BS: Direct Action : UK

Subject: RE: BS: Direct Action : UK
From: VirginiaTam
Date: 31 Oct 10 - 12:16 PM

Bonzo

Then it's your position that anything that's not illegal is de facto morally acceptable?

Subject: RE: BS: Direct Action : UK
From: TheSilentOne
Date: 31 Oct 10 - 12:21 PM

Oops! The 12:16 post was by me not VT, she left herself logged in on my PC and I didn't notice I wasn't me (if you know what I mean)!!

Subject: RE: BS: Direct Action : UK
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 31 Oct 10 - 12:43 PM

""I think you are lumping me with the wrong people Don... I am for revolution and I do hate wealthy toffs who have no care for those less fortunate.""

Tam, I specifically said that I don't consider you or CS to be a part of that group, and I agree with all that you say about morally bankrupt rich people who just don't care, but come on, you are far too intelligent to think that all rich people who don't care are ipso facto Tories.

I expect that kind of crap from Richard Bridge, because he is a million miles to the left of Josef Stalin, and can't see past the labels to what's in the can.

There are good, and bad, people on both sides of this argument, and it is the likes of RB who so obscure that fact as to make it impossible to achieve any productive dialogue.

There are good rich people, and there are bad rich people, and whatever RB may think, both good and bad exist within the ranks of New Labour, Libdems and Tories.

It is flawed stereotypical thinking on all sides which prevents them from getting together to make a difference.

Rabid antis (whatever their political stripe) are not part of the solution. They are the whole of the problem.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Direct Action : UK
From: VirginiaTam
Date: 31 Oct 10 - 01:14 PM

Don
I did not mistake what you said when you said you didn't include me with the "rabids." And I didn't say all the rich. I said the rich who....

I agree that morally corrupt rich can be of any political stripe... Cherie Blair comes to mind. If you ask me the new labour under Tony was merely a disguised conservative government. But I believe with all my being that the Tories are more predisposed to that trait. If they really believed that work will get people off the dole, then why don't they invest in education and industry here?

I knew loads of conservatives in the US (hell, I used to be one in my baptist days) who were selfish bigoted bastards. Many of today's politicians are not that different from the Reagan / Thatcher "me first" exclusive preppies of the 1980s.

And I consider myself to be further left than Richard Bridge. I am getting to the point of exasperation where I want their possessions and position removed or I want them sterilised so they can't bequeath their wealth with impunity to a litter of like minded spawn.

That rabid enough for you?

Sorry Don... I like you personally, but I do not agree with you politically.

All politics is about scaring the public into being led, like sheep. It all stinks.

Subject: RE: BS: Direct Action : UK
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 31 Oct 10 - 03:04 PM

Don, I've walked and worked both sides of the street. This assists me to tell right from wrong.

Exploiting the poor to give to the rich is morally unjustifiable. Taking from the rich to give to the poor is often morally justifiable. If the system cannot rectify the ability of the rich to steal from the poor then the system is wrong. The ability of the haves to exploit the have-nots was reduced by the Parliament Acts and the Salisbury convention, but the trend in this country towards increased inequality is incontrovertible proof that there is still a wrong. Remarkably, it is a wrong that you have yourself suffered, yet you seek to support those who disadvantage you.



Bent accountant and bodyfluids - The principle in IRC -v- Westminster is part of the problem.

The duty to contribute to society is not purely a statutory construct. It is the basis of a workable society. Humans are fallible, but the English principles of statutory interpretation and precedent have ossified the ability of governments to collect the taxes that are part of their manifesto commitments. It is thus the avoiders who undermine a participatory democracy.

The place to start would be a tax code built on the principle that it is the duty of the citizen to contribute - reversing IRC -v- Westminster, and greatly widening the principles in IRC v Ramsay (1981) followed by Furniss v. Dawson (1984) and indeed putting such principles on a statutory footing.


In European VAT law the principle of "abuse of right" may be used to neutralise avoidance schemes. http://www.taxbar.com/documents/Abuse_of_Rights_II_WHA_-_the_Elephant_on_Closer_Inspection_HLM.pdf

This should be brought in generally to UK tax law.

