My choices are not impulses. They are processing of impulses, which is done by complex feedback loops with respect to my nature. — Agustino

You're just muddying the waters. A freely willed action should be intentional, and in order to do an intentional action you need an intention, which is an impulse (a mental state) that causes the action. But since you can't choose the intention, your intentional action is caused by something you have not chosen.

You are the one muddying the waters. It is really a pathetically low level of philosophy. You do not even coherently distinguish between impulses, intentions, actions and all the other relevant terms. You take intentions to be impulses for example...

Impulse -> You (the process of forming an intention, of choice) -> action

You are the process which takes the impulse and forms an intention out of it, which is then translated into action. You as that process have free will, since you process whatever impulse you get from the external world, and only then do you act.

So you - according to your model - are an intention or an impulse right?

You said it yourself - the impulse is you. — litewave

self who can resist his own impulses, his own intentions — litewave

Yes.

You're just muddying the waters. A freely willed action should be intentional, and in order to do an intentional action you need an intention, which is an impulse (a mental state) that causes the action. But since you can't choose the intention, your intentional action is caused by something you have not chosen. — litewave

So I need an intention?! Who is this I?! Isn't this I the intention? If it is, then nobody needs any intention at all to act freely. They act freely by their very nature - by being who they are, an intention. And that's the real truth - you simply cannot act unfreely while being you.

But since you can't choose the intention — litewave

So who is the you here?!

Your framework isn't even capable to understand the process of choosing. It's as if you didn't choose anything, as if you didn't exist, except as a spectator. If this is a wrong interpretation, then please be very specific about what it is that you are choosing. What do you choose, ever?

If your answer is nothing, then you are a spectator in that framework.

You are the one muddying the waters. It is really a pathetically low level of philosophy. You do not even coherently distinguish between impulses, intentions, actions and all the other relevant terms. You take intentions to be impulses for example...

Impulse -> You (the process of forming an intention, of choice) -> action — Agustino

So now you are making an irrelevant distinction between impulse and you, while previously you said that impulse is you. An impulse in general is a cause. An intention is an impulse, a cause, too, because it causes an intentional action. What you called "the process of forming an intention, of choice" above is a causal chain of impulses which results in an intention, and the intention is an impulse that causes the action. The point is that it is a causal chain at the beginning of which is an impulse or impulses that you cannot choose and this impulse or impulses determines the action. It is irrelevant how long the chain is, or whether there is just one impulse that causes the action directly. The action is always determined by something that you cannot choose, and in this sense the action is not free - it is determined by something you cannot choose.

So I need an intention?! Who is this I?! Isn't this I the intention? — Agustino

You are a collection of intentions and other impulses, so we can say that this collection - You - has a particular intention. Or we can say that you are the intentions. It is irrelevant for my argument. My argument simply is that your action is determined by something you cannot choose and therefore your action is not free, at least not in the libertarian sense.

What do you choose, ever? — Agustino

I choose my actions = I cause them. But I am just a link in a causal chain that is started by something I cannot choose.

the reason it is a problem is the list of bankers you forgot to mention in that 1% who are responsible for creating a system of debt that fabricate wealth at will while risking a huge economic collapse when the false profits are audited out of whatever companies the debt gets hammered into. The system of banking and governance is long overdue for a revolution. We need to start thinking and acting together as a species if we expect to survive

So now you are making an irrelevant distinction between impulse and you, while previously you said that impulse is you. — litewave

False, I never said that.

Proof:

So it's impulse -> You -> action. — Agustino

An impulse in general is a cause. An intention is an impulse, a cause, too, because it causes an intentional action. — litewave

Nope, those terms are related but different.

What you called "the process of forming an intention, of choice" above is a causal chain of impulses which results in an intention, and the intention is an impulse that causes the action. — litewave

Nope. You have no understanding of feedback loops or how systems regulate themselves no? No understanding of top-down causality perhaps? :s

This causal chain you're referring is not like a series of dominos, one hitting the next, etc. etc. No - it is rather self-regulating. It self-regulates and maintains itself (its own nature) by modifying and re-directing external impulses.

The action is always determined by something that you cannot choose, and in this sense the action is not free - it is determined by something you cannot choose. — litewave

Nope. That's actually never the case. You keep talking about something I cannot choose, as if I was outside of the causal chain, but somehow still affected by it.

My argument simply is that your action is determined by something you cannot choose and therefore your action is not free, at least not in the libertarian sense. — litewave

No, your argument is that your action is determined by your intention, ie by you. Do you want me to cite again the part where you say that you are your intention(s)? So you absolutely freely choose it. You don't seem capable to follow the logic of your own statements.

You keep parroting about not freely choosing your intentions :s - of course, since you are your intentions. But being your intentions, you do freely choose your actions.

