My theory is that governments need to plunder their populace to sustain their activity because they do not have other means to do so. — NOS4A2

Or simply the payment for the services they provide is called taxes.

They possess the monopoly on violence, and therefor criminality, so it is indeed a point of fact that they will use the spoils of their plunder to finance their wars. — NOS4A2

You are intentionally dropping crucial things here that the sociologist Max Weber pointed out.

In his definition of a state, it is a "human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory". Legitimacy comes from the acceptance of the people, and behind a state is a human community. Not some others like zombies who make up the government, who somehow aren't part of the people.

Yet perhaps for an individualist liberal, it's hard to fathom people functioning as a community, but it does happen.

Why? They're the ones who have to enforce the laws. — Vera Mont

Because now you are putting the enforcers also work as legislators.

When the military has a bigger role in politics, just look at the consequences in Egypt, or Sudan, or Myanmar.

There is a true reason just why separation of powers is important for democracies to work and it's surprising that you seem to think that this is irrelevant or unimportant. Civilian control of the military is important. But now, when you constitutionally give the military the power legislative power, it does matter. It's one matter for the military to ask for those tax dollars to invest, it's another thing when the are taking part of deciding just who or what gets tax dollars in general.

Do you want them just to follow idiotic orders from some politician with an axe to grind, the way they have been doing? One hopelessly bogged-down, costly, destructive war after another? AND AGAIN - WHY? — Vera Mont

If the political leadership wants to start a truly idiotic war, then I guess they have to go through a lot of generals until they find the yes-man they want. Again typical what has happened in history.

And if you are referring to the US, then the reason is that as the sole Superpower, it simply has the capability to go off in idiotic wars where other countries are simply uncapable of doing: absolutely no other country could fight a war like in Afghanistan without having it's border next to it. In the end (when the US had lost support of all of the countries around Afghanistan), the US was airlifting everything from Romania to Afghanistan! No other country can fight an insurgency in a country of the size of Afghanistan and airlift everything there.

Yes, governments everywhere run protection rackets. — NOS4A2

Obviously. If it wasn't for them, then you surely would have genuine protection rackets being run. At least in the long run.

Actually this would be an interesting topic, because usually if the police for some reason doesn't work, then people will quite easily form vigilante groups and militias. I think it's an universal thing and will happen quite quickly if there is no police to call. But it isn't formed like a business transaction (meaning you pay for the service, just like you pay for an electrician or a doctor), but starting with fellow minded people who have something to protect. It tells a lot about the society how "the police" or call it anyway you want is formed in the society.

So there has been any nation that has not used taxes to fund militaries. Why is that? What's your theory? — RogueAI

Organized violence and protection against other nations and states is the first actions that nations need to organize and fund for their own survival. Every nation now has been formed from another prior nation (or more) and the violence between nations is as old as history. That's the first thing. Now, if you really outsource this and pay for instance mercenaries for this "service", it's likely that you will end up with the mercenary leader (or other country) in control of your nation. City states in Italy in the medieval times had many instances of this happening.

That's my reasoning.

Is there an executive branch? — Vera Mont

Usually there is. Or was the question if in universeness idea there would be. I'm not sure about that, ask him.

Who put the military and the police under a single jurisdiction, anyway? Last I heard, police served individual municipalities, townships or states/provinces/counties. — Vera Mont

The military and the various police departments don't a) pass the laws or b) act as judges in the courts themselves. But they are under control of usually the administration, the president or prime minister. That's the idea in separation of powers and the different branches.

As I said to universeness, putting an institution like the military also having a say in passing the laws isn't a good idea in my view.

There isn't any nation that does so. Icelandic and Costa Rican police do get their pay through taxes.

I don't know who the other 'stakeholder' groups are; if they were listed earlier, I've forgotten. — Vera Mont

In my view giving the military a "stakeholder" status wouldn't be a good decision, as obviously the military and the police are part of the executive branch, hence the proposal goes against the Montesquieu's separation of powers. From their role of being the armed forces of the country they have already enough say in government's actions, they don't need to have a direct say on legislation in the process of making laws.

Why would any particular stakeholder be more or less important than another? It's nothing like the aristocracy you seem so concerned about. — Vera Mont

The person that decides just who has "important stakeholder" position can decide who rules. If you leave it for the voters to decide, then there has to be a proposal on what the people vote. You simply cannot ask the voter to invent themselves a list of what are "important stakeholders". Hence if universeness gave to various industries (I assume here the workers) stakeholder properties, then obviously the trade unions would have a large say.

What I think would clear up a lot would be that the duopoly of the two parties would be finally broken. But Americans simply believe in the impossibility of the "third party" and that I think is the biggest problem. Easiest way would be if both the Dems and GOP would separate into different parties themselves.

Political parties should have to be frightened that they really lose it, all of it, not wait just for some time (perhaps in a lucrative think-tank job or working for the private sector) until the electorate is so disenchanted with the other party that they vote for them again.

Now in the both American parties have this rigid career path of being just loyal and waiting for one's turn. And in the end, you have things like this:



You know, what comes to mind are the Soviet Politbyro members of the Brezhnev time, waiving from the Kremlin (or above Lenin's tomb) during some parade:



Such vitalism, such energy to confront and solve the present and future problems of the socialist experiment in the picture above.

It is a check and a balance to the first chamber or the sitting government. That is its main mission. — universeness

And my questions are:

1) How are these stakeholder groups decided?
2) Once decided, can these stakeholder groups be changed? And when, in what time? When some stakeholders aren't anymore "important stakeholders", just like the aristocracy.

Why? What is left to fight for, once you've been recognized and represented? — Vera Mont

I assume that like the aristocracy, some stakeholders become less important and don't have the earlier importance to have a constitutional say on legislation. But they themselves likely will see themselves as important and worthy of the "stakeholder" position.

It is true that one of the main aims of the European Commission is to reach a common tax policy, but this will be one of the toughest tasks to be done. — javi2541997

The EU is a de facto confederation of independent states, which desperately tries to be an union. Perhaps something similar to the US by some visionaries in the EU. But everybody knows that isn't going to happen.