Subject: RE: BS: Direct Action : UK
From: akenaton
Date: 31 Oct 10 - 05:33 PM

Neutralising tax avoidance is never going to repair the damage.
For Capitalism to work "satisfactorally" there must be profits for those who invest capital.
Thats why the financial system was de-regulated, to allow profits to be made and generate growth in the economy. The results of the credit boom should have been obvious to everyone, but to a government which required ever increasing amounts of revenue, to finance the war, the unemployed, the incapacitated, a health service creaking at the seams, a bloated public sector and deptments to manage every sort of "minority right" that you could imagine, the credit boom must have seemed like a gift from god.

Capitalism is cyclical, as a nation we can no longer compete in manufacturing or heavy industry, and even if we could the future markets will all be in the underdeveloped East.

No point in turning the discussion into a fight between rich and poor, personalities dont matter, as a capitalist economy we can no longer pay our way, we are no longer viable and are being left to rot.
Such is the M.O. of capitalism

We have the options of following Willie and Don into a future where the ultra rich determine how we behave and how we think, and they will be aided in that by the "liberal classes".....just as todays Liberal party ditched their avowed priciples for a sniff of power.

Or we can start working for the removal of capitalism and its replacement with a more natural society, driven not by greed and financial status, but by the promotion of environmental conservation and real local government.
This option will probably take generations....but I for one could not live out the rest of my days in Don n' Willie's "paradise"

Subject: RE: BS: Direct Action : UK
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 01 Nov 10 - 05:47 AM

Don't follow me anywhere, especially somewhere I was never going...

I never said the system was fair, I never said the rich should determine anything. I just stated that the symbiosis of wealth to fund social obligations fits in with democracy. The idea of "eat the rich" lasts until you have squandered the initial money, then where does it come from?

I am not interested in Osborne's millions he has now, but the ability for those millions today to perpetuate into feeding the economy in the long term. The so called rich cannot eat their money, they have to send it out to work. This then does two things; makes even more money and funds productivity that leads to taxes that leads to a social program.

I said before that the relationship between public and private sector is more important now than before, because we recirculate money rather than make more, as we did when we were a manufacturing nation.

Richard III said above that taking from the poor to give to the rich is not morally justifiable but taking from the rich to give to the poor is. Mmmm... You can't help your "poor" with nice ideas, you help them by raising the bar, and that needs money. The Robin hood idea works in terms of the richer you are the more you pay, and that is taking from the rich and giving to the poor I suppose. I pay 50% tax this year, and have no issue with doing so.

Of course, Richard III's idea that those who pay more also should have less say in how it is spent falls down at the first hurdle.

We are a democracy. My view is as valid as yours, and in my opinion, less dangerous.

This government has to clean up its act, especially with the "all in it together" hostage to fortune the Prime Minister gave himself.   We do need them to follow through their plans to fund the welfare state through closing tax loopholes, taxing the banks more, increasing contributions from richer people and everything else they claim to be wanting to do.

Direct Action? What's the chant? "DO WHAT YOU SAY YOU ARE GOING TO DO! NOT WHAT THE GUARDIAN TELL US YOU ARE!"

I don't support them, I don't agree with much of what they think is going to clear the deficit. in fact I find myself closer to Ed Milliband than I am comfortable with in truth. But whilst demonstrations to remind them of the issues are a good thing, I for one cannot take seriously any alternative to lowering the deficit and putting the country back on an even keel. If we don't the more vulnerable in society will suffer the most.

Subject: RE: BS: Direct Action : UK
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 01 Nov 10 - 08:38 PM

""This option will probably take generations....but I for one could not live out the rest of my days in Don n' Willie's "paradise"!""

You really amuse me Ake.

You say that the change will take generations, then that you couldn't live out your life in our "paradise" (kindly point to the posts in which either Willie or myself called it paradise).

I have some bad news for you. If it takes even half a generation you'll f**king well have to.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Direct Action : UK
From: akenaton
Date: 02 Nov 10 - 05:01 AM

All I ask Don, is that folks start to understand the true nature of capitalism.
Under the fascism which is about to "evolve", such understanding will be "actively discouraged".