You don't choose to come into existence. But once in existence, you do choose things, since you are a system capable of autonomy. Once this system is put together, once it starts existing, things are no longer determined for it like one domino hitting the next, since it has top-down causality - it is a causal chain, which processes whatever forces/impulses, etc. come to it.

I choose my actions — litewave

Okay, so you choose your actions. End of story. Therefore you're free in-so-far as you choose your actions, which is pretty much everytime you act.

False, I never said that. — Agustino

Here you go:

:s Maybe that "impulse" is just who I am. I am part of the causal chain afterall. Determinism and free will are not incompatible. — Agustino

So are you the impulse or not?

Nope. You have no understanding of feedback loops or how systems regulate themselves no? No understanding of top-down causality perhaps? :s

This causal chain you're referring is not like a series of dominos, one hitting the next, etc. etc. No - it is rather self-regulating. It self-regulates and maintains itself (its own nature) by modifying and re-directing external impulses. — Agustino

So what? It doesn't matter how complicated the causal system is or whether it contains causal loops. It must begin with some causes which cause the system's subsequent behavior and the system cannot choose these causes. There are self-regulating machines, for example thermostats. Does that mean they have free will?

You keep talking about something I cannot choose, as if I was outside of the causal chain, but somehow still affected by it. — Agustino

No, I am saying that you are inside the causal chain and you cannot choose your self, your impulses, your intentions. In other words, you cannot choose the causes that determine your actions.

You don't choose to come into existence. But once in existence, you do choose things, since you are a system capable of autonomy. — Agustino

But your intentions and all your choices are determined by those causes that brought you into existence (as well as by other causes that affect you throughout your life).

Okay, so you choose your actions. End of story. Therefore you're free in-so-far as you choose your actions, which is pretty much everytime you act. — Agustino

Even robots can choose - that is, cause - their actions. Doesn't mean they have free will.

I will not reply further, since you are obviously not ready to follow the conclusions of your own reasoning and keep trying to hide behind your own finger.

I laid out my whole argument against libertarian free will in the opening post here. I think it's pretty simple.

I think it's pretty simple. — litewave

Yeah it is very simplistic, though that's not a merit.

Yes, I alone added that value, since without me that movement of goods would not have occurred. — Agustino

That's a non sequitur. You alone are just a cog in the machine. For the machine to function, it needs a system of cogs. It's true that if you remove a single cog, then the machine won't function, but it's false that one cog by itself causes the machine to function.

Let's see, maybe I want to start a factory producing medicine. Maybe I want to invest that money in bettering - say - 3D printing technology. Maybe I will spend that money building affordable housing. Etc. I have a feeling you're thinking I or anyone else needs that money for ourselves - well obviously not. But that money is mighty useful in trying to do a lot of thing for society at a larger scale. — Agustino

Utter silliness. Earlier on, you accused me of comparing apples and oranges, yet now you're doing just that, and with greater implications. No, let's not wait and see with our fingers crossed. You aren't accountable like a minister in the government. You could spend it on whatever you fancy without the same set of consequences. You could spend it all on beer. A government minister obviously could not.

Do you reckon that people who want to do something for the world should go and humiliate themselves before government bureaucrats who don't do anything, begging for a few votes here and there, give a few bribes here and there (bribes aren't just monetary, they can also be in the form of promises of what you'll do once you have power), so that they can grab the governments power to make changes in society? :s I reckon not, so therefore individuals should be allowed to accumulate large sums of money. What can I do with $100K in society? Almost nothing. I can probably do a lot of things for myself, but pretty much nothing for society at large.

And government bureaucrats are incapable to do anything, why do you think they need private entrepreneurs to do things for them? :s Elon Musk's company, for example, did what NASA couldn't do for years already. — Agustino

You can't have your cake and eat it. If you want business people to govern, then they have to go through the same system as the rest of us. If they get humiliated, then they get humiliated. That would just be a reflection of their lack of skill. If you want people to vote for you, then you have to persuade them. If you have nothing appealing to offer, or if you are inept at persuading people, then yes, you may well face humiliation. That's just part and parcel of politics, and it can't be any other way in a democratic society. Besides, you yourself pointed out the example of Trump, and he's hardly the first businessman to develop a relatively successful career in politics. So clearly it can be done.

And I don't buy this incredibly one-sided nonsense from you where you try to make out as though government is corrupt and inept. You can't prove a general point like that from a few dubious assertions here and there, or one or two cherry-picked examples.

Starting a factory and the like are not selfish desires. — Agustino

But I didn't say that. Desiring excessive wealth for yourself at the expense of many others is selfish.

So developing the productive capacities of my society is immoral? — Agustino

No, you seem to have somehow missed the point - or purposefully evaded it - despite my virtually spelling out what it is that I consider to be immoral.

