Citizens United a slippery slope? Witness the Delaware proposal?
Background:
https://truthout.org/articles/delaware- … s-to-vote/
I know that it is small potatoes right now. But, you know what they say about allowing the elephant's trunk under the tent? Letting the rest of it in can make it quite cramped for the rest of us.
Your thoughts?I'm not sure it makes a difference.
Twelve years ago the Supreme Court allowed Corporations to spend freely to support or oppose candidates for president and Congress.
I wouldn't say things have improved because of that.
Lobbyists cannot outright contribute, but they can offer cushy jobs on Boards, they can give a politician's sons and daughters good paying positions in their corporations, they can fund Investment Institutions owned by family members, etc. etc.
Foreign nations, like China, can do this through China's Corporations and Financial Institutions as well (technically the Chinese government owns all businesses and banking institutions, they are an extension of the CCP's will), and have been doing so since they funded Bill Clinton's run for the Presidency.
They don't need to vote, they just buy off the right politicians or public officials, whether that is at the federal, state, or local level.
Corruption in America today is essentially how political business is done, no money going directly to the politician... but a politician's Non-Profit, or Son, or Sister... well there are no rules against that. Getting a multi-million dollar contract for a book, or a streaming show, or to speak at a gathering, no issues, so long as they are not currently acting as a Senator or President.All that you indicate here is most probably true, but I am not going to make the ultimate concession, allowing a corporate entity to actual cast a vote as a citizen would.
This is the last straw that must be resisted.Ken: "The 1996 Clinton campaign unquestionably was loose and indiscriminate in its fundraising. Even so, everybody knows politicians are not reliable allies, let alone reliable secret agents, of the people whose support they recklessly seek during an election campaign. Mr. Clinton was not a Chinese mole." Wall Street Journal Editorial Board
https://www.wsj.com/articles/china-was- … 1488585526
What China did, what investigations revealed, what conclusions can be drawn are all covered in the article - and several others.
I thought it was the camel's nose you didn't want in the tent. ;-o
Just for kicks, and talking only about the concept (going by the info in your link), this might be a logical conclusion of the read, without the article's added connotations. And before any anti-evil corporation conspiracy points are introduced
A small town wants to allow non-resident business owners to vote in the town's local affairs. This could range from small-town shop owners and service businesses to major manufacturing and financial businesses.
That statement carries the same facts as your link, but without the articles extrapolation to "Bill to Allow Corporations to Vote;"
The article stunk, The bill allows business owners to vote, not the businesses. But there were enough facts to shape the concept.
I understand your point though, and I worry about the reality of letting a camel's nose in where it is not needed or wanted on a lot of stuff too. Without more than your article's info to consider, this does seem like a small potatoes issue being used for self-serving reasons. It is so specific to one small town and its make-up that I don't see this as a slippery slope worry.
A first thought was whether you would be as critical of a similar vote by a NY city/county(?) (cities?) that allowed illegal non-residents to vote in local affairs, but I let it pass.
GAWell, I agree for the most part it is a small and unusual aberration, just as long as it stays that way.
I support One man/One vote.
Yes, it is a camel, but isn't an elephant more appropriate as the symbol of the Republican Party?
-----
"A first thought was whether you would be as critical of a similar vote by a NY city/county(?) (cities?) that allowed illegal non-residents to vote in local affairs, but I let it pass"
---
No, you don't have to let it pass, I have an answer. YES, I would be just as critical and resistant. That one man one vote applies only to American citizens over the age of 18 that are not other wise prohibited as part of the penal system.
There is the line drawn in the sand, no double standards, what is good for goose is good for the gander....Well then you are surely loving the direction the country has gone in the last 20 years.
From corporations being able to donate billions legally to campaigns, to billionaires learning how to impact politics through using non-profits to fund the campaigns of all sorts of State and City officials.
To states like CA skirting federal law and making it legal for "illegals" to vote. The things you essentially say you are against are in some shape or form prevalent in our Nation today.
What do you think you get when we have places that do not require proof of ID to vote, that don't have a honest and reliable means of securing and verifying mail in ballots?
When you open the door for corruption and fraud, that is what you will get, especially when it comes to politics and power.Yes, and I know about corruption from corporate America and the inordinate influence of wealth on how the government is run. I am just determined to deny the plutocrat what I can whenever I can.
I don't buy that all of the sudden in 2020, we have this great problem with ballots, primarily because Trump lost?Changes were made specially for the 2020 election.
Ballots were counted that had no verifiability and lacked secure custody.
One can choose to believe where the opportunity for fraud and corruption was made easy, that it still did not happen...
Or one can wonder what would have happened if all those Mail-In-Ballots were required to be handled and verified by more stringent methods as required by law and regulation in place for every other election prior to 2020.Regardless of irregularies, what makes everyone so certain that Trump would have won? Or,that the magnitude of the vote difference is explained by the irregularities, there needs to be proof for reversing the outcome, definitive proof that I have yet to see. Nobody planned for the COvid and adjustments were necessary in the face of that.
??? But you and your buddy liberals are aiming strong at illegal aliens voting. They already do in some state/local elections; next is federal ones.
Wilderness,
I thought that I said that I oppose this idea. I don't support every left/liberal initiative outhere. Do you support every inane Republican based conspiracy theory; Jewish space lasers?I could well see one might become upset if this were on a Federal level --- but, this bill suggests one owner one vote. I am not sure why this would be a problem for any citizen. Now a law that made it ok for illegal aliens to vote... Hey, some individuals would love that... My friend up is down, down is up.
So basically you can set up an umbrella business with thousands of small "independent" businesses each with a vote.
That's what I call voter fraud and a rigged election.The description indicates it is the business owner that gets the vote, not the business. If there is one owner (the 'umbrella owner) of those businesses then only the umbrella business owner would get a vote, not each individual business entity.