I don't remember if it was with you, javi, or some other Spaniard, that we talked about how simply different is the geostrategic security environment of Finland and Spain. For Finland the security threat is Russia, Russia and Russia... , but for Spain it's how narrow the strait of Gibraltar is and North Africa with all of it's problems is the real security issue (as Spain even has Ceuta and Melilla in the other continent). And I guess both Finnish and Spanish authorities totally understand these differences between them. Yet that's just the tip of the obvious iceberg. And when it comes to a "common tax policy", I think "common EU defense policy" might be far more easier to plan and to get everybody behind it.

On the other hand, I do not know if tax havens are ethical, but I understand that it is the only way to survive in globalisation. What can Andorra or Bahamas do in a complex system of transactions? They need to be attractive to attach foreign investment. — javi2541997

Remember it starts from places like the City of London and the tax havens inside the US. Trade is good, it does really create wealth, yet we must understand just how fragile globalization is too. Tax havens are perhaps an annoyance, but getting rid of them, what else do you throw out with the bathwater?

And globalization can stop rapidly. War between the US and China and that's it: the end of present day globalization. And UK's experiment with Brexit shows just how much our wealth and prosperity is based on EU membership and how difficult it is to opt out of the system. But what will remain sovereign are the nation state members of the EU. And they'll have different tax laws. That's a fact in my view.

I hardly need to make much effort here at all, to combat your claims. Your example above is an insult to all those in the UK who are serious about their politics. — universeness

You hardly wan't to answer my questions, I guess. Well, I could have given the example of the whole Brexit thing...and not silly walks.

But what's not to like about silly walks? Monty Python is really part of modern British culture. Well liked and even mimicked abroad.

I agree, as you are not my target ssu. You are helping me to put forward some of my opinions on how I think politics could be done in far better ways, compared to those methods that humans currently employ. — universeness

That's the idea. It's far better to talk about one's own ideas, really, on this forum because people do think and do engage seriously in the matter.

So, you agree then that getting completely rid of the house of lords would be a good first step in starting to improve the way UK politics works? — universeness

My point is that WHEN you give any stakeholder status in the upper house, be it as now the remnants of the aristocracy and retired politicians, or in your proposal "important stakeholders", once decided, the elected stakeholders will fight for their right to have their position in the house. Even if they aren't important anymore. They will be against change as the aristocracy has been in reality. Hence you need elections on just who are stakeholders. And what are "important stakeholders". For starters.

You have to design a system for the existing people ...those too that you don't like and oppose your political views. They'll participate, I guarantee you. One way or another.

Is this ethical? To "steal" the headquarters of companies of some countries because the taxes are low? There is always this kind of debate... — javi2541997

As this is a philosophy forum, let's think about this from the beginnings and from the theoretical approach, not so much as from the legal approach.

First, what is a company or a corporation?

A company or corporation is just a pile of advanced permanent contracts, yet you could simply buy as a customer every service and every item you need basically on a one-to-one basis. Now only every service you buy is done by a fixed contract and hence the person you are buying the service is now called the company's employee. Then the company itself, can own machines, real estate etc.

Hence with taxation the question is how this entity is taxed and do you tax the company or it's owners. But notice, a lot of taxation happens where the actual work is done and were the products or services are bought: taxation of the employees wages, the value-added-taxes and so. We have to remember that the average margin profit of companies (for example in the US) is 7,5%. That is far less than people actually think companies make profits. But that lets say one tenth is what we are talking about. Yet we shouldn't forget the nine-tenths too. Also, the real economic impact happens there where the physical manufacturing or service happens.

So is it ethical to move away your corporate HQ to avoid corporate taxes? Well, I think the question is if tax havens are ethical. And tax havens are created by government, starting from countries like the US and the UK. And since for example Ireland has profited well from having low corporate taxes, then this competition between countries is simply going to be a fact. Luckily not all corporation / companies prioritize low taxes or paying no taxes when it comes to where they put their Company HQs. It's still a legal gimmick, which could be easily change and it doesn't create confidence in a company when the owner is a postbox in the Bahamas etc.

are those Molotov cocktails? — jorndoe

Yes, manufactured by Ukrainian volunteers at the start of the war when Russian forces were still racing for their initial objectives.

As to the former (Ukraine), I'm thinking that hate, unity, nationalism, patriotism grow easy during invasion, ongoing bombing, interrupted while trying to shed the shackles of the dominating neighbor. — jorndoe

Nothing instills social cohesion and national identity than an enemy that attacks your country and you make a successful defense against it.

The UK and it's obsession especially with the Batlle of Britain shows this quite well.

I can believe what is happening in Ukraine now. The same thing happened actually in Finland. In 1939 just two decades had gone from a bloody civil war that had divided the country. The country had been also ripped by turmoil about language politics (just like Ukraine had been before the invasion). And then Winter War happened. It really unified the country: there wasn't any "fifth column" or traitorous socialists in the country welcoming the Soviet troops as some might have believed there to be (at least that was said to the Soviet troops, that it was a war of liberating the Finnish workers).

Now of course in Ukraine the war is still going on...

As to the latter (Russia), those state-sanctioned, organized, systematic efforts carry a faint whiff of Hitlerjugend (and Soviet methods), which remains kind of ironic. — jorndoe

Indeed. If Russia was truly fighting a defensive war, there would be large numbers of Russians expats going back to Russia. There wouldn't have been the brain drain that we saw happening when the mobilization was started.

But I'm hopeful that Russia can shed it's fascist tendencies and perhaps become a normal democracy someday. But I acknowledge it will be difficult. Yet Spain and Portugal aren't anymore fascist.

. It is a proposal outline, not a rigid system. — Vera Mont

Yes, it's a proposal.