Right, so then you can understand that no man of character would stoop so low to beg for those people's votes. Can you imagine Marcus Aurelius begging such people for their votes? — Agustino

No, a man of character would have guts, and would face up to the fact that if you want to govern, then want alone will not achieve results. You have to act, you have to put your neck on the line, and you ought to respect due process in doing so.

That's a non sequitur. You alone are just cog in the machine. For the machine to function, it needs a system of cogs. It's true that if you remove a cog, then the machine won't function, but it is false that one cog by itself causes the machine to function. — Sapientia

Do you agree then that a very small clog can exert great leverage on the machine, producing exceedingly great force relative to its size? If so, then it rightly deserves more.

A government minister obviously cannot. — Sapientia

Right, he can spend other people's money buying $3000 dollar public toilets from a distant relative of his :B

I am more accountable than the government minister since I have skin in the game. The government minister doesn't.

You can't have your cake and eat it. If you want business people to govern, then they have to go through the same system as the rest of us. If they get humiliated, then they get humiliated. That would just be a reflection of their lack of skill. — Sapientia

I didn't mean that. I meant that the nature of the system necessitates humiliation. It has nothing to do with lack of skill or anything of that sort. Even the most skilful humiliate themselves to rise to the top in politics.

If you have nothing appealing to offer, or if you are inept at persuading people, then yes, you may well face humiliation — Sapientia

It's not about persuading people, it's about having to bow your head to the right people before you even get the chance to run, much less get elected. If the other boys and girls don't like you, you think they'll let you run? :s

Besides, you yourself pointed out the example of Trump, and he's hardly the first businessman to develop a relatively successful career in politics. So clearly it can be done. — Sapientia

No, I wasn't actually talking about businessmen. Businessmen can go into politics without being humiliated. They have money, they don't need to go around bowing their head, and kissing the hand of this and that person to obtain a bit of money to run a campaign. That's the humiliating aspect.

Trump is a perfect example. He didn't have to humiliate himself before the donors, kiss their hands, bow his head, promise them this and that, etc. Why not? Cause he had the money.

And I don't buy this incredibly one-sided nonsense from you where you try to make out as though government is corrupt and inept. — Sapientia

Is David Cameron corrupt?

Desiring excessive wealth for yourself at the expense of many others is selfish. — Sapientia

Depends why I desire excessive wealth. Maybe I desire excessive wealth because it gives me the leverage I need to make what I've identified as the right changes in society.

No, a man of character would have guts, and would face up to the fact that if you want to govern, then want alone will not achieve results. You have to act, you have to put your neck on the line, and you ought to respect due process in doing so. — Sapientia

I agree. I never said not to risk. You misinterpreted the bit about humiliation. It's not failure that is humiliating.

Do you agree then that a very small clog can exert great leverage on the machine, producing exceedingly great force relative to its size? If so, then it rightly deserves more. — Agustino

You're losing track. That some deserve more than others was never a bone of contention.

Right, he can spend other people's money buying $3000 dollar public toilets from a distant relative of his :B

I am more accountable than the government minister since I have skin in the game. The government minister doesn't. — Agustino

No, you're no where near as accountable. The stance you advocate above is simply not credible, so you really ought to concede the point - for your own sake. It is not against the law for you, as a private citizen, to spend your $20 million on beer for you and your mates. It is very much against the law for a public servant to spend $20 million of government funds on beer for him and his mates.

I didn't mean that. I meant that the nature of the system necessitates humiliation. It has nothing to do with lack of skill or anything of that sort. Even the most skilful humiliate themselves to rise to the top in politics. — Agustino

So what? Pride comes before a fall.

It's not about persuading people, it's about having to bow your head to the right people before you even get the chance to run, much less get elected. If the other boys and girls don't like you, you think they'll let you run? — Agustino

You contradict yourself. It is about persuasion, and that is a skill. Think about what you're saying. If they don't like you, then that means that you've failed to sell yourself. And if that's an insurmountable obstacle to getting yourself elected, then you've failed to achieve what you desire.

No, I wasn't actually talking about businessmen. Businessmen can go into politics without being humiliated. They have money, they don't need to go around bowing their head, and kissing the hand of this and that person to obtain a bit of money to run a campaign. That's the humiliating aspect.

Trump is a perfect example. He didn't have to humiliate himself before the donors, kiss their hands, bow his head, promise them this and that, etc. Why not? Cause he had the money. — Agustino

Then what were you talking about? I think that you may need to go back, look over what it was that you said which caused me to respond in the way that I've done, and explain yourself properly.

Is David Cameron corrupt? — Agustino

An ambiguous question. Unless you clarify, my answer is yes and no.

Depends why I desire excessive wealth. Maybe I desire excessive wealth because it gives me the leverage I need to make what I've identified as the right changes in society. — Agustino

No, it doesn't, not in my view.