Maybe I read the proposal wrong, but that's how it would be if I didn't. That doesn't look like voter fraud or rigged elections.
GAI was hinting at the fact that a business can be incredibly opaque. If you have 3 McDonalds in one town. Is this 3 votes or 1, who is the owner of McDonalds? If you have a business only in name with a postbox address, does this count? Etc.
It sounds to me like asking for problems.
(your right that I shouldn't have used the word rigged elections, it has become a poisonous word..)My view on this is very biased. I am very familiar with the town of Seaford. It's practically 'local.' It has a few large entities but the lifeblood of the town is small businesses. It is also only 12 minutes from a state line. It is common for folks to work (and own businesses) in Seaford and live in surrounding communities.
To your 3 McDonalds question, they would be franchises of a single franchise territory owner, so it would be only one vote if that owner lived out of town.
This may be viewed as the 'thinnest edge of the edge of the wedge by UK thinking (per nathonville's explanations), but I don't think it is the problem worriers say it could be. It's one small town dealing with its own internal business.
A similar view can be seen in the mentioned NY city that voted to allow non-resident immigrants (as in illegal immigrants or green card card holders) to vote in their city elections. That sounds like anathema to a conservative but I don't have a problem with it. It's a local society making rules for itself only. That should be their business as long as their efforts aren't illegal — and that decision wasn't. Just as Seaford's wasn't.
GAThanks GA for your view.. To me it sounds as if the voting system is becoming more and more complicated in the US.
And I wonder why the voting system is not everywhere the same.
A business can vote in Seaford, but some prisoners can't vote at all?
Can I vote for my dog if it lives in Seaford all year round (to gaurd the business) and I'm not?
Where do you draw the line?
Shouldn't we make the voting system as simple and transparent as possible?
Fortunately, Peter this thing is to remain local, (very local) not anything that can be supported on a larger scale.
Don't you think that this case can be used in court as an example for larger cities to follow? And knowing that the supreme court is more and more politically active, couldn't it be that Las Vegas for example could do the same. Imagine that.
I do imagine it, that is why I brought up the topic because of my concern that this small example might go viral and become an infestation, instead
Rightwing oriented courts will continue to befuddle the issue making us all think that we deny corporations their right to participate in the process.I think your concern is justified as the Supreme Court is making more and more political decisions.
"Though a business owner living in Seaford wouldn’t be allowed to vote in a local election twice, a business owner who resides out of town would be allowed to cast a vote"
What I see is simply person (one vote) would have the right to
vote in local elections. The right to have a voice in the community they have set up a business in, and pay taxes in.
Delaware does not have a state or local sales tax. Delaware does, however, have an annual business license requirement, as well as a gross receipts tax that is imposed on the seller of goods or provider of services.
So is it not somewhat fair that they vote on issues that might affect their business and their livelihood? Smar goes for where they live. They yes have the responsibility and right to vote on what goes on and could affect them in their community.
Perhaps if one does not want to feel cramped move where there are no business owner's rights to consider. I always feel so pleased when I see a business open in my community, pleased to have great services and options for consumer choice. I look at it this way if they have opened up shop in my community, they are part of it --- yes, they should have the right to vote.
Please explain this statement. I am sure I am not understanding your thought.
"Letting the rest of it in can make it quite cramped for the rest of us."What I meant by that is I don't like the idea of business entities claiming a right to vote that is reserved solely for individuals. Corporate power and wealth has far too much influence in our government affairs already. And while the article talks about this local application, I want to be sure that it stays that way. A bad idea on a small scale cannot be expanded on a larger one.
Good luck with that. Why do you feel it is a bad idea on a smaller scale? Not sure what you mean by exspanded on a larger scale.
I should correct myself, it may work in the little hamlet.
Can I see within the age of Citizens United an idea of corporate entities placing votes more than once or in areas where they are not residents? It may be far fetched, and perhaps it is? But I am a strict stickler for one man, one vote. In my world, there is no place for any undue advantages at the ballot box.So, you say (and I agree) one man one vote. I can even understand your fear, but are we still not a democracy? Would the citizens of a small town or a big city not have the option to vote their representatives out of office if THEY themselves were dissatisfied with any laws they might host on them?
This is my problem, I feel the citizens of a city, state, or Nation vote, and a majority have their way. Maybe, a large city like New York would not consider letting business owners have a vote if they did not live there. But a smaller city might grasp the idea. Democracy provides us all to vote on what we hope to see in our communities.My point, Sharlee, is that that majority is to be comprised of people, not corporate entities that can place a vote wherever that have a branch or location. I don't give corporate power nor its interests any quarter.
This idea is only tolerated by the left on a very, very small scale, don't ever suggest it for anything larger. I don't want corporate entities replacing my vote in violation of the one man/one vote principle.Last I knew corporations were headed up by human beings.
You may not give Corporations power, but they are what keep this nation up and running...
I can't imagine the world you see, how do people feed themselves, and pay their heat bills?
You ignored the point of my comment --- one man one vote --- if citizens don't care for the set up vote out their reps. Democracy is at its best.
Without corporations, we would be floundering without a tax base. Period
Oh yes, I know many don't feel they pay their fair share, but just imagine if - Poof they disappeared. I always need to shake my head at the thought of blaming big business for many of our problems.I don't give wealth, corporate or otherwise, excessive power in Washington through their lobbies their inordinate influence in Government, nor having our politicians for sale.
I was watching this History channel thing about the titans that built America and saw how J.P Morgan, Rockerfeller and Carnegie expected to buy politicians to vote against unions, not want oversight over activities that have been found to be exploitive and still with all the gall, attempt to bribe Theodore Roosevelt from his crusades against the "trusts". They are no different today, they will run off with the store if you let them.
