Libertarian Party

[I1L2T3]

What reduction? All the evidence shows that cutting the top rate of tax from 50% down to 40% would produce more tax revenue.

 

Why do you keep saying this. We won't know until the treasury report is published.

[Harleyman]

You don't get it do you? You're not offending me at all by saying that Britain is less free than America, you're just making my point stronger- none of us are free under government, arguing about relative semantics regarding who is more or less free is totally irrelevant.

 

Freedom enables you to make choices, you're free to choose one option or another. If you and I are so very very free why can't we choose not to have a government if we so wish? Why must blood be shed to get rid of dictators? Why is there no option on the ballot for 'none of the above'?

 

The type of freedom I'm talking about gives everybody a strong political voice, not just the elite few. It allows you to influence how you run and organise your community. So it's a form of freedom that also empowers you directly.

 

It gives people the freedom to travel the world without passport controls and security checks. These aren't needed because there are no government run armies or police forces available to subjugate other peoples and lead them to hate their oppressors. There's no need for a military industrial complex. No taxes are collected, if you make money, you choose how to spend it and learn how to spend it politically, ensuring no monopolies form to take the place of governments. No taxes are collected so it isn't worth invading other countries because there's no nice lump sum of wealth to take from them.

 

Better still (in my opinion) there's no money at all. In times of great hardship people pull together and share what they have with others, we hear of this happening all of the time during WWII in Britain, why not in times of plenty too? People love to share with their peer group, they love to volunteer and to cooperate together on projects and too many studies have shown that it increases peoples happiness levels and intelligence to do so. Thatcher once said that making the richest richer drags up the poorer people too, but enriching everybody to the highest sustainable level is surely better for all? No poverty= much much less crime. Enriching the developing world will not make the average person poorer at all, it would only ever affect the top 1-10% of us and they have so much wealth they don't know what to do with it.

 

Just think- No government violence on the TV every night- no riot police, no war reporting means far far fewer people will be subjected to violent images from a young age and I know you'll see a massive reduction in violent crime. After all, this is where most of us learn about violence- computer games and violent movies come much later in life than the daily news programs.

 

And if it all fails, there's no need for a bloody military coup or a violent revolution for change to occur. All that's needed are a few ballot boxes and the LibLabCon Party/ Demopublican Party can carry on as if nothing ever happened. Preferably with a 'none of the above' option retained on the ballot box.

 

You're assuming that every other human being in that Utopian world would share your ideals. Also that each and everyone would be the perfect creattion in the sight of god, without sin, without avarice, without greed, without envy, without malice, without lust, without cruelty.

 

Believe me if there were no laws, no government, no police your well being on this earth would very well soon come to an end

[Harleyman]

Ah .... so no freedoms at all as long as people can say anything that comes into their head.

 

 

Most people would not consider that an accurate definition of freedom, still less a "true" one.

 

I reserve the right to say anything no matter how outrageous or distasteful and not be hauled off to jail for saying it.

 

This kind of speech control has no place in a truly democratic society neither has any kind of censorship of the written word, It may be obnoxious and hateful and it can be criticized, condemned and ridiculed but never silenced.

 

Those who disagree are closet fascists

[I1L2T3]

Out of interest how easy would it be to set up a new party that could challenge the existing two/three party regime?

 

Everything seems stacked against the smaller and new parties. The main ones have long established funding mechanisms providing funding at levels that are effectively a barrier to entry/progress for new/existing parties.

 

There is clearly a need for a mainstream genuine Liberal party. And a mainstream party that stands for workers in ways that Labour does not any more. And a conservative party that can feel completely comfortable opposing EU integration. These are all powerful forces in UK politics that are being supressed in favour of three parties that are basically indistinguishable and locked in to the corporatist (*) UK we now have.

 

How can new parties break through? How do the current main parties so effectively squeeze out others.

 

Edit: (*) just want to be clear I don't mean this in the conventional sense - I'm referring to a corporate elite in media, politics, finance, judiciary, police that form a series of overlapping & mutually reinforcing blocs that are serving to funnel wealth and power into a narrow group of elites. All the main parties are enmeshed into that now. It's why they all look so similar.

[Tony]

Out of interest how easy would it be to set up a new party that could challenge the existing two/three party regime?

 

Everything seems stacked against the smaller and new parties. The main ones have long established funding mechanisms providing funding at levels that are effectively a barrier to entry/progress for new/existing parties.

You've probably got it in one there. The solution is as clear as the problem.

 

It just needs a volunteer with vision and deep [enough] pockets.

[Cavegirl]

You're assuming that every other human being in that Utopian world would share your ideals. Also that each and everyone would be the perfect creattion in the sight of god, without sin, without avarice, without greed, without envy, without malice, without lust, without cruelty.

 

Believe me if there were no laws, no government, no police your well being on this earth would very well soon come to an end

 

You really don't know anything about anarchism do you?

 

I've never assumed that everybody would share my ideals, what i actually said was this:

Anarchism is potentially as varied as any form of human diversity. From far right anarcho-capitalism ..., to far left anarcho-communism...I hope others develop in ways that represent their own people and cultural heritage.

 

Where from that do you possibly reach the conclusion that I expect everyone to share my ideals? I don't. I know the world is a diverse place, I love that diversity and I think it's our greatest strength as a species. It's current governments that are looking to create a homogenous society because that makes people easier to control and it allows corporations to reach larger markets with fewer products- it's more efficient. I don't happen to think world society should have efficiency as its main modus operandi.

 

Anyway, these aren't just my ideals, these are the ideals of pretty much every great socio-political thinker that's ever put pen to paper!! Anarchism is an ideal because it represents freedom for the individual, only a fool would go around shouting "sod freedom, I want to be enslaved please".

 

The church is an evolution of prehistoric tyranny that people in the UK at least have thankfully already pretty much shrugged off, I have no intention of getting into a crazy god debate with you- we've been there, done that, got the t-shirt thanks, I like progress, not regression.

 

Finally, very few societies can be run without rules and anarchism does not and never has advocated a rule-less society. Anarchists just want the rules to be developed through the consensus of those to whom they apply rather than having them forced upon them by courts that have been deliberately created and managed to ensure that the average person cannot represent themselves or truly understand the warped legalese meanings within the proceedings. Needless to say there would likely be fewer rules and people would be more likely to abide by them- that is not lawlessness.

[I1L2T3]

You've probably got it in one there. The solution is as clear as the problem.

 

It just needs a volunteer with vision and deep [enough] pockets.

 

It's disheartening. I could never support it myself but there's a strong political theme with strong public support regarding pulling out of the EU. In a democratic system it's wrong to try and brush that away.

[Tony]

The EU is dead in the water. If (big if, ask me again in 3 months) it exists in 5 years time it won't even begin to resemble what it is today.

[I1L2T3]

The EU is dead in the water. If (big if, ask me again in 3 months) it exists in 5 years time it won't even begin to resemble what it is today.

 

Who knows. As it stands now it's over and will likely need a complex renegotiation at the very least. That is why the public need a voice.

[andyofborg]

It costs more to administer the 50% tax rate then it brings in, as there are not many people PAYE earning above 150k.

 

 

if you are being paif through PAYE then the cost is no different to that of paying 40%, 30% or 60%. That's the beauty of the PAYE system