Fridgemagnet –
I would say that the judgements of "parish level character recognition" would be exceptionally vulnerable to prejudice, favouritism, and any amateur rumour-monger who fancied ruining someone. You know, like they are in the real world. That doesn't seem to me to be a system that I'd want to place anyone's life in the hands of.
You mean such behaviour is not endemic in modern politics anyway but just on a larger scale? 
Then again, if we actually slightly change the focus of how we act, this would not be the case.
Jack Fear
There's a huge unexamined assumption at the heart of that statement—that you, the speaker, are among the wise. In so assuming, you mistake your personal prejudices for objective truths: foolishness is defined as what you call foolishness.
I have expressly set down what constitutes wise. Judge me by those standards (unless someone disagrees with those standards, in which case could I please hear your argument?!).
Any argument following on from such a fundamentally biased assumption is going to be self-serving: the circularity of the logic is built into the premise.
Of course it serves me, it serves everyone. The question is whether it would raise me above others or make all equal. Which would you say it does?
On these grounds, for showing a blatant disregard for the very basics of logical discourse, I now proclaim you foolish, beyond redemption, and unworthy of my attention—and I do so with a clear conscience: after all, to continue trying to instruct one who simply will not learn would be to lower myself to an unacceptable level
That is your decision. Of course if you are cutting off your nose to spite your face, that is your choice as well.
Haus –
Ah, first they are dim, then they are rude and dim. ….. (Ganesh "lacks community", Saveloy is like a two year old, anyone who picks up on the cruelties or idiocies built into your worldview is living in a fantasy world).
Re: Ganesh – I was answering the point he (?) raised.
Re: Saveloy – I was not accusing Saveloy of acting like a two year old but of suggesting standards that conform to that of a two year old.
Kit-Kat-Club –
I should be interested to know how Leap's education for moral reform (to make us modest and charitable) is going to be funded, or, if it is to be conducted by community leaders, how we are to be sure that everyone across the nation is to receive appropriate education? Through some sort of central body? Which is to be funded...
A central body, funded by taxation, with a built in lifespan, to wean us off taxation, and move the whole responsibility back to parents (which was the point of this discussion anyway!). This would allow tax funded centralised society to be reduced (in my ideal world, removed!) to a level far below the current (especially with the ‘extras’ that come from a modesty and privacy driven society (lower crime, less self-destructive behaviour etc.). Believe me, I am no fan of taxation Kit.
The problem is that taxation is so necessary to the upkeep of national infrastructure and the regulation of public services that it can't just be abolished. Even regarding something as basic as defence - taxation supports defence.
I would advocate militia rather than a standing army. A true ‘defence’ option rather than the ‘attack under the cover of defence’ option we now have.
Also public transport, roads, rubbish collection, national energy provision, water, health provision, environmental services like health and safety regulations, etc etc. Taxation isn't theft - we get things for it.
Taxation is theft (“for our own good”) in that we have no say in the matter; it is taken regardless of consent. The biggest costs funded by taxation are Education and Health (followed by Law and Order if you take all the impacts of it together). Education is largely teaching preparing kids to service the economy (and so is a tax funded support for business), whilst health largely seeks to correct self-destructive behaviour (poor diet, low exercise, high stress, drug use (incl nicotine and alcohol)) that itself often comes from a high competition luxury oriented system.
Also, your community model proposes that people within a community will dispense charity to the needy among them in a philanthropic manner. What about communities where no one is wealthy enough to donate to others? Are they simply to be left to degenerate, though it's no fault of the people who live there that they're poor? Cities are full of estates where no one is wealthy, and also full of well-to-do suburbs where not many people are in need of donations. It's not easy to see a philanthropy model working in these circumstances.
Deprivation is down to an economy driven by profit and luxury rather than meeting the needs of yourself and family (allowing surplus to be used for local and personal charity). I could go into depth on the difference between high-efficiency-transport based diffused population, high density multi use development and a Village community based one, and which are suitable for us / unsuitable for us (in economic, environmental and ‘human meaningfulness’ terms) but it would probably be a bit too much for this format.
Now, a large part of your problem with taxation seems to be that it is imposed on the populace without their being able to have a say in it. Isn't this more a problem with representation? I mean by that, that presumably if you felt you were adequately represented in the government of the nation (in our case Parliament) you would feel that you were not enslaved by the decisions of that government as made through the representative body of the nation? And that in such circumstances taxation as decided by representatives might not be such dreadful bondage? Because if so, isn't your problem more with the representative institutions of the nation rather than with taxation? Or are you not in favour of central government at all? How would things work without one?
Whilst this is partially the case, I also recognise that by taking the power of charity away (replaced with forced taxation) you breed an attitude of powerlessness amongst the general populace….which in turn leads to either malcontent (and violence) or apathy….neither of which, I am sure you will agree, are desirable.
I think, Leap, that the reason people are pulling out historical analogies is that we have been here before. Certainly, from my work, a lot of the arguments you're putting forward are familiar with a slight twist (i.e. men are as responsible as women for unplanned pregnancies - wouldn't have heard that in 1750), and the system of local provision for the needy and education etc. has been tried before and found inadequate as situations have changed. If you're no fan of Whig history, you might like to try these things again I suppose. Personally I'd rather be taxed and feel that I'd contributed to the services I'm using, than have to rely for them on the uncertain charity of others.
They were found ‘wanting’ because of the lack of a central guide point in society – the church (which should have been the moral flag-post) was as corrupt as its ‘flock’; and the argument was not / could not be taught to the mass population kept in a state of ignorance through toil.
We can regain the good things from the past whilst avoiding the bad. We can reclaim what was lost to the machine of greed, but only through education; as only that recognises the fundamental dignity of humanity.
Thankyou for being one of the few to not sink to sarcasm as a ‘first strike principle’ Kit. |