I would have to say that Theodore Roosevelt would have been the last Republican Presidential nominee that I could vote for and it takes 120 years.
In principle I do oppose Corporations having votes in such elections; and in the UK (unlike the USA) Corporations/Businesses sponsorship of political parties is very restricted and limited, specifically to reduce the risk of politicians being under the control of Corporations – So in the UK Businesses don’t have the same level of influence over politicians as in the USA, in fact in the UK Businesses level of influence in politics is thankfully very minimal, and if anything almost non-existent.
Nevertheless, your forum does remind me of the ‘City of London’; not to be confused with the city called London e.g. the City of London is just one square mile (the financial centre of the world), within a city called London. The City of London has a population of about 11,000 people; whereas the city called London is much bigger and has a population of almost 9 million.
In the city of London, it is corporations who have most votes in elections; as explained in this short video: https://youtu.be/z1ROpIKZe-cAmerica is not as Civil as English Society, the power that oligarchs and plutocrats wield over the machinery of our government has always been far too excessive in my opinion. These people, out of human nature, can only operate from a platform of greed and self interest which is usually contrary to the desires of the masses.
Thanks for example provided in your video. Fortunately, the experiment in Delaware is small in scale and scope, but I don't want the thinking to go beyond this under any circumstances."What is supposed to happen in a democracy is that each sovereign citizen will always vote in the public interest for the safety and welfare of all. But what does happen is that he votes his own self-interest as he sees it… which for the majority translates as ‘Bread and Circuses.’ 'Bread and Circuses’ is the cancer of democracy, the fatal disease for which there is no cure.
For when the plebs discover that they can vote themselves bread and circuses without limit and that the productive members of the body politic cannot stop them, they will do so, until the state bleeds to death, or in its weakened condition the state succumbs to an invader—the barbarians enter Rome."
Greed and self interest is hardly limited to oligarchs and plutocrats. It is what keeps pork barrel spending alive and well - the greed of forcing others to buy what we want but don't want to pay for. The greed of forever declaring that it is "fair" somehow for anyone with more than we have to give it to us (soak the rich for taxes, for instance, because it is "fair" that they pay more).
It is not the greed of those oligarchs that is destroying the US economy; it is the greed of the man in the street demanding more than he can afford.There is that old refrain again "Bread and Circuses" clinging to conservatives like a cheap suit.
Democracy is what we have been playing at for almost 250 years. Everybody votes for their self interest, who doesn't? Right now I see more concentrated wealth and stark inequity than ever before, so the plutocrat is not losing any ground, is he? When have they ever really loss to the masses that conservatives berate?
When over 250 years have the plebs voted themselves bread and circuses without limit? One would have thought that if this were possible it would have been accomplished long ago.
Progressive taxation is the reality in the overwhelming majority of nations around the world that impose an income tax, how is it that you know so much more than their collective experience?
How many things do I have to buy that I don't want to pay for out of federal budget, do I get a say? The people and the majority decide what that is and isn't, so 19th century thinking is not going to change anything.
The man on the street is not lobbying and buying influence in our legislature, the man in the street can't corrupt our legislators with bribes and influence peddling from "big money".You should give his comment some more thought.
You are right about the phrase being almost a [C]onservative mantra. But that doesn't mean it is the cheap suit you see, maybe it's a truth that has been demonstrated in, probably, almost every democratic society since the times of the phrase's origin.
With 'Bread and circuses' understood to mean voters voting for things they want rather than for things they need, or politicians offering distractions instead of focus.
Hopefully you can agree with that, history does.
Look where that voting power has gotten us. Consider the expansion of government, and its programs. Consider the voting power the politicians hold. Consider the great economic divide you mention.
Then consider your personal life-long view of politics and the expansion of the government, partisan political power, and welfare (all of the varieties for big and small) programs in just the last 40 years.
Then start with that Roman guy who started the thing and consider whatever historical political periods that pop to mind from then to now.
Yep, unless you think the above is wrong, a second look might read differently.
GAThat is Unless you are attacking the social- democratic states in Europe that seem to be running well. And I don't necessarily see it as that is a bad thing regardless of the fact that is America is far from the nature of those governments.
GA, everybody votes for what they want, conservatives do as well. Would I vote for something that I do not want? All of that altruistic stuff depends on from what side of the fence you advocate. Politicians offer whatever they need to to get the votes to stay in office. When has it ever been otherwise? I simply don't see this society as being overrun by the plebs as Wilderness suggests.
Of course the Government has grown, this is not George Washington's cabinet. Things change and conservatives never seem to acknowledge that. With more people, life gets more complicated. But again, I am dealing with you, a fixture of the early 20th century who takes issue with FDR and the New Deal? The provisions of which may very well have saved this country from its own undoing.
Yes, government expands, we now have a Cabinet level office called Homeland Security, was it not necessary after the 9-11 attacks? We have almost a trillion dollar defense budget, conservatives don't seem to take issue with that. For conservative some sources of growth are acceptable, while others are not, that is disengenuous for me, anyway.
After talking to Arthur from England and admiring the balance between the power of government, industry and voices of the people, I am going to have a hard time taking conservatives' gripes here in America seriously."Would I vote for something that I do not want?"
Do you remember the quote "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"? That's supporting something you don't want.
I would not vote for a cancellation of college loans even though my loved ones would benefit. Again, something I would want but would vote against for it is not in the best interests of the country.
I would close our borders tight, leaving those people on the other side to fend for themselves. Not something that is palatable but the alternative is to further the destruction of our country and I would vote for it.
I can think of a hundred things I wouldn't want but would vote for anyway. Gay marriage comes to mind as does abortion (to a point). Expansion of our foster care system. A real effort to help drug addicts at least once in their lifetime. More money into prison reform in an effort to truly rehabilitate. The list is long, but that's what it means to vote for the needs of the country rather than what I personally want to see.
