Convince me to take up Leftism

[CroakandDagger]

Convince me to start voting left again. Im 25, single and I need a way to expedite my time on Earth.

[brainbomb]

We are likely to be rounded up an murdered in a facist purge. So welcome aboard. Try the chicken, its definetely not poisoned by Republicans.

[TrPrado]

I can think of two possibilities here.

1) joke voting
2) living in a political condition where they’re legally the only people you can legally vote for

[Octavious]

25 and single?

Voting itself ain't gonna expedite anything. What you want to do is get into activism. Join one of the smaller left wing parties, such as the Green Party, where there's no danger of getting any real power. That way you can focus on enjoying the socials, meeting new girls, and generally taking part in self righteous ranting.

[TrPrado]

That sounds like the wisdom of someone who’s done that, Oct.

[Octavious]

I'll have you know I was a member of both the Tories and Lib Dems at uni for purely political reasons

[Randomizer]

Because it's the Right thing to do.

[Jamiet99uk]

What would you describe as your main values or political ends, Croak?

I mean, I know you dream of a racially-pure white ethnostate, and probably you wish you had a girlfriend or someday at least hope to lose your virginity without paying for it, but apart from that?

[CroakandDagger]

What would you describe as your main values or political ends, Croak?

Justice should be blind, and rules ought to apply equally to everyone.
People should be free to speak their mind on any subject without fear.
Citizens of a Nation should be able to count on their Government to serve their interests.
The lobbying of supernational megacorporations should have no impact on policy.
The rich should pay the same amount of tax as the poor, at the very least.
National industry should not be gutted simply to appease an authoritarian neighbour.

None of these things are currently true in Britain, but I would like them to be.

[Jamiet99uk]

Well this is interesting, because despite our enormous differences, I agree with some of these principles. Where we differ hugely is probably the means. Let's see if I can use the quote function to tease these out.

Justice should be blind, and rules ought to apply equally to everyone.

I agree with this. I think the British justice system is already better in this regard than many others, though not perfect. In particular, on the civil side, we have issues with equal access to justice.

People should be free to speak their mind on any subject without fear.

I may not entirely agree with this. Let's take it to the extremes - should a person be free to say "let's round up the blacks and the jews, and kill them all in the most painful way possible"..? Should this kind of speech be protected? And does "speech" extend to publication? Should a wealthy person be able to print millions of leaflets saying "we should kill the Muslims" and pay for them to be posted through every letterbox in the country? Is that freedom of expression desirable?

Citizens of a Nation should be able to count on their Government to serve their interests.

In a properly functioning democracy, if it does not, the general idea is that the citizenry should be able to replace the Government. I must say it is my view that in the UK we do not have a properly functioning democracy at the present time.

The lobbying of supernational megacorporations should have no impact on policy.

I quite agree.

The rich should pay the same amount of tax as the poor, at the very least.

At the very least, yes.

National industry should not be gutted simply to appease an authoritarian neighbour.

Let's discuss this. Economic policy is very interesting to me. What exactly do you mean in this case? Are you talking about the impact of unreasonable tarrifs?

[brainbomb]

So tax reform extremism where rich pay nothing. Great. The rich pay less taxes than poor in America in many scenarios

[CroakandDagger]

I'll try and reply using approximately the same format, but in my opinion nested quotes get obnoxious fast so i'll do some minor editing to keep context but snip my original posts off except for that last point that you wanted to discuss in detail. If you feel i'm misrepresenting your replies at any point please feel free to call me out.

Well this is interesting, because despite our enormous differences, I agree with some of these principles. Where we differ hugely is probably the means. Let's see if I can use the quote function to tease these out.

I suspect I am more of a pragmatic realist than you are, but then that's what I would say, isn't it?

I agree [That justice should be blind]. I think the British justice system is already better in this regard than many others, though not perfect. In particular, on the civil side, we have issues with equal access to justice.