But just how rigid the stakeholders are is in my view a relevant question. The actual upper house of the UK Parliament, the house of lords, is a perfect example of how rigid these systems are in reality. If in the 11th Century the system fitted the needs of the times, the role of the UK aristocracy has dramatically changed when we come to this Century. And even if the hereditary membership was abolished in 1999, there still are exceptions. So there's an example of how rigid these systems are.

I have found that carping at them doesn't improve ideas. — Vera Mont

Especially in a Philosophy Forum where the people are anonymous, I think it is good to get answers even to stupid questions. And also get feedback to own ideas.

I think you are rather confused. In a socialist democracy, dictatorship is impossible. — universeness

Nations that have called themselves socialist and democratic have been typically dictatorships.

It is exactly that, imo. I don't understand your last sentence, as that is exactly what I am advocating — universeness

Isn't that exactly what existing democracies are about?

Let's have an theoretical example:

If there's a very popular movement in the UK that wants to save the British cultural heritage of silly walking, wants silly walking be encouraged, advanced and assisted by the government and have the objective of a ministry of silly walks to be formed, then an elected administration will form a ministry of silly walks. If it doesn't, this movement will vote for the party that will do this. Or form their own party to do this. And because it is so popular among the electorate who feel silly walking is crucial for British culture, existential for Britishness to survive and far more important than any other issue, why wouldn't it happen?

This is something very crucial to British culture!


You don't need have to entrech it in the system as a "stakeholder" as the man and woman representing the advancement of silly walks. Because once they have that stakeholder stance in the parliament, dislodging them is difficult, when they have that stance. What if people later find silly walking not so important to the existence of the UK? The two representatives surely will find it important: after all, it's their jobs on the line. For example Lebanon had (I think has even now) a very convoluted system where representatives of the various ethnic and religious groups have permanent positions on the government. It was intended for the benefit of the multicultural country, but it's made Lebanese politics even worse.

. The second house is made up of the main significant stakeholders from human society. — universeness

Again, who defines what stakeholders are significant? And once you have decided that, how are you going to change it?

That does not matter, the young and old will have two reps in the second chamber and your last sentence above is just nonsense. — universeness

Where do you define the young and old? Who is young and old? And how do these differ from others?

? Are you really asking me if I think the Russian invasion of Ukraine affects Ukrainians of different ages and different sexual orientations in different ways as well as in the same ways? — universeness

No, I'm asking about the second house of the Parliament in the UK you are describing. You think sex matters are important in this case? Because you will have people representing LGBTQ+ (and wouldn't some of them be offended by the man and women division?) deciding on the British assistance on Ukraine. And then people representing the fuel industry deciding on it. And so on.

I assume that you understand that your opinion is just that. So you are a vote against my proposals. If the complete removal of party politics is ever voted on, then you can vote no and I will vote yes. I hope for the sake of our species that you and those who agree with you, lose the vote. — universeness

What I get is this frustation on politics and political parties. Well, it's naive to think that politics will become better if we just ban politicians and political parties. As if then somehow by magic how people do politics would change. I say it wouldn't: you would simply have political groups that act like political parties but say they aren't political parties. It would just make things murkier because the factions deny themselves being factions...or political parties.

Tomorrow the French ambassador should be expelled from Niger. The junta gave yesterday the French ambassador 48 hours to leave.



Let's see what the outcome will be. At least Macron is pretty sure that the French have been important in their own former colonies:

(Vanguard) French President Emmanuel Macroh has boasted that without France’s military operations in the Sahel region, “there would probably no longer be a Mali…Burkina Faso, and I’m not sure there would still be Niger.”

Macron told the French publication Le Point while referring to the former colonial power’s interventions in the mid-2000s, Operations Serval and Barkhane.

The ambassador might go. How about the 1500 French military in the Niamey airport?

* * *

And there has been another military coup in a former French colony in Africa. Gabon isn't in the Sahel, but the circumstances do have similarities with the Sahel countries (Mali, Niger, Chad). It's interesting to see how the commentaries here are hopeful and positive about the coup as usually we think of military taking over the government bad. But at least once even in Niger a military coup did bring elections and democracy and not a military ruler (another example of a coup restoring democracy is the Portuguese coup in the 1970's).

The discussion below opens up the broader question of the role of France in it's former colonies, and how France can be said to be the colonizer that never left:

Somehow I have the feeling that Russians are quite used to this.

During the Soviet Union a Russian would talk and behave quite differently when in his or her work and in a public event and then when in his or her kitchen among his or her closest friends. I think this hasn't been forgotten in Putin's Russia.

Besides, feeding with a spoon patriotism has a negative impact on patriotism. Especially when you started a war that the vast majority of people never wanted.

If you want people really to be patriotic, let it really be voluntary. Like umm....in Ukraine?


This repression of any grass-roots movements actually hindered Russia's first mobilization efforts: a state that has fought in every way against people organizing anything in the grass roots (or even holding a small rally) then basically ordered a mobilization without an actual organization to do this, which would have meant that the people ought to have had the initiative on their own to assist with organizing the mobilization.

I have already indicated how it might be achieved, other stakeholder groups that I have not yet mentioned, would most likely be, two(one male and one female,) from the transport industry, the leisure industry, the fuel industry, the construction industry, etc, etc. They are there to represent the interests of the workers in those fields. All profit based businesses would have a maximum of 4 reps (2 from small and 2 from larger based, privately owned companies). That is my personal view regarding private businesses. — universeness

That's your personal view. How about cooperatives, public companies? So I guess you are then the dictator that decides just who get a "stakeholder position" and who don't. :roll:

Now here's the problem: your system is extremely convoluted and very hierarchial. It's really about the "etc, etc." and just who decides who are the "etc, etc." in the first place.

First, you have members of second house of parliament based on like sexual minorities (how then on sexual majority, no?), then you have members based on where they work (which give a plethora of industries and services, if for example construction industry has it's own representative), then representatives (2) on companies. Then based on age. Then based on education. How about religion? (And missing is that people live in different places in the UK.)