"For conservative some sources of growth are acceptable, while others are not, that is disengenuous for me, anyway."
Here I find you correct. Conservatives, as a group (I believe, anyway) have no trouble with growth...when the needs of the country rather than individuals grows. The military, for instance, rather than virtually unlimited growth of the welfare system - one protects the country while the other feeds the individual. Conservatives do not (I believe) find that the Great Father in Washington is responsible for fulfilling all their needs; you do.Yes, I remember the quote, but there is a difference in what you have the right to say verses what I have the right to vote for, is that correct?
I bailed out the banking industry in 2008, which were complicit in creating their own problems. I went along with it out of fear of an economic collapse. The last thing I would want to do is use the treasury to line the pockets of rich people and corporate types.
The military is profligately wasteful in my opinion from a stretegic point of view. It is not for the country but for the military contractors. I say the people come first, and I know that is contrary to hidebound conservatives values.
There are things that I support that I see will benefit masses, even if it does not benefit me directly.
I pay for mill levy increases for funding of public schools, i don't directly benefit, but someone paid to allow me to go to school. The reality is there are many sorts of instances like this. It is a magnimous point of view that I don't suspect could be absorbed by a conservative mindset.
All your desires for the country are not so noble, I have some that simply are different and I see benefit from another point of view alien to a rightwinged mind.
Unlimited growth for neither the military or the welfare system is desirable. But, there is a role in government for the betterment of the lives of the people that it serves and not just be committed to lining pockets of military contractors. But, I don't expect you to understand that.
That is ok, we agree to disagree.You have a right to both say anything you wish and vote for anything you wish. The point, which I'm sure you got, was that the speaker did not agree with what was being said but supported the right to say it anyway. He would have voted for that right even though he disagreed.
Then your list of things shows that you DO vote for things you don't want. Good for you; that was the point of the quotation that you so disagree with, indicating that everyone only votes for themselves and their personal wants.
Unfortunately, the "bread and circus" mentality has become so common that the needs of the nation are left behind. Just as you say, for you do not find military expenditures necessary, and the wants and luxuries of the individuals take priority over such country wide needs.
Which is what the quote said. The plebes (meaning the vast majority of the people) find they can vote themselves goodies and do so with a will, to the point that the needs of the country go unmet. (Is our infrastructure in good condition? Are we paying to fix it or putting the cost on our children?) And if allowed to continue WILL cause the demise of the country. That the country will fail has been shown through history; when the wants are prioritized over needs troubles grow rather than die away.
Without checking, wasn't it Paris that just had riots over raising the retirement age...because the needs of the country came first and they didn't like that? This is exactly what is being discussed. Hasn't Greece had the same problem, with people demanding the govt. support their wants...without considering that Greece must come first if it is to survive?
These kinds of things are symptomatic of the meaning of that quote; people put their wants (or "needs" if they don't provide them themselves) ahead of the country. And when that grows too far (as it will, for people don't care, believing their wants are more important than those of other people) the country is in trouble.
"Everybody votes for their self interest, who doesn't?"
Thank you. That is exactly what the quote says, followed by an observation that it will be the death of every true democracy. And it will - I personally believe that we are teetering on the edge of collapse because of that very thing; people voting for themselves rather than the country.
"When over 250 years have the plebs voted themselves bread and circuses without limit?"
Consider that over half of our voters contribute nothing to the needs of our country, instead using that country to provide for them and ask the question again.
"The people and the majority decide what that is and isn't, so 19th century thinking is not going to change anything."
Again, you reinforce the quotation, for you DO understand what is happening. You just don't see a problem with it, and support that the government take the place of personal responsibility.So what is unraveling in your opinion? I don't see a cause for alarm, it is a conservative hangup and gripe.
"People voting for themselves rather than for the country." So what is voting for the country? That too, is subject to interpretation. What I consider is good for the country is different from your point of view. So, nevermind your absolutes because there isn't any.
What do you mean half the voters contribute nothing? That is an exaggeration.
So I am going to let the handful of plutocrats rule over the masses, if you think that I will give any consideration to that, you have another thing coming.
There are plenty of democracies in Europe and they are doing just fine, better than we are in many ways. So, the sky is not falling, Wilderness.
Yes, its what we would call "The thin edge of the wedge" in Britain; something to be wary of and monitor, and discourage where/when possible.
From what I read about you, you are doing a good job. The trials and tribulations of the Royals is still news around here.
The headlines in the British news at the moment about the Royals is King Charles dictate last winter for the heading at Buckingham Palace to be turned down to cut carbon dioxide emissions, and to save money!
Details released this week shows that, on the orders of King Charles the thermostats over winter for occupied rooms in Buckingham Palace were lowered to just 19C (66F), and unoccupied rooms at only 16C (60).
I don’t know about you but that would be far too cold for me; I did lower our thermostat this year down to 20C (68F) in the mornings and 21C (70F) in the afternoon, and that was as low as I could tolerate.
The cost of keeping the Royal Family works out to about £0.77 ($0.97) per person per year; which I, and most Brits, think is a fair price to keep the Royal family; although this year the Royal family have had to dig deep into their own pockets to pay their expenses, because of rising costs.
Over the last year the Royal Family has cost £107.5 million ($135 million), while the tax payer money (from the Government) to pay for the Royal Family was only £86.3 million ($109 million), and the Royal's own income from rents was only £9.8 million ($12 million); leaving the Royal family having to pay £20.7 million ($26 million) towards their own costs from their own pockets.
https://news.sky.com/story/heating-at-b … y-12911409I think that the people of Britain have a small price today for maintenance of an institution almost a millennia old.