I agree. I never said not to risk. You misinterpreted the bit about humiliation. It's not failure that is humiliating. — Agustino

You've just misinterpreted what I took issue with. It's the bad attitude. It's the pride. It's the complacency accompanied by an unwillingness to do anything about it.

“Excuse me—do you have a moment to talk about the needs of really rich people?”

You're losing track. That some deserve more than others was never a bone of contention. — Sapientia

Good, so some may deserve $20 million as a result of their work.

It is not against the law for you, as a private citizen, to spend your $20 million on beer for you and your mates. — Sapientia

The law is irrelevant. The law is going to stop neither me, nor the politician, if we really want to do something. It's not very difficult to take money from the government, politicians are all very skilled at abusing their position to benefit themselves. Look at, for example, Obama - he made many millions of dollars as President. It doesn't even take much intelligence, just shamelessness.

And now Malia Obama, his daughter, is hitting it at Harvard kissing rich white non-working class boys and smoking weed. Give me a break.

to spend your $20 million on beer for you and your mates. — Sapientia

It's going to take me many years to spend $20 million on beer for me and my mates.

It is very much against the law for a public servant to spend $20 million of government funds on beer for him and his mates. — Sapientia

>:O Nope. If I'm an ambassador, for example, I spend money on booze because I need it - I meet with important officials who need to be treated well - I need to take them to expensive golf resorts, buy a lot of alcohol, etc. that's what it takes for me to negotiate great deals for the great & glorious nation of Kazakhstan. But of course, many of these times, I'm actually just meeting with friends. But no one knows, because I make the paperwork or supervise how it's made.

Governments and the law function on the basis of paperwork. Whosoever understands this, can easily abuse government. Just don't get your signature anywhere in shady deals, and you're relatively safe.

It is not against the law for you, as a private citizen, to spend your $20 million on beer for you and your mates. — Sapientia

No, it is not against the law, except that I worked for that money. That's MY money, not other people's. It is the result of my sweat and effort. You reckon I'm going to throw it away on beer with my mates? :s

You try spending 10-15 years of your life getting to the point where you can make that $20 million fairly without being corrupt or a crook, and then see if you start spending it on beer with your mates after that.

So what? Pride comes before a fall. — Sapientia

There are healthy and unhealthy forms of pride. Marcus Aurelius or Socrates or Seneca - all of them had a certain "pride", or better said self-respect. They wouldn't stoop below a certain level to get something done.

You contradict yourself. It is about persuasion, and that is a skill. Think about what you're saying. If they don't like you, then that means that you've failed to sell yourself. And if that's an insurmountable obstacle to getting yourself elected, then you've failed to achieve what you desire. — Sapientia

Nope, it's not about persuasion, it's about lacking moral values so that when you have all sorts of people asking you for favours in exchange of support, money, etc. you accept them.

Then what were you talking about? I think that you may need to go back, look over what it was that you said which caused me to respond in the way that I've done, and explain yourself properly. — Sapientia

To get into a political party and rise up the ranks you need to make compromises. To run for public office you need funding. To get funding, unless you have your own dough, you need to go beg around for it. And guess what, when you're begging around for it, you're going to be told: "okay, I will give you this money, but you have to promise me that once elected, you're going to make sure that this bill passes through. It's really important for our country and we need people like you to do the right thing" - of course this is just coded language for asking you to pass something that's not so great for the country but will be great for the private interests of your donor.

An ambiguous question. Unless you clarify, my answer is yes and no. — Sapientia

It's a simple question. I asked you if he is corrupt. He was your PM. If even the PM is corrupt (Panama papers for example), imagine how everyone else must be. You say there is no corruption in the UK. You're very very wrong. The only difference between UK and the glorious nation of Kazakhstan is that in the UK the corruption is done behind closed curtains. In the glorious nation of Kazakhstan, it is out in the open.

No, it doesn't, not in my view. — Sapientia

Well that should clearly matter. Someone could desire excessive wealth to live on a beach for the rest of their life with many women around them, etc. That someone obviously desires excessive wealth for selfish reasons. Another may desire excessive wealth because wealth is a form of power that allows them to make positive changes for society.

Good, so some may deserve $20 million as a result of their work. — Agustino

Yes, and some pigs may fly. Point being that it's not impossible in principle, but implausible in reality.

The law is irrelevant. — Agustino

Pah! No, it certainly isn't. Your dismissal is irrelevant. The very serious consequences in one case, yet not the other, in light of the relevant laws, is of clear relevance. Denial won't stop you from being arrested.

The law is going to stop neither me, nor the politician, if we really want to do something. — Agustino

Someone ought to coin this as an informal fallacy if it hasn't been coined already. It kept cropping up in the discussion on gun control. More broadly, it's missing the point. The point was that the one is not held to anywhere near the same level of accountability for their actions as the other. Your above response fails to address that, and instead addresses something else, which has not been disputed and lacks relevance.

