Like the capitalists do now to the poor workers? The whole point, Henry, is to put a stop to the exploitation.'

Yeah, I get that. But, consider...

If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind? F. Bastiat

[uwot]

...so, let's start with the first line of your constitution (or the first plank of your party): The individual owns himself and has a right to his life, liberty, and property.

Life, liberty and ownership are simple. It only gets messy when you ask how did someone acquire their property and why their children should keep it.

Second line of your constitution (or the second plank of your party): An individual's life, liberty, or property are only forfeit when he deprives another of his life, liberty, or property.

Yeah, don't fuck with anyone's right to self determination. Stop anyone who takes the piss.

Seriously: unless you assert this stuff upfront as foundational to whatever else you wanna cram into your constitution (or party platform) then you're just washin' & movin' around the current batch of garbage.

No political leader that I am aware of has ever claimed otherwise.

[henry quirk]

"Life, liberty and ownership are simple. It only gets messy when you ask how did someone acquire their property and why their children should keep it."

Not so simple: for most of human history self-ownership & a right to one's life, liberty, & property has been 'discouraged' (how else do monarchs, tyrants, & dictators rule if not by layin' claim to the lives, liberties, & propertes of their 'subjects'?). So: don't gloss over the first principles.

As for aquiring property: if aquired justly (not through theft or coercion) then the property is private & not your or my concern.

As for inheritance: if acquired justly (not through theft or coercion) then the property owner can do with his property as he likes (sell it, give it away, burn it to the ground, or give it to his offspring) and you & me, we don't get a say.

Finally: embedded in this "It only gets messy when you ask how did someone acquire their property and why their children should keep it." is the filthy idea the property owner is guilty & now must prove his innocence. How ugly & wrong-headed. The property owner is innocent till proven guilty (of theft or coercion). Simply: if you have no evidence of theft or coercion then go pound sand. Envy ain't good cause to steal what belongs to another.

#

"Yeah, don't fuck with anyone's right to self determination. Stop anyone who takes the piss."

Yep, and that includes 'governors' who look to 'redistribute' that which justly belongs to another.

#

"No political leader that I am aware of has ever claimed otherwise."

Nikita Khrushchev, Fidel Castro: two, right off the top of my head, who -- though actions, if not words -- declared individuals 'property of the state' entitled only to what the state deemed appropriate or neccessary.

[Immanuel Can]

There used to be a joke, back in the days of the Cold War:

"What's the difference between Capitalism and Communism?"

Answer: "Well, with Capitalism, man exploits man. But with Communism, it's the other way around."

[uwot]

As for aquiring property: if aquired justly (not through theft or coercion) then the property is private & not your or my concern.

So how do you acquire property justly?

[vegetariantaxidermy]

No I mean literally where are you from?

Not an ivory tower, surrounded by out-of-touch, virtue-signalling 'academics' with Asperger's, which is where you appear to reside.

As far as I am concerned you are from f u c k o f f land.

The PC are the kindest and most tolerant of humans (we know this because they keep telling us), even going so far as to say we are 'all the same' and need to embrace one another in a big, warm, universal rainbow hug of humanness and love.
It's just a shame their own 'love' doesn't extend to all those humans being murdered by their thug militaries. Not a whimper of protest for decades.

[Arising_uk]

...so, let's start with the first line of your constitution ....

What constitution?

[Arising_uk]

...would you be interested in attempting to knock-ut a rough draft manifesto for a party that wished to punt neo-classical-neo-liberalism as despite what the punsita and academics say about the current state of UK voters I think the centrist ground could still have it with the right message and policies.

Interesting....But let's do it, just to have something that isn't about 'Murica and abortion for a while.

Fuck it. I'm in. Can we start with what percentage of shares should be distributed among the people who actually do the work? Actually, first things first: what's a fucking "punsita"?

Pundits
Typing on phone as on hols.

[Arising_uk]

Ok FDP.
Let's start a new thread then at least it can be modded to keep it on track.
My suggestion would be to try and make it a manifesto right off the bat. So a quick perusal of the current political parties ones might be in order to get an idea of style and format and areas of policy.

[henry quirk]

"So how do you acquire property justly?"

How do you get stuff without stealing it or coercing folks to give it to you?

##

"What's the difference between Capitalism and Communism?"

Answer: "Well, with Capitalism, man exploits man. But with Communism, it's the other way around."

Both suck: so, for once, why don't ya give free enterprise a chance.

##

"What constitution?"

Or party platform, if that's the direction you're goin' with.

##

"Let's start a new thread then at least it can be modded to keep it on track."

Why a new moderated thread?

Are there voices & ideas not allowed in your Brave New World? (there goes free speech & freedom of thought)

[henry quirk]

...so I'll put my comments 'here' where you architects of Tomorrow Land can safely ignore 'em.

-----

"Henry has suggested that we should begin with a first line of our constitution, the underlying principle that guides all of this. I don't think he's wrong, but I doubt he will like what I have. Here goes anyway..."

Yeah, I'm not keen on it.

#

"There is a problem with politics when predicated on a single guiding principle of justice or similar. This is that it forms a rationale that must be followed to a conclusion, and in most cases that conclusion is undesirable. It is a Utopia/Dystopia sort of problem where you either pursue the unattainable and get nowhere, or you pursue the unattainable and get a nightmare."