Yet here's the basic problem: people actually are made up of nearly every category: they are either young or old, they are either in a sexual minority or not, they are religious (which can vary) or atheist, they work in some or another work. AND SELDOM none of these issues matter on what they think about policy.

How about let's say assistance to Ukraine that the country is given after the Russian invasion? Is that a sexual minority/majority issue? Is it an age issue, really?

The apparent reason to make such a convoluted system to my view is to make the whole system unworkable. When it's unworkable, someone other has to do the actual ruling and day-to-day management of the system. It's like Ghaddafi's Libya.

The system has to be understandable and simple for the ordinary person to understand it. Why cannot it be so that people elect representatives that promise to advance issues that the people want to be advanced?

Enlightenment has still a road to go, that's for sure.

I think one of the worst things is when politicians use the superstitions of the people to back their power up. And of course they can be superstitious themselves naturally, so for a politician, it isn't only a thing to be popular among the uneducated. And someone being beheaded because of witchcraft naturally gives a totally different role for witchcraft than those being detained for murder (as in the case of Tanzania). Yet here we see the obvious difference: Tanzanian courts aren't a religious authority, while in Saudi-Arabia religious authorities can use legal power.

The problem is that as educated Westerners, we dismiss this, especially when viewing politics, because at first it's degrading to assume that people would rely on superstitions in their political decisions. Politics has to be logical and rational. Above all, the legal system has to be rational and logical. Hence we think that people are just cynically using these issues (withcraft/sorcery) as a tool for repression. That may be the end result, but are the people themselves cynical about it?

I don't think so.

If the Quran condemns witchcraft and sorcery and says that Iblis / Shaitans tempt people to sin, that these spirits may teach sorcery, I am very confindent that at least some religious authorities in Saudi-Arabia literally believe in this. If we have in the West people who take literally every word of the Bible, then we shouldn't be surprised that in Islam there are even more people that take literally every word of the Quran. Hence if the verdict is that Shaitan has taught sorcery for the women, then some will believe this. After all, the Quran says that there is this possibility. A true believer believes in the Quran.

In the West we just dismiss this or laugh about sorcery/Black Magic/the paranormal having a role in this World. Especially historians don't give it any role. Hence the only case what I remember was back when scholars eagerly gave importance to people believing in the supernatural is the example of Nancy Reagan believing in astrology and then having an influence on her husband. (Yes, it's used as a jab at the Republican president, but anyway, he drew old cartoons on the memos when listening Presidential briefings.)

Yet I think that a lot of people in this World think as Westerners thought about these issues (witchcraft/sorcery) in the 16th Century or earlier. Again, enlightenment has still a long way to go.

People being superstitious is quite real even today.

Has our civilization evolved to the point where philosophy can be dispensed with? — Pantagruel

No.

The evolution of our civilization has been widely exaggerated.

We've heard it all before, Russia is going to collapse any day now. — Tzeentch

Isn't everything collapsing?

EU was collapsing...at least so said many American commentators.

UK was collapsing...again Scotland is thinking about independence, so any day now, right? And then there's North Ireland, hard Brexit and that unfortunate border issue.

China was collapsing...any day now.

Spain was collapsing... the Catalan independence movement got really far, right?

Sweden was collapsing... remember Sweden, Sweden! As Trump said.

Italy was collapsing... any day now a new crisis has to come from that country.

Greece was collapsing... yes, those debts need to be reshuffled again.

Venezuela was collapsing... millions of Venezuelian refugees cannot be wrong.

Pakistan was collapsing... no really, this country might be really collapsing!

Sudan, Niger, Mali were all collapsing... so much, really, that I started a thread to watch what happens.

Somalia was collapsing... or has that already collapsed?


Did I miss any? Please add if I overlooked some obviously collapsing country.

I agree, but I put Romania and Moldova as examples because they want to be part of the European Union — javi2541997

Ummm....Romania is part of the EU. It and Bulgaria have been EU members since 2007. What Romania isn't is part of the Schengen treaty and in the Euro-zone.

Moldova's situation is hugely different: It has the frozen conflict of Transnistria and hence Russian forces are still in the country. It is really not a member of the EU and cannot be in NATO, hence Putin has a lot of influence in the small country.

(For Transnistrian's, Soviet Union still lives...sort of)

Note: I just realised that the image I posted above has a title that says which tax affects economic growth the most? I understand know why you didn't understand me. I didn't put the title and of course I disagree with the title itself. I guess I didn't see it when I downloaded the picture to post it here. — javi2541997

Ok, you got my point.

I agree. I think VAT is one of the most complex to put in practice. Here in Spain is 21 %, that it is similar to most of the EU members. While in Hungary, they hold the higher percentage with 27 % paradoxically. They are just doing the opposite of why I try to defend with my arguments. — javi2541997

VAT's effect is obvious when we think about for example food: higher food prices mean a lot to a poor person, but for a rich person it's just a nuisance.

With corporate taxes and wealth taxes one has to understand that money can move around easily and if these taxes are really punitive (let's say 75% to 90% tax on profit), people simply won't sell and wait for the taxes to be lowered while corporations can also postpone profits.

And about the modern day problem of "witch-craft", from some years ago:

(THE GUARDIAN, 6th Mar 2015) Police in Tanzania said on Friday they had arrested 32 witch-doctors this week as part of a campaign against ritual killings of albinos.

Activists say attackers have killed at least 75 albinos in the east African country since 2000 to use their limbs and other body parts as charms meant to guarantee success in love, life and business.

President Jakaya Kikwete last week vowed to stamp out the practice he said brought shame on to the east African country, and albino campaigners called on authorities on Friday to execute people convicted of the murders.

There's no such thing as supernatural witchcraft. The accused were therefore killed† on false‡ charges. — jorndoe

Modern legal systems don't actually have any problem with this: If a witch-doctor is cruel to animals, hurts other people or somehow creates huge annoyance to his or her fellow citizens, then there are laws against these kinds of behaviour. But one doesn't need the cause of witch-craft itself.