It's not very difficult to take money from the government, politicians are all very skilled at abusing their position to benefit themselves. Look at, for example, Obama - he made many millions of dollars as President. It doesn't even take much intelligence, just shamelessness.

And now Malia Obama, his daughter, is hitting it at Harvard kissing rich white non-working class boys and smoking weed. Give me a break. — Agustino

How else can I put this? I do not care about your skewed opinion on such matters. I find it unpersuasive and a digression. I don't think that these sort of comments from you are anywhere near enough to lead to any kind of conclusion refuting anything that I've claimed. Can you please try to stay on track? And can you please try not to set us going around in circles, as much of our discussion has ended up doing? I do not like repeating myself. I think that my last reply was clear enough, and ought to have put this to rest.

It's going to take me many years to spend $20 million on beer for me and my mates. — Agustino

Hopefully it won't take you many years to get the point. I think that we're both capable of thinking up a more plausible scenario, but the underlying point would remain the same, and the underlying point is what matters.

Nope. If I'm an ambassador, for example, I spend money on booze because I need it - I meet with important officials who need to be treated well - I need to take them to expensive golf resorts, buy a lot of alcohol, etc. that's what it takes for me to negotiate great deals for the great & glorious nation of Kazakhstan. But of course, many of these times, I'm actually just meeting with friends. But no one knows, because I make the paperwork or supervise how it's made.

Governments and the law function on the basis of paperwork. Whosoever understands this, can easily abuse government. Just don't get your signature anywhere in shady deals, and you're relatively safe. — Agustino

Jesus Christ. Kazakhstan? Really? Because this discussion is clearly about some corrupt official in Kazakhstan.

If this is what my repeated efforts at trying to keep things on track are amounting to, then why should I even read any further? I admit that I'm running out of patience. Focus!

The bottom line is that, in the UK, misconduct in public office is a serious crime, and carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. A public servant who grossly misappropriated public funds for personal gain would certainly be guilty of misconduct in public office. Clearly, the same rules, as well as the consequences of not abiding by them, would not apply in the case of regular citizens simply spending their own money on whatever they like within the law.

No, it is not against the law... — Agustino

Right. Thus they're not comparable. Given that it's not against the law, it would obviously be a greater risk, and frankly foolish, to permit funds that I wish to be spent on things like public services to be left in the hands of a private citizen, who would be at liberty to spend the money on whatever he likes - perhaps a new yacht for himself.

...except that I worked for that money. That's MY money, not other people's. It is the result of my sweat and effort. — Agustino

You should stop purposefully overlooking the contributions of others. I don't believe that it's an innocent oversight. It's reprehensible.

And it's only your money because of the status quo. (I very much doubt that Jesus would have been so possessive or so tight with his purse strings when considering those less fortunate).

You reckon I'm going to throw it away on beer with my mates? — Agustino

Another point missed. What I reckon is that it's a big risk that you'll spend the money that I think should go towards society on private interests.

And yes, for all I know, that could be, say, a £15 million yacht for yourself, or £3,000 bottles of champagne for you and mates to spray over each other. (Philip Green, look it up). What safeguards do I have that that is not what you'll do? Am I to take your word for it? Who will hold you to account? Do you think me a fool?

You try spending 10-15 years of your life getting to the point where you can make that $20 million fairly without being corrupt or a crook, and then see if you start spending it on beer with your mates after that. — Agustino

This seems to be another red herring. What I would or would not do in that hypothetical situation is irrelevant speculation. Maybe I would waste it all on beer for my mates and I. Maybe I wouldn't. But the system would allow me to amass all of that personal wealth, and the system would allow me to spend it as I see fit. Apparently, you think that that's fine and dandy, or you don't, but you don't think that anyone ought to lift a finger to do anything about it. One thing's for sure, frowning upon that sort of thing is not enough. Action is required.

Pah! No, it certainly isn't. Your dismissal is irrelevant. The very serious consequences in one case, yet not the other, in light of the relevant laws, is of clear relevance. Denial won't stop you from being arrested. — Sapientia

In North Korea the law is that there should be democratic elections. Is the law relevant or not? And if it's not relevant, then we have clearly arrived at an understanding that the mere presence of a law isn't relevant to stopping a certain activity. What else is required?

Yes, and some pigs may fly. Point being that it's not impossible in principle, but implausible in reality. — Sapientia

Okay fine, I do not think it is implausible in reality, we can agree to disagree on this point.

The bottom line is that, in the UK, misconduct in public office is a serious crime, and carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. A public servant who grossly misappropriated public funds for personal gain would certainly be guilty of misconduct in public office. — Sapientia

The same laws exist in Russia, Kazakhstan, North Korea, etc. The punishments may even be more severe there. It doesn't seem to me like the law by itself is of any relevance.