The stuff and the controversy surrounding Megan and Harry is stuff for the tabloids and questions as to how the Brits see this stuff is probably suited for another forum. But I cannot help but to wonder.
In our household, we start whining around here when the temps drop below 70. Well, it looks like your new King is willing to walk the talk. That is more than I can say about what passes for leadership here in America.
You want a perfect climate, visit Hawaii sometime....Yep, I agree, the tabloids controversy surrounding Megan and Prince Harry is stuff for another forum; so I’ll just make a short comment in passing: Namely, Megan and Prince Harry were hounded by the British Paparazzi (and British tabloids) when they lived in Britain, just like Prince Harry’s mother was hounded by the French Paparazzi, that led to her death; that’s one of the main reasons Megan and Prince Harry left Britain to live in America.
As far as the British Public is concerned; it’s a generational thing e.g. the older generations tend to be Royalists, and the younger generations tend not to be. So Prince William will have his hands full in trying to reach out to the younger generation and make himself more appealing to them.
Yep, climate wise, Hawaii sounds very appealing.From the other side of the pond, the late Princess Diana really globalize the appeal of the British royals. Old or young, the cost is so low per person, I don't simply don't understand why there is any controversy.
From this side of the pond it appears that Meghan and Harry are incessant whiners.Yes, the late Princess Diana was popular with all in Britain, and if she was Queen now, the popularity of the Royal Family with the younger generation (and all) would almost certainly be much greater; albeit it’s only in recent years (since 2019) that support for the Royal Family from the younger generation in Britain has waned.
Yeah, Meghan and Prince Harry come across as a bit of a ‘incessant whiners’ on this side of the pond too; but there is most defiantly a rift in the Royal family between Prince Harry and Prince Andrew on the one hand, and King Charles (and before him, the Queen), which is causing friction and bad publicity that puts the Royal family in a poor light in the eyes of the younger generation.
This summery (link below) from YouGov explains in greater detail: YouGov is a British pollster Company that has a good reputation for reliability e.g. their opinion polls tend to be accurate to within + or – 2%.
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/ar … s-monarchyThanks, Arthur, I was stepping lightly as to not offend in an area outside of my purview. We are see them in the same light. Thanks for the link.
No problem, and thanks. I'm not a staunch royalist, but I'm not anti-royalist either; so whatever your views I don't think you would offend!
I don't understand why you are okay with giving money to one of the richest families on earth. They earn about $150 million USD a year....
A family that does not have to pay taxes just because.... it's royal..
I think a country can easily do without a king or queen, many countries do.
Why not for a change would the Royal Family give money to you, just because you are called Nathan?
The Royal family is the symbolization of the class system. If you ever want to get rid of this class system you should start with the royal family first.
Harry and Megan are heroes in that respect.Yes, but in an earlier thread you argued for governmental subsidies for the type of music that you care for.
I could easily argue that a country could live without that kind of music. Many do.
I think the reason that they continue with that royal family is the same reason you justified the government supporting music festivals like Carnaval: tourism. Nathanville pointed out the tiny amount of money it takes each Brit to support the royal family each year, and if you look at that amount and compare it to tourism I am sure they can justify it. (Of course none of us, including the royalists, can say how much of that tourism is BECAUSE of the royal family.)No these are different things Mark.
the people who live and work within the cultural sector is huge. Millions of people are directly or indirectly involved in culture industry and have their profession in it.
TV, Movies, Graphic design, industrial design, architecture, product design, music industry, theater, gaming industry. photography, arts, therapeutic arts, clothing design, car design, etc. It is HUGE.
This is not comparable with one family.You see them as a different thing. I think that the best government is one that governs, and interferes with lives, least. That includes interfering in culture, products, music, etc. That includes royal families that really are just used for tourism purposes.
Should they get rid of them? I think so, but then again I do not think governements should be paying for music festivals.As said they are different things.
One is giving money through tax to one family (directly), and the other is giving money through taxes to millions of families (indirectly)
A government has to interfere, what else is a government for? It interferes with your life by making laws.
If you want to live in a society without government. That's called anarchism. Which is possible in small towns. But to organize a country I don't think anarchism will work.That familiy is made up of government-supported tourist draws, which you have supported in the past. Whether or not you choose to see that is up to you.
Giving that 95 pence to millions of families does not draw foreign tourists.
As per your last point, that is opposed to living in a society where government dominates and interferes in your life? That is called facism, and also liberalism, which are two facets of the same thing.
I do not want a government that interferes. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is what the government was all about in the US prior to the decline of the late 20th century.No, a government makes laws. Laws that are the structure of a society.
For example, traffic laws are made by the government. Green light you go, red light you stop.
If there were no traffic laws as you want, you will have chaos and lots of accidents.
There is a whole range of different governments. From no laws Anarchism to millions of laws Dictatorship.
To say no governmental interference is wanting Anarchism as a governmental "structure".
And tourism comes to countries without a royal family too!
Most tourists go to a foreign country because of its nature or its culture, but not to see a royal family.Not sure who you are addresssing here but if you are replying to me I am not sure where you are inventing my comment about not wanting traffic laws. I also did not say anything about defunding the police or other leftist drivel.
I said the government that governs best governs least. I did not say that a government should not govern at all."I said the government that governs best governs least. I did not say that a government should not govern at all."
I could not agree more... I really feel America is waking up to that fact, after having a small taste of the Biden administration, and its heavy hand at dictating and attempting to impinge on citizens' lives.
Is Joe Biden's Approval Rating Getting Even Worse? Here's What Polls Show https://www.newsweek.com/joe-bidens-app … ow-1810691
Right now polls are becoming even worse for Biden, even after the Trump indictment.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epoll … -7320.html
People are taking note of this administrations not only ideologies but poor results in maintaining the Nation.I was answering to your sentence. "I do not want a government that interferes."