So yes, to specifically have laws against practicing witch-craft is dubious.

But anyway, Saudi-Arabia is a country that forbids the public practice of any other religion than Islam, so I think that's were to start in that country...

No, group forming of similarly minded individuals will happen, and is encouraged on an issue to issue basis, for the 4 years the elected 650 independents govern. — universeness

Isn't that group forming, which is even encouraged, basically the function of political parties? And just what means "on an issue to issue basis"? Somehow there wouldn't be representatives that have basically "conservative" values and then representatives who have "progressive/leftist" values? How do you assume the issue to issue basis?

The second chamber would have as many members as required to allow one male and one female rep from each group. — universeness

Who decides just who gets a "stakeholder" representative woman and man? You don't need anymore lobbyists acting as middlemen, heck, you will have everybody there simply as "stakeholders" obstructing/promoting what they need.

Can then corporations have their "stakeholder" positions in the second chamber? What about foreign countries? Aren't they too stakeholders???

The military and the police would be represented at all levels of government, but the military and police would not be under the full control of the first chamber. — universeness

No really, don't you see the threat here?

You are putting part of the government (armed forces, police) that is under the executive branch in control or having partly control also of the legislative branch. This goes totally against the separations of powers principal. Because now, in your system, generals themselves are deciding on the laws that regulate them and how much will the government give money to them. There's really a difference of the generals asking politicians for money and generals deciding themselves on the money.

The military really should be out of politics. They are there to serve the people and follow the laws passed by the elected representatives. It's enough that politicians select those who are going to be high ranking officers. That already introduces enough politics into an organization that shouldn't be interested in day-to-day politics, but focus on security issues and to create a deterrence that the country won't be attacked.

Sadly, one of them is that despite of having reforms on taxation this doesn't lead necessarily to a "fairer" country. Culture depends a lot on this issue and some states as Romania or Moldova are facing this problem which they drag since the Soviet era. It is very common the use of bribes on whatever public administration activities. So, it is a solution that depends more on cultural matters than tax policies. — javi2541997

Tax laws just like laws in general don't have same results in different societies. Hence it's not just to change the laws if you have severe problems, huge wealth gaps, weak institutions, no social cohesion etc. in the society. Comes to my mind that actually Liberia has a very similar Constitution as the US has. Just having the same Constitution doesn't make countries similar.

It's all about curbing the "excesses of capitalism", yes. Yet, I want to highlight Ireland as a good example of equilibrium. Personal Income Taxes and Corporate Taxes are high, but consumption and property (where the use of wealth really goes) are low. I think this is they key of a successful tax policy. — javi2541997

That picture is very interesting. Because it assume's the opposite of what you're saying (if I understood you correctly).

And aren't in Ireland corporate taxes low, actually? It's like 12,5% whereas in my country the similar tax rate is 20%and in Germany 29,8%. Only Hungary has a lower corporate tax rate in Europe (9%) than Ireland.

What makes it interesting is that consumption taxes are the ones that hurt people who are poorer starting from the fact that everybody has to eat and the amount needed doesn't actually differ. Hence consumption taxes, VAT taxes etc. hit the poorer and poorest people.

Yet in a World of Globalization, meaning extremely low transportation costs and ease of trade, raising corporate taxes indeed will make corporations look for less expensive places (ie lower taxes).

(a late response) It is interesting to see how the Baltic States and other Eastern European countries will change through time. Because now those who have lived through Marxism-Leninism start to be older and people under 30 have no recollection about it, only what they have heard from their parents.

Hence when they have just experienced the "capitalist" modernity, socialism, and with that I mean Western social-democracy and not Marxism-Leninism, seems understandable and fair. It's all about curbing the "excesses of capitalism", right?

It's always the devil you have experienced that makes you want for something else.

I think the most important thing to really understand is that Russia is an Empire.

The whole idea of Russia is that it is an Empire. Russian's cannot see themselves as a nation state: there's Tatarstan, there's Chechnya and many other places that really aren't Russian. There are 26 official languages in Russia, and about 100 languages spoken in the country. That doesn't sound anything like a nation state with one people. Hence the fear is, especially with the ruling elite, is that if the Empire of Russia isn't upheld as "natural" Russia, then everything will collapse. Hence you cannot have democracy, you have to have a strong central. government and a strongman leading it. (Especially when the state hasn't been able to provide prosperity for it's people as in the West.)

I don't think anything I said gives the impression that the above is not the case. I was just thinking in terms of the ways that philosophers have attempted to generalize Godel (and Tarski's) findings beyond the scope of mathematics. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Fair enough. But usually there isn't much discussion of just what is the impact of this (or similar) findings.

Scotland, Ireland, Wales were not in themselves historical colonialists either. Their warrior men were employed or press ganged, by the far larger and more powerful Anglo/Saxon/Norman English nation.
I am not suggesting that the wealthy Welsh, Scottish and Irish nefarious few were not fully complicit in benefiting from building the vile 'British' empire. I am sure a minority of nefarious Finns, benefited from using those with a Finnish warrior mentality, who fought for the Swedes or the Russian actions to plunder and pillage their neighbouring peoples. — universeness

That genuinely doesn't come at all to the reasons why Finland became and industrialized country from being a poor hinterland of Europe. But it suits perfectly the typical anti-Western anti-capitalist rhetoric. Starting from the whimsical belief that prosperity cannot be created, but has to be robbed from some others. Actually it's quite questionable how much colonies really profited people of the main countries. For Portugal having Angola and Mozambique were really a burden, not an stream of income. The real way for countries to have become rich is through trade.

Back to naivety I see. Lenin was also an opportunistic butcher. I think Trotsky was a true believer in the socialist cause and did hold true to his cause of trying to make the world a better place for the Russian people, which is why Stalin's need to have him assassinated, was a top priority, when the Russians were stupid enough to let him take power. Such a pretty picture you posted, they almost look like friends, don't they. :lol: — universeness

During the time of the photo was taken, I think they were.