We do indeed - but I suspect you do not mean the same thing by "access to justice" that I would. I don't want to make assumptions about precisely what you are using that as a euphemism for - and would be interested to hear it - but what I would mean by this would be that disadvantaged folks (predominantly the native white working class, but also the lower middle/middle classes) do not have good access to the justice system ever since Britain's small claims courts were sidelined into near irrelevance. It is my understanding that what may have cropped up in a small claims court once upon a time is now either getting thrown out as inconsequential, ignored altogether, or being addressed only on exploitative daytime television.

And since the working class are cut off from justice by the increasingly byzantine workings of the Priesthood of Litigators, they see the agents of Law and Order as their enemies - which we see reflected in the mainstreaming of casual criminality.

The fact that the agents of Law and Order have utterly failed to stop hundreds of thousands of rapes of young white girls because they were afraid of being called "Racist" if they intervened in the national islamic paedophile crisis is not completely unrelated to this point.

I may not entirely agree [That people should be free to speak their mind on any subject without fear]. Let's take it to the extremes - should a person be free to say "let's round up the blacks and the jews, and kill them all in the most painful way possible"..? Should this kind of speech be protected? And does "speech" extend to publication? Should a wealthy person be able to print millions of leaflets saying "we should kill the Muslims" and pay for them to be posted through every letterbox in the country? Is that freedom of expression desirable?

In my opinion, yes. Hate Speech laws are toxic to the national discourse. If people are saying that we ought to round up and kill massive groups of people, in my opinion they are either joking - or there are serious problems deep in society that require urgent attention. In either case that speech should not be prevented.

In the first case (When a person is indulging their absurdist humour) they should not be punished because they don't genuinely mean it.

In the second case (When a person is seriously suggesting ethnic cleansing) they should not be punished because the more comfortable the advocates of violence feel airing their opinions in public, the more accessible to the authorities their discussions will be, and consequently any genuine pogrom plans will be easier to counter.

Personally I think that posting "Kill the Muslims" leaflets through every door in the country would be going too far, but then you did deliberately pick an extreme example. However, it is true that if there were no muslims alive in Britain there would be no terrorist attacks committed inspired by Islamic doctrine. Simply saying so is not advocating violence, but it is an "easy" and obvious fix. It would be disgusting violation to implement an obviously it's undesirable. Mass killing is always undesirable.

But if we are not allowed to have a conversation about the problem that includes the most radical proposed solutions - and it would be a solution - we cannot ever categorically demonstrate that the alternatives we advocate are indeed better.

In a properly functioning democracy, if [A Government does not serve its people's interests], the general idea is that the citizenry should be able to replace the Government. I must say it is my view that in the UK we do not have a properly functioning democracy at the present time.

For a Democracy to function ideally, its people must be well-educated, well-informed and politically engaged. So yes, I would agree that Britain's democracy does not currently function ideally.

In my opinion it doesn't even function well.

I quite agree [That the lobbying of supernational megacorporations should have no impact on policy].

So we agree. Pretty boring really. But to expand a little on this, the more monopolistic and protectionist national policy allows corporations to be, the more society and business stagnates - with power and wealth accumulating to a new aristocracy.

At the very least, [The rich should pay the same amount of tax as the poor].

I don't miss the emphasis. In my mind, one of the biggest problems facing our society is the very theoretical existence of a corporation.

I am not a corporate lawyer, but my layman's understanding of the matter is that a corporation is counted as its own individual with its own assets - and its shareholders each own a percentage of it.

In Days Of Yore, inheritance tax existed at least in part to go some way to breaking up vast mercantile empires. A corporation is not a living thing, will never die, and thus is not subject to that pressure - exacerbating the problem.

That corporation tax is equivalent to low-band income tax is just salt in the wound when their earnings are measured in the millions - and that's without investigating rebates or other loopholes.

National industry should not be gutted simply to appease an authoritarian neighbour.