And as traffic laws are made by the government I just wanted to say that the government is always interfering if you want it or not.
I agree with you if you say that a government that governs best governs least.
Defunding police? I didn't mention that at all. (didn't even think about that one when writing the comment)
I think we simply disagree on where the government should interfere.
Do you want a government that subsidizes agriculture or culture?
Do you want to spend the government budget on the military or education? etc.etc..Do I want a government that takes away wages from the workers to give it to the sugar and corn industry, so that they can make high fructose corn syrup and poison the workers? No.
Do I want a government that chooses what is culture and gives their chosen ones a subsidy, all the while refusing to give to others. No, I do not elect a government to interfere in that.
Should children have access to education? Certainly. Do I think that the government has to subsidize universities to pay for their swimming pools and entertainment centers? No, that is not what government should be for.Exactly. In other words. It's not about the interference of the government. But the kind of interference.
And in this I guess there are a million different answers.Yes, you are right in that there is going to be interference, but I think it needs to be as minimal as possible. For example, I went to a very simple public university for undergrad, and since that time they have added things like a game center, a sports area, an indoor swim-activity center, etc. None of that is going to help kids learn more in university, but it does all cost the taxpayers.
For clarity, while I am not a staunch royalist, I’m not anti-royal either. The Royal Family is part of our heritage going back almost a millennium, and part of what makes us British.
The cost of the Royal Family to the taxpayers is just a little over $100 million per year (less than a $ per person per year); a drop in the ocean in government expenditure – which I think is a price well worth paying, when you consider all the charity work the Royal Family does, and the fact that the Royal Family are Ambassadors to Britain, bringing in ‘Trade’ and ‘Tourism’. An interesting twist of events is that the money used to fund the royal family doesn’t actually come from taxpayer’s pockets, these days it comes from the leases of the seabed that windfarms have to pay to the royal family, of which the government takes about 75% in tax, and allow the royal family to keep the remaining 25%; and it’s from the 75% that the government takes that they then give back to the royal family as a grant to cover their expenses!
True, individual members of the Royal Family don’t have to pay taxes, but some members of the Royal Family do choose to voluntarily pay some taxes (the Queen did); and if you’ve been following the news, earlier this year King Charles donated £1 billion ($1.27 billion) from his profits in six new wind farms that came on-line this summer, with a request that it be spent on helping to ease the cost-of-living burden for the ordinary citizens of the UK.
King Charles to divert Crown Estate windfall from New Windfarms to use for the ‘Public Good’: https://youtu.be/lU_ADCJq4fQ
I may be a socialist, but I have no desire to get rid of the ‘class system’ in Britain. In Britain, it doesn’t tend to be the elite (upper-class) that looks down on the lower classes; many are quite sympathetic towards the poor and underprivileged. It tends to be elements of the ‘middle classes’ who look down on the working classes (snobs); especially many (but not all) of those who themselves originally came from the working class. In contrast to the snobs, although I’m middle class, I am proud of my working class heritage.Hi Nathan, my remark was perhaps a bit crude, sorry about that, but I think the royal family is simply something archaic and from the past. So I was a bit surprised that you as a socialist had no problem with the UK having a Royal Family.
What makes us British.... I guess that must be "what makes us English." I'm sure the Scots won't support the Royal Family.
Some do voluntarily pay tax. But they don't say how much. This can be a symbolic $750 like Trump, just to say they do.
Tourism would also come to the UK if it wasn't a kingdom.
There are so many reasons not to support this old-fashioned idea.
I think that being a socialist and being okay with the class system bites. Isn't socialism about giving everybody the same chances and the same rights? In a class system, you will never have that. It's the Upper class ruling the working and lower class with the middle class (rapidly disappearing) swimming in between.
It's the upper class that created a system where the working class will never reach the top. (It's an exception when a person from the working class can study at top-notch universities. And how many working-class people are in Parliament and the house of "Lords"...and positions of power? Isn't it simply the good ol' boys network that rules the country..)
What you see in the last years in the West is that the gap between the poor and the super-rich is becoming wider and wider.
By the way, my personal hunch is that the reason why the UK and India found each other is because Inda has a class (caste) system too. They understood each other. If you are born in the lower class you will always be that way. That's what people are told. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy.
I just watched an interesting documentary on Netflix the other night.
called "97% Owned: The Money System". incredibly interesting where they explained how money is made and how the financial system works.
And why the rich are becoming richer and the poor just stay poor.
Basically, 97% of the money supply is created by private banks through the process of lending. Money made out of thin air...
I saw it is on youtube as well. Well worth watching. Mind-blowing as they say...
97% Owned: The Money System | Documentary FilmYeah, much of what you say is fair point. I’ve only glanced at the video (from your link) at the moment, as it’s a long video and I’ve got a busy day ahead of me; but I shall try to find time later (when I’m less busy) to watch more of it.
Yeah, I guess it should seem a little odd that a socialist like me isn’t anti-royalist nor anti-class - but then I am also a ‘traditionalist’, having a fascinating for and interest in historic things and British heritage; which feeds into my interest in genealogy.
If it was in a country like America, then I would probably feel different; but in Britain the class system itself (these days) doesn’t supress the working class, and neither do the elite per se – To elaborate on that statement:-
Under the British system the working class do have the opportunities to get a good education, go to university if they wish, get a good job and become middle class. And although in England & Wales, since the mid-1990s you have to take out a student loan to pay the university fees; you don’t have to pay that loan back until/unless you get a highly paid job – If after university you only get a job with national average wages, then your university debt (which you never pay a penny of, is written off when you retire).