Yet telling is that you find only Trotsky to be a true believer in the socialist cause, but not Lenin, who according to you, he is the butcher. Well, I guess people haven't heard about Marxism-Leninism or just who was the founder of the Red Army and who started to use barrier troops to shoot their own front-line troops if they retreated or deserted. :lol:

Oh come on! how deep does your naivety go? Can 'one' maintain control without a supporting plutocracy? — universeness

Does it have to be a plutocracy supporting autocracy? How far goes your populism? You really think that everywhere, starting from Soviet Union to Pol Pot's Cambodia there was somehow behind a class of very rich people, plutocrats?

So I would change my disagreement with that goal to agreement. — universeness

Great, we agree on something!

What's wrong with money? — ssu

Oh Just that it helps create and maintain the rule of a nefarious few 'haves' over a vast global population of 'have nots.' It's a human invention that has proven to be toxic for the vast majority of human beings. — universeness

It really helps transactions, is a great way to measure tradeable stuff. Been there in our society a lot longer than present day capitalism has existed.

The details of how I and others think it could work are heavy in detail. Initial ideas include: — universeness

Ok, you've put a bit of thought to this.

Some questions:

So you ban parties, won't accept them, assume 650 mp's act as "independents" (ahem! No grouping around tolerated), yet then in 5. you say there would be a second chamber either with just two people (male / female) or two from all stakeholders (I didn't get that part, sorry) as varied places as youth to LGTBQ+ to military and police???

Wowwowoow, hold on here!!!

So you are literally putting military and police into the legislative branch when they clearly belong in the executive branch. It's really not up to them to be in the process of making laws, on the contrary! I guess the military and the police as "stakeholders" will have a lot more weight on for example on national security issues than the LGTBQ+ stakeholders.

There is ample amount of examples how military being outside it's main realm of defence and embedded in the states governing really doesn't work and basically leads to inefficiency and corruption... and not even a great military.

Besides, both the police and the military are usually such professionals that the legislative branch does listen to them if they really have something important to say. But there's never a formal put that the generals have to accept legislation and have some kind of veto.

And anyway, how does this quote sound to you:

“A parliament is originally founded to represent the people, but this in itself is undemocratic as democracy means the authority of the people and not an authority acting on their behalf. The mere existence of a parliament means the absence of the people. True democracy exists only through the direct participation of the people, and not through the activity of their representatives.”

Sounds great, eh? Well, it's from the Green Book of Ghaddafi, the "Brotherly Leader of the Revolution" who went into schools to pick nice looking girls to deflour and was really let's say an eccentric dictator. But his point was that his dictatorship was masked, even if whimsically but still, in direct democracy. That "direct democracy" worked through "revolutionary committees" that basically surveyed the population and crushed all opposition.

The point of this is that what some formal political design looks like theoretically, isn't what you are going to end up with, especially if there aren't any kinds of safety valves.

1. Get rid of money and build a resource based, global economic system, using automation as its backbone. — universeness

What's wrong with money? Are you going to centrally plan what people want and what manufacturers produced or what?

2. Abandon party politics and employ a system that allows an individual to vote for a person to represent them and not a political party. — universeness

Hows that going to work? And how are these elected persons then go and agree on what to do? What's wrong with representation and fellow minded coming together?

3. Create very powerful checks and balances which would prevent any individual or group from becoming too rich, too powerful, autocratic, totalitarian, etc, etc. — universeness

What's your definition of being too rich? Or too powerful? Whose going to decide that? I think that things like Montesquieu's division of power, term limits, keeping secrecy of government actions at a true minimum etc. are the ways to fight autocracy.

Only if the facts of the 'how' can be fully understood and can pass a basic secular morality test. — universeness

Well, my country (Finland) never had colonies, it basically was a colony of Russia and earlier part of Sweden. South Korea was under Japanese rule for a long time (and didn't have colonies). Sweden in fact did have small colonies, but they weren't remarkable. Norway or Switzerland didn't have colonies either. Should we not speak of them, but just say the West has gotten it's prosperity by stealing from it's colonies or what?

Historical examples of humanist/socialist/labour and suffrage movements, which actually did improve the lives of many, should indeed be championed and in fact always have been, by true socialists and humanists. — universeness

In the reasons why countries have gotten more prosperous indeed the workers movement and trade unions do have an important part. After all, if I remember correctly, Marx himself was worried that the Proletariat might not opt for the revolution, but simply demand higher wages. Well, fortunately he was in this case right!

In my opinion, you are just displaying your naivety more prominently. Stalin was a vile opportunist, and a narcissist, who would dress in whatever political identity suited his only cause, that of his own aggrandizement. — universeness

An opportunist you say, I think it is you who should show that Stalin indeed wasn't a Marxist-Leninist. Or you think that Lenin and other leaders would have taken a vile opportunist on their ranks?

So the difference for you, between characters like Elon Must, Roman Abramovich, and Zhang Yiming (owner of such as Tik Tok etc) is that the Russian and the Chinese examples of nefarious rich, ultimately answer to a political overlord (King)? Whereas in the West, the billionaires are more independent and can abuse global populations, more freely? — universeness

Actually yes. The term plutocracy means rule by the rich. The term autocracy means rule by one. Who rules matters here.

Famines and food riots have not even ended yet. — universeness

And there is absolute poverty too.

They have globally reduced, yes but that is f*** all, to pat anyone on the back for, as it's at best, tip of the iceberg improvements. We have sooooooooo much further to go, and you, trying to congratulate, whoever it is you are trying to congratulate, for what has been done so far, is at best misguided and at worse, sinister. — universeness

Somehow saying that things have improved seems (from the emotional outburst) to you as an acceptance that everything is fine. Well, that's not the case. Yet not accepting that things have improved is biased, because there really are ways to eradicate poverty, starting from the obvious, absolute poverty.

And yes, if India and China have improved the situation of many of their people, why do you think it's misguided to acknowledge this?