Let's discuss this. Economic policy is very interesting to me. What exactly do you mean in this case? Are you talking about the impact of unreasonable tarrifs?

In this particular case, I was talking about the ruin visited upon our fishing industry - and by proxy our coastal towns - by the EU's abysmal Common Fisheries Policy.

...but if you wanted to talk about the wholesale destruction of Britain's manufacturing industries over the past several decades we could touch on that too.

[Jamiet99uk]

You're right about the nested quotes issue so I'm going to pick out some things I both agree with and disagree with. Instead of using the quote function, I will put your words in italics.

Croak: "I suspect you do not mean the same thing by "access to justice" that I would. I don't want to make assumptions about precisely what you are using that as a euphemism for - and would be interested to hear it - but what I would mean by this would be that disadvantaged folks (predominantly the native white working class, but also the lower middle/middle classes) do not have good access to the justice system ever since Britain's small claims courts were sidelined into near irrelevance. It is my understanding that what may have cropped up in a small claims court once upon a time is now either getting thrown out as inconsequential, ignored altogether, or being addressed only on exploitative daytime television."

- You suspect wrong. I'm happy to reassure you this is exactly the sort of thing I was talking about. Access to justice in the UK, particularly in terms of bringing civil claims, is problematic and has gotten worse rather than better in recent times. You are right to mention the small claims courts, which used to be quite a good system and no longer serve this purpose adequately.

The problem also impacts small businesses, as well as poorer individuals - and it is much worse in England and Wales than in Scotland or Northern Ireland, since devolution. For example, in public procurement, which is my area of expertise, the court fees for bringing a claim in Northern Ireland is £200. To bring the same case in England could cost up to £10,000 in court fees. This would be very off-putting to a small business even if it felt it had a strong case.

Where I disagree with you is your suggestion that this somehow affects white people more than others - I think this affects the "little guy" - poorer people and smaller firms - whatever their colour or creed.


Croak: "The fact that the agents of Law and Order have utterly failed to stop hundreds of thousands of rapes of young white girls because they were afraid of being called "Racist" if they intervened in the national islamic paedophile crisis is not completely unrelated to this point."

- Our authorities have a terrible record of dealing with the crime of rape, full stop. This is not a race issue. There are thousands of white rapists in the UK as well. From what statistics we have, the majority of rapes are committed by partners, ex-partners, or family members - rather than muslim bogeymen. I am not saying that there are not cases (very alarming cases) of gangs of non-white men grooming and raping young girls. Clearly this has been happening and the police and other authorities have not done enough to respond. But they are terrible at responding to *all* cases of rape. That is the crisis. Race is not the main factor.


Croak: "Hate Speech laws are toxic to the national discourse. If people are saying that we ought to round up and kill massive groups of people, in my opinion they are either joking - or there are serious problems deep in society that require urgent attention. In either case that speech should not be prevented."

- I fundamentally disagree with you here. Words mean things. Speech can be harmful. Harm should, in some circumstances, be prevented. I think we'll have to leave this one there, becase we very significantly disagree on this point and I doubt we could come to a compromise.


Croak: "For a Democracy to function ideally, its people must be well-educated, well-informed and politically engaged. So yes, I would agree that Britain's democracy does not currently function ideally. In my opinion it doesn't even function well."

- I think we can also park this one for now - but in this case it is because we are in agreement.


Croak: "The more monopolistic and protectionist national policy allows corporations to be, the more society and business stagnates - with power and wealth accumulating to a new aristocracy."

- Again I fundamentally agree. On this point, do you therefore agree that Trump's protectionism and propping up of monolithic US corporations will, in the long run, be bad for ordinary people in the US and in markets that trade with the US?