(I very much doubt that Jesus would have been so possessive or so tight with his purse strings when considering those less fortunate). — Sapientia

Who said that you shouldn't give alms and help the less fortunate? I was saying quite the contrary. But alms-giving isn't the same as the state coming by force and taking your money.

Who will hold you to account? — Sapientia

Society. If I spend my money on yachts, etc. while other people in my society are starving, they will hold me accountable. The same way as if a politician steals money from the government - it's still society who will hold them accountable through its mechanisms, not the law by itself.

Do you think me a fool? — Sapientia

No, what makes you think that? Quite the contrary, if I thought you a fool, I wouldn't be having this conversation with you.

But the system would allow me to amass all of that personal wealth, and the system would allow me to spend it as I see fit. — Sapientia

I do think that if you amass your wealth fairly then you should dictate how it gets spent, of course.

To get into a political party and rise up the ranks you need to make compromises. To run for public office you need funding. To get funding, unless you have your own dough, you need to go beg around for it. And guess what, when you're begging around for it, you're going to be told: "okay, I will give you this money, but you have to promise me that once elected, you're going to make sure that this bill passes through. It's really important for our country and we need people like you to do the right thing" - of course this is just coded language for asking you to pass something that's not so great for the country but will be great for the private interests of your donor. — Agustino

But you don't have to follow through with that sort of thing, and being found out can result in scandals and serious consequences. There's a big difference between, for example, lobbying and bribery. You could take a look at the cash-for-questions affair to see what the consequences for that sort of thing are. It resulted in resignations and the end of political careers, tarnished reputations, public condemnation, an official inquiry, a 900-page report, and the publication of conclusions relating to the case from the Standards and Privileges Committee. It's also an example of why there has been proposed regulation; and, as you know, I'm a fan of regulation. If it could do with reform, which it could, then it should be reformed. I'm a progressive. I don't need much convincing.

It's a simple question. — Agustino

Yes, that's the problem. It's too simplistic, leading to multiple interpretations.

I asked you if he is corrupt. — Agustino

I can read.

He was your PM. — Agustino

I don't suffer from amnesia.

If even the PM is corrupt (Panama papers for example), imagine how everyone else must be. — Agustino

But it's arguable whether the former prime minister, David Cameron, was corrupt in his former role. The Panama Papers implicated his father. He is not his father. He did own shares, but they were sold before he entered office.

And even if he was corrupt, your suggestion is an association fallacy.

In a loose sense, yes, of course I think that David Cameron is corrupt. I think that the Panama Papers affair shows him to be morally corrupt, and I strongly disagree with his political views and much of what he did both in and out of power.

On the other hand, he never broke any laws, and was never charged with any offence. The UK has laws on corruption.

Hence, there is an obvious ambiguity in your simple use of the term "corrupt", which you're either oblivious to or choosing to ignore.

You say there is no corruption in the UK. — Agustino

No I don't. That's a straw man. I said what I said in reaction to what you said, so take a look at what you said first of all. What I have emphasised is that somewhere like the UK is very different from somewhere like Syria.

You're very very wrong. — Agustino

No, I'm not. I would be if that was what I had said, and if it could be charitably interpreted in that way. But that is not the case. I'm not going to go back over the discussion to check what I've said, but if I ever said anything like that, then it was in the context of your false equivalence, and so shouldn't be misinterpreted.

The only difference between UK and the glorious nation of Kazakhstan is that in the UK the corruption is done behind closed curtains. In the glorious nation of Kazakhstan, it is out in the open. — Agustino

That's either speculation or you must be referring to public revelations of what was previously kept behind closed doors. The former can't be taken into evidence, and the latter would bring with it serious consequences like those that I've previously mentioned. Over here, if you're found out, you can't get away with it scott free, so it's a big gamble and a disincentive.

Well that should clearly matter. Someone could desire excessive wealth to live on a beach for the rest of their life with many women around them, etc. That someone obviously desires excessive wealth for selfish reasons. Another may desire excessive wealth because wealth is a form of power that allows them to make positive changes for society. — Agustino

No, it shouldn't matter for the reasons given in my previous reply. That's the argument that you'll need to address if you haven't already. This someone is not in a position to be held accountable in the same way. That's what matters. You're a businessman, aren't you? I thought that you people were supposed to be able to recognise a risky investment. If I were a businessman who wanted my money to be spent on public services, then I'd be a fool to give it to someone who could spend it on whatever they liked without repercussions.

But it's arguable whether the former prime minister, David Cameron, was corrupt in his former role. The Panama Papers implicated his father. He is not his father. He did own shares, but they were sold before he entered office. — Sapientia

Oh right, of course, you have to be an idiot to do it under your own name. A father, a sister, a distant relative - who cares, someone to cover up.