Why do you keep harping on famines? Famines are caused by various factors, including climate, war and politics. — Vera Mont

Because it's a good marker when the country is really, really poor.

Famines happen in societies which are fragile, for example there are many subsistence farmers who are affected by draughts etc. You can have devastating wars, but a country prosperous enough can avoid famines. Hence there was no famine in Germany or Italy during WW2, and no famine in my country then either. Rationing food is the obvious solution. Yet poor and fragile states simply don't have the means and the ability to ration and feed their people. It's actually the rare case when a famine is made on purpose (Holodomor, the siege of Leningrad).

But there are plenty of homeless, displaced and dispossessed people when there is no actual famine, and plenty of people who can't afford decent food, housing or medical care, even when they're working full time and making more then $2.15 a day. — Vera Mont

I was on starting at first from the worst situation: when poverty means one does not have the financial means to obtain commodities to sustain life. That ought to be nonexistent in this World and we do have the means to eradicate absolute poverty.

When we come to things like decent food, housing or medical care, then we are in the realm of relative poverty. What is decent food, housing and medical care? In my country literally no citizen of this country is begging on the streets, the beggars are usually from Romania. Having a home is a right and there's no huge homeless problem, people don't live in tents on city streets. Here we come to questions like of how far should the welfare state go? Yet the issue isn't about welfare, but just how well the economy works for the people, does everyone have the possibility for a decent life through work?

So, have the wars of European conquest, partitioning of continent, colonial rule, the plantation system, the copper, gold, diamond and coal mines all been swept under the revisionist version of "banana republics have only themselves to blame" doctrine? — Vera Mont

Obviously not, yet shouldn't we look at the examples of countries that have been poor, have been colonies and yet afterwards have improved their economies and have become prosperous?

Except, of course, South Korea, which did fine, entirely on its own.... sort of... — Vera Mont

Aid (from the US) might have had some effect, but the long-term projects of industrializing the country had in the long run, were successful. And then when domestic industries were competitive enough, then competing in the global market was key.

In the 19th, mostly under British colonial rule, yes. — Vera Mont

Outright colonies didn't industrialize in the 19th Century, it was those places that had dominion status that did, starting with the dominion of Canada in the mid 19th Century.

How does a transition from agrarian to industrial economy benefit the general population? — Vera Mont

Important question.

The answer is that the agrarian communities are made up of subsistence farmers, those who grow the food they eat, which doesn't create actually more wealth. But when industry springs up, those who have worked the fields get a better salary working in the factory. Then a lot of very poor agrarian workers are find themselves in a better position ...being just a bit wealthier, even if still poor, industry workers. Hence the lure from the countryside to the cities.

I won't bore you with statistics, but every industrialized country has seen the transformation of people generally living in the countryside to people living in the cities with now there being just a small fraction from earlier times of people working in agriculture.

For Ukraine, the situation is like the US when facing Saddam's Iraq in Kuwait, but without any or little air power and far less troops and ground equipment. And a far more capable enemy. It was rather easy for US and allied forces to breach the Iraqi lines after a month long air campaign that flew over 100 000 sorties against Iraqi position (that were in a totally open desert). Take that away and yes, you make small advances. When you have multiple World War 1 -style entrenchments, I guess three in depth, advancing through them is slow without air power.

Furthermore, I think that Surovikin did actually a fairly good job at simply going to this fortified defensive lines: it's courageous for a general to basically admit that your army cannot attack, maneuver and gain territory, but simply goes on the defensive behind entrenched lines and huge minefields.

The evidence of improvements in the charts you posted are pathetic, in comparison with what should be happening globally. — universeness

Right, what should be happening globally.

Well let's start with that. At first a question for you: do you think that historical examples of how now more prosperous countries did eradicate widespread poverty is still informative on what at the present should be done?

There is no valid reason for famine, anywhere on this planet today! No valid reason at all. Apart from due to the actions of the nefarious rich and powerful elites. — universeness

You do understand that what your saying is populism, if everything are due to the actions of the nefarious rich.

What??? How naive of you! Do you really think there is much difference between a western billionaire and a Chinese or Russian one, no matter which political doctrine they claim they champion. Do you really believe Stalin and Hitler, etc were socialists for example, as well as being very, very rich and powerful? — universeness

First of all, Stalin really was a socialists, or a Marxist-Leninist. If you argue otherwise, you don't know much about him or the Soviet Union.

And for the Chinese system, how much really power those billionaires have in China? Haven't you heard about China's missing billionaires? The Chinese Communist party has power in China, and the CCP is ruled by one man.

Again the US is the best example of a country what comes closest to a plutocracy.

In the US a billionaire who comes out of nowhere, can indeed get into power: he has the money to make an election campaign and there's a willing electorate that will vote for him (or her) as his or her wealth seems like a credible guarantee that the person is able and effective. Above all, his or her wealth is quite well guaranteed and American billionaires don't have the habit of falling from multiple store windows. In Putin's mafia-lead Russia that happens and also in CCP controlled China a billionaire has to avoid politics.

Yes, especially when moving from absolute poverty to almost absolute poverty. That is not much of an improvement. Don't forget, you can manipulate stats. "There are lies, damn lies and then there are statistics." Sometimes that quote is very true! — universeness

Dying of poverty is quite drastic, but yes, still if you don't die of starvation or cold or something like that poverty can really be bad. And I don't think at this level the statistics are wrong: thing like widespread famines or food riots not happening show that.

I assume that is not ok in your opinion, yes? — universeness

Definitely!

Sovereign states being sovereign is a good start, at least. A good guideline, let's say.

No, it's fundamentally very simple — universeness

If it's so simple, then you think the answer is simple too?

Coulda swore that was down to communist central planning and rigid birth control. — Vera Mont

The rigid birth control was introduced in the late 1970's, so that was later. Yes, central planning and the "Great Leap" are culprits, but then again you had central planning introduced to East European satellite states and there was no famine there. The China that the Communist got wasn't prosperous. China had famines in 1876-1879, 1901, 1906-1907, 1920-1921, 1928-1930 and then came the famines cause by the Sino-Japanese war / WW2 / Chinese Civil War.