Croak: "In my mind, one of the biggest problems facing our society is the very theoretical existence of a corporation. I am not a corporate lawyer, but my layman's understanding of the matter is that a corporation is counted as its own individual with its own assets - and its shareholders each own a percentage of it. In Days Of Yore, inheritance tax existed at least in part to go some way to breaking up vast mercantile empires. A corporation is not a living thing, will never die, and thus is not subject to that pressure - exacerbating the problem. That corporation tax is equivalent to low-band income tax is just salt in the wound when their earnings are measured in the millions - and that's without investigating rebates or other loopholes."

- I very strongly agree with you here, and I think that you have articulated the issue rather well. I would propose that we have a separate discussion on this point - because we are likely to quickly get into detail. I'll perhaps raise a separate thread on this in the next week or so. My position is that the UK has effectively made itself a corporate tax haven (a very deliberate policy of David Cameron and George Osborne) and this is a bad thing for ordinary people. I think we could have an interesting discussion.


Croak: "In this particular case, I was talking about the ruin visited upon our fishing industry - and by proxy our coastal towns - by the EU's abysmal Common Fisheries Policy."

- Ah I see. Thanks for clarifying. I voted "remain" and I think the UK will be harmed by leaving the EU. However, on this point, we are once again in violent agreement. The CFP is a bad policy in almost every respect. It has no scientific basis. It is economically harmful to specific communities. And here's the real punchline - across a wide range of species (especially demersal fish) it doesn't even help conserve fish stocks or protect the environment. It is a complete shambles of a policy. Sadly it will continue to operate whether we leave the EU or not. Britain had many opportunities to push for reform of the CFP, and failed to seize any of them.

[CroakandDagger]

Access to justice... also impacts small businesses, as well as poorer individuals

Indeed. Small businesses are some of the hardest hit by legal and bureaucratic red tape - because unlike their larger competitors, they cannot afford the administrative staff to deal with the work - or the inflated fees of our litigious priesthood.

Where I disagree with you is your suggestion that this somehow affects white people more than others - I think this affects the "little guy" - poorer people and smaller firms - whatever their colour or creed.

What you overlook in your assessment is the gross expansion of Hate Crime legislation. Where a BAME individual can accuse someone of "causing offence" and receive support from the government to prosecute their "attacker" as a hate criminal even when nothing remotely offensive was said, native Britons have no such option. They are abandoned by our masters.

This is not a race issue. There are thousands of white rapists in the UK as well. From what statistics we have, the majority of rapes are committed by partners, ex-partners, or family members - rather than muslim bogeymen. I am not saying that there are not cases (very alarming cases) of gangs of non-white men grooming and raping young girls. Clearly this has been happening and the police and other authorities have not done enough to respond. But they are terrible at responding to *all* cases of rape. That is the crisis. Race is not the main factor.

It must be nice living a comfortable life far from the areas affected the most by Islamic gang violence and the targeted grooming of British children.

I am jealous.

- Again I fundamentally agree. On this point, do you therefore agree that Trump's protectionism and propping up of monolithic US corporations will, in the long run, be bad for ordinary people in the US and in markets that trade with the US?

America's situation is different to ours. America has the ability to be a major industrial powerhouse but has been outsourcing much of its labour to child sweatshops across the pacific simply because it's cheaper.

Propping up these disgusting practices with the purchasing power of the dollar is reprehensible in my mind, so Trump is very justified in levying tarriffs against their economic rivals in nations without worker protection laws.

I do think that he has been a touch too indiscriminate because he has failed to make that distinction - and if he had cited it as a reason for his tarriff barriers we might have seen workers rights reform in south-east asia - but overall it's still a step in the right direction for the US.

I voted "remain" and I think the UK will be harmed by leaving the EU.

I voted "leave" and I think that in the short term you are right - but temporary discomfort does not justify remaining with an abusive partner.

[The CFP] will continue to operate whether we leave the EU or not.

Only if May's cabinet of traitors provides us with a diluted Brexit that does no good for anybody - which seems quite likely thanks to the incessant bad-faith campaigning of the remoaners to undermine our government's negotiating position.