On the other hand, he never broke any laws, and was never charged with any offence. The UK has laws on corruption. — Sapientia

Yeah, Kazakhstan does too :s - you seem to be under the impression that China, Russia, North Korea, etc. don't have laws against corruption...

What I have emphasised is that somewhere like the UK is very different from somewhere like Syria. — Sapientia

Yeah but that's not because the UK has laws and regulations that Syria lacks.

Over here, if you're found out, you can't get away with it scott free, so it's a big gamble and a disincentive. — Sapientia

That's the same everywhere. Those laws can always be used to get rid of you, and punishments are often more severe than in the UK. When China's current leader came to power and ran a campaign against corruption, many very important officials were jailed or even executed, including one of the former heads of an intelligence agency. So by no means do these places lack laws and harsh punishments. But laws are enforced by people. If you get those people who enforce the laws on your side, then you are safe, at least for some time. You're really talking as if it was oh so difficult to abuse public office.

In the UK it happens less because people have some decency, that in other places they lack. They are better educated, and respect the institutions more, so they don't dare create prejudices of $50 million in one go, shamelessly. Look at the US - Trump doesn't respect the institutions, and he has no trouble changing or ignoring them. You seem to think that once in power, someone is somehow constrained by the law, as if the law was some abstract person, and not something that people who hold the power have to enforce themselves.

In the end, it all comes down to individual people. Whether that's millionaires with cash, or government bureaucrats with the judiciary power of the state behind them - it's still people.

Oh right, of course, you have to be an idiot to do it under your own name. A father, a sister, a distant relative - who cares, someone to cover up. — Agustino

So what? I don't disagree that it was corrupt in a loose sense. But your suggestion was an association fallacy, so it doesn't support the point you've been struggling to back up.

Yeah, Kazakhstan does too :s - you seem to be under the impression that China, Russia, North Korea, etc. don't have laws against corruption... — Agustino

No, but the UK is obviously very different from those places. I don't even know why I'm bothering to go to such lengths to make this distinction. Does the UK execute political dissidents with anti-aircraft guns in front of thousands of people who are forced to watch?

Yeah but that's not because the UK has laws and regulations that Syria lacks. — Agustino

Then it would not be about the law per se, but a false equivalence nevertheless. Congratulations on your Pyrrhic victory.

That's the same everywhere. — Agustino

No it's not. Get real. Even in my very limited experience, I've experienced corruption elsewhere unlike anything that you'd ever encounter here in the UK when a taxi that I was in got pulled over by the police in Morocco and the driver had to go off to a cash point to get the money to bribe him.

Then it would not be about the law, but a false equivalence nevertheless. Congratulations on your Pyrrhic victory. — Sapientia

Good. What is it about then? I never disagreed there are differences between those places, but they're not primarily about the law and the regulations that exist.

No it's not. Get real. — Sapientia

The law is very similar.

Good. What is it about then? I never disagreed there are differences between those places, but they're not primarily about the law and the regulations that exist. — Agustino

Obviously they'd need to be enforced. I've referred to that indirectly already, and switching focus doesn't change the underlying point.

The law is very similar. — Agustino

If you go back, you'll see that that wasn't simply about the law. Have you forgotten my original comment that you were replying to already? It was only a few recent comments ago.

In North Korea the law is that there should be democratic elections. Is the law relevant or not? And if it's not relevant, then we have clearly arrived at an understanding that the mere presence of a law isn't relevant to stopping a certain activity. What else is required? — Agustino

1. I wasn't talking about North Korea.

2. Obviously laws need to be enforced, which goes without saying, and has been referred to by myself already.

Taking that into account, do you have a serious objection? You've acknowledged that these places are different, and that in the UK, there is less corruption. I would add that there's considerably less, such that the comparisons you've been making, together with the implications of them, constitute a false equivalence.

Okay fine, I do not think it is implausible in reality, we can agree to disagree on this point. — Agustino

That sounds like a good idea, and will hopefully go some way to prevent us going around in circles.

The same laws exist in Russia, Kazakhstan, North Korea, etc. The punishments may even be more severe there. It doesn't seem to me like the law by itself is of any relevance. — Agustino

Did I ever talk about the law by itself? Did I ever use those words? No. The consequences are of relevance. Here are some of the consequences:

Elliot Morley
Former environment minister and Labour MP for Scunthorpe
Offence – Pleaded guilty to fraudulently claiming £32,000 of parliamentary expenses.
Details – Between April 2004 and February 2006, Morley submitted 19 claims for excessive mortgage payments to which he was not entitled. Between April 2004 and February 2006 he submitted 21 second home allowance forms for a mortgage he had already paid off.
Sentence – Jailed for 16 months in May 2011.
Released – September 2011 after serving a quarter of his term.