Pfth! — Vera Mont

That comment sums up neatly the ignorance (and arrogance) of what some people, especially Americans, but typically Westerners, have to the agency of other people than themselves, to the views of these other people and their role in their own history. Just pawns or victims of the rich Westerners.

Nothing complex about. Somebody with a big gun comes along, burns their homes, orders them off their land and into the mines, or factories, or cane or cotton or coffee plantations - whatever makes the rich even richer. — Vera Mont

Ah! No complexity, it's all simple.

Did it happen in your own country like that? Who ordered your parents / grandparents or you to work in a mine or factory after burning your home?

You think it happened like that in the countries that made the transition to industrialized countries in the 19th or 20th Centuries?

The evidence of improvements in the charts you posted are pathetic — universeness

Really, is it a pathetic improvement that there hasn't been a famine in China in the last 50 years, but before that there indeed were? (Those who don't know, the largest famine that killed the most people happened in China after WW2) I think the first thing is when poverty is so bad that the survival of people is threatened. Only then comes poverty that excludes people from the "normal" society.

Any improvements made, come from the pressure applied to the elites, from local/national/international and global humanism/socialism. — universeness

Well, those leaders in China still think of themselves as devoted Marxists. When talking of China and India, you aren't talking about the West. Yet there in those two countries the biggest changes have happened.

The following WHO information is a small indication of how much work still has to be done: — universeness

That work has to be done cannot refute the fact that things also have improved. And I myself have already stated that there looms big dangers especially in the Sahel region, but also in the Sub-Saharan Africa in general.

Sadly, despite the small improvements you cite — universeness

You call a billion people going out of absolute poverty a "small improvement"?

I never claimed that the west had the poorest people; I said that making the rich even more rich keeps making the not-rich even less rich. — Vera Mont

Why there a persistent large class of poor people is a complex issue. In poor countries it usually starts from things like the vast majority of people that do work their entire lives don't have access to any kind of reasonable debt, like having a decent mortgage that people in the West enjoy. When jobs available to the vast majority of people covers only the basics (food, living which is usually a rental flat), people cannot get richer through work. Furthermore, the real difficulty is to get from subsistence farming to modern "capitalist" farming: a subsistence farmer has typically been dirt poor in every society, in the East or in the West.

In many, though not all, cases it is the western capitalist investment that co-opts their governments and institutions, and robs entire nations of their resources, their heritage, their autonomy and their health. — Vera Mont

Yet look at the countries that have made it. South Korea, Taiwan, China, Malesia etc. They were drastically poorer earlier, but somehow haven't been robbed by the West. Weak countries are exploited, that is true.

Yes, the post WWII to the Reagan/Thatcher Axis, were a period of liberalism, tolerance, and broadening of vision. In the new Conservative dark age, it's closing in again.
Your notion of poverty is different from mine. — Vera Mont

Post-WWII history in China was a bit different to Western history.

And you seem to look at the West, which in fact doesn't have the poorest people. But this is quite usual. As the West and especially the US hasn't seen a dramatic change in prosperity and in with many indicators Americans are worse off than before, many think that the World has to be too worse off. Because how could have a story that is something else?

Yet all those manufacturing jobs that did leave the West did have an impact in Asia. And many Asian countries did improve their prosperity in the last 50 years. These countries aren't just helpless pawns of the US and the West.

The last 30 years have seen dramatic reductions in global poverty, spurred by strong catch-up growth in developing countries, especially in Asia. By 2015, some 729 million people, 10% of the population, lived under the $1.90 a day poverty line, greatly exceeding the Millennium Development Goal target of halving poverty. From 2012 to 2013, at the peak of global poverty reduction, the global poverty headcount fell by 130 million poor people.

This success story was dominated by China and India. In December 2020, China declared it had eliminated extreme poverty completely. India represents a more recent success story.

That's the positive development, which typically isn't told as it's trendy to be doom-and-gloom and against the current system. Anything positive seems like naive.

Then there are the real problems. As I've stated in another thread, the development in the Sahel looks very bad. We are not only talking about one country, like Somalia, but a whole region, which indeed can see large scale famine and collapse of societies. But to talk only about that and not to acknowledge what positive developments have happened is simply biased. And credit should be given to the countries that have indeed done a remarkable changes in fighting poverty and have improved their economies.

Your notion of poverty is different from mine. — Vera Mont

And what is so wrong to start with the most poorest people in the World?

In Niger it's still not over and the bickering between France and Niger has continued:

1. Niger's military junta wants the French ambassador to talk with the foreign minister of the junta.
2. The French ambassador declines this.
3. The junta shows the door to the ambassador and wants him out.
4. The French decline to send back their ambassador.



Meanwhile ECOWAS says that the possibility of a military intervention is still on the table. The idea of an military intervention is widely not liked (which shows sound judgement as the poor countries are in no position to start a war with Niger, or with more countries). But there are the 1500 French troops in the airport of Niamey, which basically is nearly surrounded by neighborhoods of the Capital.

Let's hope there isn't a spark that causes an ugly incident.

No, they live on a princely $2.15 a day, instead of $1.90. Terrific! — Vera Mont

When you widen the viewpoint to let's say 50 years (1970's to 2020's) or more, the changes have been dramatic. Earlier there were widespread famine in Asia, which isn't anymore. Both China and India have made quite a dramatic change:

First the sign of absolute povetry and very fragile economies: people killed in famines


Then about transition that has happened now. For example India has had a rapid it's GDP per capita in ten years or so:



But someone might argue that the money has all gone to the rich. No, it hasn't. It has had an impact in India on the number of poor people falling:


In China absolute povetry has decline even more:


Half a billion of Chinese not being on the verge of famine and in absolute povetry is something dramatic that shouldn't be just ignored. And if over half of the India people were in absolute povetry in 1981, that being now just one tenth is a huge improvement too.