As a socialist I would much prefer the Scottish system, where university is free for all, but at least in England you are not saddled with university debts that you can’t pay; my wife went to university as an adult student, and she never paid a penny of her university loan, and it was written off when she retired. Likewise, our son also went to university over 10 years ago, and he hasn’t paid a penny off his university student loan.
Although yes, you make a valid point, getting into the top-notch universities, Oxford and Cambridge, is tough, and predominantly it does tend to be children from privileged families that get into Oxford and Cambridge. Only 11.5% of children from working class families get into Oxford, and just 12.6% into Cambridge.
Yeah, you’re absolutely right, when I say British I mean English; and I am fully aware of the Scots distaste of the English, and I fully support the Scots views and wishes.
Yep, likewise, with Parliament, few politicians are from working class, in the House of Commons its just 5% of MPs (1% of Conservative MPs); and even fewer in the House of Lords. But that doesn’t stop the peers in the House of Lords looking out for the interests of the poor; a prime example being in 2012 when the Conservative Government wanted to slash Welfare Benefits by £12 billion ($15 billion), which would have adversely affected the poor and unemployed; but repeatedly the House of Lords blocked the Bill, and eventually David Cameron (then Conservative Prime Minister) opted to drop his proposals to slash Welfare Benefits so as to not cause a ‘Constitutional Crisis’).
All that being said, yeah, pre-war, and for millennia before that, it was very much a class system where the working class (peasants) could hardly ever reach the top; but not so much post WWII – times have changed. A few simple examples:-
1. I came from a poor working class background, but ended up middle class.
2. Lord Alan Sugar came from a working class family who lived in a Council House (Social housing for poor families, built and owned by local government); yet Lord Alan Sugar is now a successful multibillionaire, a Labour (socialist) supporter since 1997, and one of its largest donors, and a Labour politician (peer) in the House of Lords from 2009 until 2015.
3. Sadiq Khan, elected Mayor of London, also came from a working class family who lived in a Council House (Social Housing owned by local government).
So the class system is not set in stone in Britain, people can move up through the classes, and equally down if they fall on hard times; but the important thing is, is that if you do fall on hard times in Britain the Welfare State (set up by a Socialist government in 1948) is there as a safety net.
Where you raise the question, or make the statement:
“Isn't socialism about giving everybody the same chances and the same rights? In a class system, you will never have that.”
It’s a good question; and I had to have a coffee break to think about it, to gather my thoughts.
In Britain, in this day and age, I don’t think socialism is all about “giving everybody the same chances and the same rights per se. It’s more about ensuring everyone are given the opportunities and equal rights; and ensuring that the under privileged, the poor and unemployed, have security of the basics (by modern standards) e.g. a roof over their heads, food, are able to pay their bills, and can afford the basic amenities such as TV, Internet and smart phone etc. It could be summed up in one word; a system that is ‘equitable’ e.g. fair and impartial.
And in Britain those conditions are generally met e.g. anyone of any age and of any social class have the opportunities to go back to college, and onto university if they wish, to get qualifications for better job opportunities. A prime example of that is a close friend of ours, across the street from us, a single unemployed mum who was living on social benefits. Back in the mid 1990’s she and my wife decided they would go back to college for a couple of years to get the necessary qualifications to get into university, and then they both went to university for three years together to graduate with a BA in Business Administration with Hon. Having graduated from university, the single unemployed mum came off social benefits and became a freelance accountant; and is now middle class.
If the class system in Britain was more like the Indian class system e.g. where your caste is set in stone for life, then yes I would feel more radical; but in the UK the poor and unemployed are generally catered for, and there are opportunities for you to better yourself regardless to your social class; so in the UK socialism does work within the class system.
Have I answered your question, or have I raised more questions than answers?Hi Nathan, nice to read your personal story and view. With this discussion, the difference in opinion is in the details.
My wife is a Londoner, and it's interesting to see her ingrained feelings toward class. She knows almost before she's spoken with someone from which class she/he comes.
Class is perhaps even more characteristic for the UK society than the Royal Family.
Something similar is/was happening in The Netherlands. You wouldn't think so but The Netherlands is a pretty religious country. And up to the '90 The Netherlands had a class system too. But the class system was built upon religion.
If you were Catholic you had your catholic newspaper, you watch your catholic broadcasting network, you went to a catholic school, you went to a catholic soccer club you voted on the Catholic Party
Same for reformed. You read your reformed newspaper, watched the reformed broadcasting network, you vote for the reformed party.
Same for Evangalic...
Same for Socialistic
And I know, even before somebody has spoken to me that this person is catholic, pentecostal church, socialistic, reformed, atheistic, Lutheran etc.
(I'm exaggerating a bit of course, but it is close.)
At the moment there are 16 parties present in the Dutch parliament.
CDA - Christian Party - 15 seats - center right
PvdA -Labour Party - 9 seats - center left
SP- Socialist Party - 9 seats - left
VVD- Liberal Party - 34 seats - right
Green Party - 8 seats - left
PVV- Popular Party - 17 seats - right
Christian Union - 5 seats - right
Democrats 66 - 24 seats - center right
Reformed Party - 3 seats - right
Animal rights party - 6 seats - left
50+- 1 seat - right
DENK (Split form labour) - 3 seats - center
Volt (Pan European party) - 3 seats . center right
Forum for Democratie - 8 seats - extreme right
JA21 - 1 seat - extreme right
Bij1 - 1 seat - progresive left.
The advantage is that a government always has to make a coalition. And you will never have a ruling party dictating the policies. Parties always have to negotiate with other parties..
The government always needs a majority of 76 seats. (there are 150 seats in total)
At the moment the government exits out of :
VVD - Liberal Party, Democrats 66, Christian Party and Christian Union. So a right-wing coalition.
Bit by bit the class system is changing too, but it is still there.