David Chaytor
Former Labour MP for Bury North
Offence – Pleaded guilty to three counts of false accounting relating to approximately £18,000 of parliamentary expenses.
Details – Submitted claims for the rent of a flat in Westminster which he had bought in 1999 and had paid off the mortgage for in 2003.
Sentence – Jailed for 18 months in January 2011.
Released – May 2011 after serving almost a third of his sentence.

Eric Illsley
Former Labour MP for Barnsley Central
Offence – Pleaded guilty to fraudulently claiming £14,000 in parliamentary expenses.
Details – Made false claims for his second home between 2005 and 2008 and also over claimed for council tax and utility bills.
Sentence – Jailed for 12 months in February 2011.
Released – May 2011 after serving four months.

Jim Devine
Former Labour MP for Livingston
Offence – Found guilty of dishonestly claiming £8,385 in parliamentary expenses.
Details – Claimed for cleaning and maintenance and printing work that the judge said was “entirely bogus”.
Sentence – Jailed for 16 months.
Released – August after serving a quarter of his sentence.

Lord Taylor of Warwick
John Taylor. First black Conservative peer
Offence – Found guilty of falsely claiming more than £11,000 in parliamentary expenses.
Details – Listed his main residence as a home in Oxford which was owned by his nephew, while he actually lived in Ealing, West London. Also submitted false travel claims.
Sentence – Jailed for 12 months in May 2011.
Released – September 2011 after just three months under the home detention curfew.

Lord Hanningfield
Paul White. Former pig farmer who became Conservative peer and leader of Essex council.
Offence: Found guilty of six counts of false accounting.
Details: Falsely claimed almost £14,000 in parliamentary expenses for overnight accommodation in London, when on most nights he was returning to his home in Essex.
Sentence: Jailed for nine months in July 2011.
Released: September 2011 after serving just nine weeks. He was re-arrested days later on charges relating to his Essex county council expenses.

And yes, I would support harsher sentences. The above doesn't even say anything about fines and forced repayments, which I would think is a must.

Who said that you shouldn't give alms and help the less fortunate? I was saying quite the contrary. But alms-giving isn't the same as the state coming by force and taking your money. — Agustino

So you support Christian principles, but don't support any effective means of getting those unscrupulous individuals to abide by them. That's what you're suggesting above. And yet, you contradict yourself each time you bring up John 2:15.

That's the problem with Christianity. In the past, certainly, it was far too extreme - burning people at the stake and the like. But on the other hand, it can be far too passive - appealing to the heart instead of getting your hands dirty. Appealing to the heart can fall on deaf ears. What then? There's no hell below us; above us only sky. Stay off the opium. It's this world - the only world - that matters. In this world, and in this case, it's the Jesus with the whip that's required, not the Jesus with no backbone.

Society. — Agustino

Ha! Society can't reappropriate your funds or retrieve them if they're misspent. Society can't arrest you or sentence you to imprisonment. For that you need authorities. Society can frown upon you, but that wouldn't achieve the practical results that would be required to make a real difference.

If I spend my money on yachts, etc. while other people in my society are starving, they will hold me accountable. — Agustino

First of all, people don't have to be starving for this to be a problem. And secondly, how are they going to do that? By making some noise until it fades away from the spotlight, leaving much unchanged? I don't envision a revolution happening here anytime soon. Do you?

The same way as if a politician steals money from the government - it's still society who will hold them accountable through its mechanisms, not the law by itself. — Agustino

Don't you see that it's misleading to focus on the similarities when it's the dissimilarities which matter? Yes, society will make some noise in both cases, but in only one case would there be grounds for imprisonment. That's a big difference.

No, what makes you think that? Quite the contrary, if I thought you a fool, I wouldn't be having this conversation with you. — Agustino

But, if you're suggesting to me, as you seemed to be doing, that my goal of having that amount of money spent towards things like public services would have a greater chance of success if it was left in the hands of a private individual - which could be someone who'd spend it on a new yacht for themselves - rather than a public servant - who'd be forced to spend it on the public, lest he face serious consequences like those previously referred to - and if you expect that to convince me, then you must, by implication, think me a fool.

You asked why it should be the government that invests that money, instead of you, the individual. You asked why it can't be the case that the responsibility for the well-being of society rests on the individual, instead of resting on government bureaucrats.

I have explained why multiple times now. Because you, the individual, can't be trusted like a public servant can be. You can't be held to account like a public servant can be.

I do think that if you amass your wealth fairly then you should dictate how it gets spent, of course. — Agustino

Even if I amassed my wealth fairly, there are greater priorities than my new yacht. Why should I, and others like me, be permitted a new yacht or a second home when, for example, there's a shortage of affordable housing, as there is right now in the UK? Our NHS is underfunded. Our schools are underfunded. Our local councils are underfunded. And our police force is underfunded.