Don't know how acknowledgin'' from the start the individual owns himself & has a right to his life, liberty, & property can lead to anything undesirable, or any kind of utopia or dystopia. Sure seems to me: when folks begin eroding that ownership & those rights (the way I expect your utillitarian exercise will) that's when the bad shit creeps in.

#

"Neo-classical-neo-liberalism resolves this problem by not pursing a utopian vision at all, and this requires us to abandon the fixed and certain judgment of exactly what counts as justice, or the ultimate basis of rights."

If self-ownership & the right to life, liberty, & property becomes a matter of technocratic interpretation, well, given the proper (as determined by the powers that be) circumstance: anything goes. Any number of indignities & down right depravities against 'one' can be justfied if the 'many' are served.

#

"Eventually, every individual policy is something that must be justified as desirable to society at large independently of any other policy, and occasionally it needs to be reviewed to make sure that is still the case."

Yeah, slavery was justfied by much the same thinkin'.

'We'd never do such a thing, Henry.'

Sure, you wouldn't. But someone would, and they'll use your notions to justfy it.

#

"We're not going to insist on what society must desire, so much as providing as far as possible for those desires that people can mostly agree on, or at least not fight each other over..."

...till the powers that be tire of the masses doin' & wantin' things that differ from what the technicrats think is best...then: goodbye benign utilitarianism, hello soma.

#

"So a tax policy that doesn't drive people to cheat the system is better than one that feels super pure but doesn't deliver any revenue for instance. I won't belabour this point here, it will crop up a lot anyway."

Folks are less likely to cheat when they actually have a say-so in what they pay. A simple, low, fixed consumption tax fits the bill. Such a thing won't generate nearly the money you'll need for your universal 'this' & comprehensive 'that', though.

[FlashDangerpants]

"Neo-classical-neo-liberalism resolves this problem by not pursing a utopian vision at all, and this requires us to abandon the fixed and certain judgment of exactly what counts as justice, or the ultimate basis of rights."

If self-ownership & the right to life, liberty, & property becomes a matter of technocratic interpretation, well, given the proper (as determined by the powers that be) circumstance: anything goes. Any number of indignities & down right depravities against 'one' can be justfied if the 'many' are served.

Well it was always going to be a matter of interpretation. You believe in certain rights to shoot people do't you? That's an interpretation of the guy who is getting shot having seperated himself from his right to live somehow is it not?

"Eventually, every individual policy is something that must be justified as desirable to society at large independently of any other policy, and occasionally it needs to be reviewed to make sure that is still the case."

Yeah, slavery was justfied by much the same thinkin'.

'We'd never do such a thing, Henry.'

Sure, you wouldn't. But someone would, and they'll use your notions to justfy it.

Well slavery was practiced directly by people who signed the original Bill of Rights was it not? So my thing has never been tested for that slavery thing, but yours has and it failed.

"We're not going to insist on what society must desire, so much as providing as far as possible for those desires that people can mostly agree on, or at least not fight each other over..."

...till the powers that be tire of the masses doin' & wantin' things that differ from what the technicrats think is best...then: goodbye benign utilitarianism, hello soma.

What are you arguing against here? Any society that has any form of government can end that way, but it's not neo-classically-neo-liberalish to have technocrats who would rather enslave the population than lose an election, quite the opposite, I have openly stated that we expect to always lose every election.

"So a tax policy that doesn't drive people to cheat the system is better than one that feels super pure but doesn't deliver any revenue for instance. I won't belabour this point here, it will crop up a lot anyway."

Folks are less likely to cheat when they actually have a say-so in what they pay. A simple, low, fixed consumption tax fits the bill. Such a thing won't generate nearly the money you'll need for your universal 'this' & comprehensive 'that', though.

Well, I'll cover neo-thingy-neo-whotsit tax policy soon .... I can confidently state that you will hate it even more when you know what it is

[henry quirk]

Decriminalize the lot.

Hold folks who are baked out of their gourds utterly & completely responsible for what they do (same as you would if they were clean & sober).

Hold suppliers utterly & completely responsible for injuries caused by adulterated product (Joe sells paraquat-laced pot, he's liable for injuries caused).

[gaffo]

Decriminalize the lot.

Hold folks who are baked out of their gourds utterly & completely responsible for what they do (same as you would if they were clean & sober).

Hold suppliers utterly & completely responsible for injuries caused by adulterated product (Joe sells paraquat-laced pot, he's liable for injuries caused).

I concur, never like Pot myself (prefered coke and acid - the two times i tried them 30 yrs ago) - maybe they will be legalized nexted? (i'm ok with acid being so being not addictive).

Pot is a bad trip, only made me paranoid and dumb, but whatever, if others love that weed (and seeing since 1980's the push to legalize it has been so much that folks must like it) it is only a matter of time before it is legalized.

as for your above about the pusher/etc (get real) - we are past "de-criminalization" now, and well into Legalization - so unle$$ you are talking about the Tobacco - turned Pot growerS actually being hauled into our future courts for stoned drivers for manslaughter.............dream on.


its already inverted culturally (not legally - but no matter - legal condex will be forced to reform to culture), a-ok to smoke a joint, anathama to smoke a cig.

by 2030 - all the tobacco companies will just grow pot instead and you will go the conveinence store to buy Rennold's joints - (Tobacco will prob be illegal by then - lol) all legal and proper.