I guess every country has its own structure.Thanks for your comprehensive and detailed feedback Peter.
The class system, based on religion, you describe for the Netherlands is very much like the divisions in Northern Ireland, even to the point where the Catholic and Protestant communities are separated by ‘Peace Walls’ – and you can easily tell when you’re driving through a Protestant area in Northern Ireland because every road and every house in those areas are adorned with bunting of the British flag.
Northern Ireland's 'Peace Walls’ https://youtu.be/rdKOKrEAmSI
I do envy your political system of coalition governments; it would benefit British politics. We did have a chance of that in 2011 in a referendum for ‘Proportion Representation’, but the stupid British public voted 67.9% against it??? - But maybe next time.
But in spite of our antiquated ‘first past the post’ voting system as least coalitions are common in local government elections. For example in my local government (Bristol) there are 70 seats, so 36 are needed for control; and currently each political party in the Bristol local government (local Council) have seats as follows:-
• Green = 25
• Labour = 24
• Conservatives = 14
• Liberal Democrats = 5
• Local Residence Community Party = 2
Therefore in Bristol at the moment we have a coalition local government of Greens and Labour; which works well.
Interestingly, when you look at the results for Bristol Local Government, only 20% of Bristolians have voted for right-wing politics (Conservatives); which tells you something about us Bristolians.
ArthurYes, I think Bristol is a pretty good place to live. Just read that the Dutch government fell. New elections will be in November. With the rise of the extreme right in The Netherlands, I have doubts if the outcome will be favourable to fight the Climate Crisis.
As the climate crisis is the biggest challenge for all countries. But I'm afraid the majority of the politicians don't have the gutts or don't understand the threat of climate change and hardly take any action.Thanks, yes, Bristol is a good place to live; it’s always been a socialist stronghold all my life, and increasingly Labour is coming under threat from the Greens e.g. the Greens are increasing their vote share and gradually taking more and more local government seats from the Labour, with the threat that they may be a strong contender against Labour in the next General Election – But both are socialist parties, and both parties work together well anyway, so either way I don’t mind.
Yes, with the Netherlands moving more to the right; that will certainly be more of a threat to the Climate Crisis.
Although, on a positive note; all the indications strongly point to the UK is moving in the opposite direction to the Netherlands, and steadily moving towards socialism. And interestingly, there’s been a strong surge in the Green vote in the UK in elections in recent years.
Latest Voting Intention in the Next UK General Election (Due within the next 18 months).
YouGov Opinion Poll, taken 6th July 2023:
YouGov has a good reputation of being accurate to within + or - 2%
• Labour = 47%
• Conservative = 22%
Some of the breakdown of the details from that Opinion Poll:-
Conservative voters in 2019 General Election:
• 56% intend to vote Conservative again, at the next General Election
• 17% intend to vote Labour
• 4% intend to vote Liberal Democrat
• 1% intend to vote Green
• 20% intend voting for other political parties.
Labour voters in 2019 General Election:
• 84% intend to vote Labour again.
• 9% intend to vote Green.
• 2% intend to vote Liberal Democrats
• 1% intends to vote Plaid Cymru (Welsh National Party/socialism)
• 1% intends to vote Conservative.
• 3% intend voting for other political parties
Liberal Democrat voters in 2019 General Election:
• 48% intend to vote Liberal Democrats again.
• 38% intend to vote Labour.
• 9% intend to vote Green.
• 3% intend to vote Conservative.
• 1% intends to vote for other political parties
With Regards to Class:
MIDDLE CLASS
• 49% of Middle Class intend voting Labour at the next General Election.
• 21% intend to vote Conservative.
• 10% intend to vote Liberal Democrats.
• 6% intend to vote Green.
• 3% intend to vote SNP (Scottish National Party/socialism)
• 1% intends to vote Plaid Cymru (Welsh National Party/socialism)
• 9% intend to vote for other political parties.
WORKING CLASS
• 43% of the Working Class intend voting Labour at the next General Election.
• 25% intend to vote Conservative.
• 8% intent to vote Green
• 6% intend to vote Liberal Democrats
• 4% intend to vote SNP (Scottish National Party/socialism)
• 1% intends to vote Plaid Cymru (Welsh National Party/socialism)
• 14% intend to vote for other political parties.
Related Discussions
- 13
Would the world be a better place without politics or vice versa?
by Cuttler 8 years ago
Would the world be a better place without politics or vice versa?In my opinion, Politics is such a dirty game...it is plagued with corruption, impunity, abuse of office, injustice, nepotism, tribalism, racism...and so on. So would the world be a better place without it?
- 56
Why are we focused on the puppets and not the puppeteers?
by Don W 10 years ago
In many of the threads in the politics forum, the government seems to be the target for a lot of people's frustration. Why isn't the focus on the corporations that have steadily usurped influence away from ordinary people?When I say usurped influence, I'm not talking about world conspiracies. In my...
- 89
Would you vote for Obama if you discovered he had committed treason?
by Rod Martin Jr 11 years ago
A recent YouTube News report by WXIX Fox19's Ben Swann reveals something you're not like to find out about on the evening news. Obama is ignoring a federal court order regarding his actions under the NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act).http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZjXHjkzMD4I supported...
- 136
Everyone knows that our biggest political problem is money/corruption.
by Justin Earick 10 years ago
While a 28th Amendment stating that corporations are not people and money is not speech would be ideal - how about compulsory voting? What if we used the carrot approach - say increasing tax-credits for voting in primary, mid-term/off-year, and local elections? The more active the...
- 118
Why do US citizens continue to support a failing Administration. Is it because
by taburkett 9 years ago
Why do US citizens continue to support a failing Administration. Is it because they are communists.With the latest scandal exposed about the Administration, one would think that the citizens would wake up to the destructive game being played by the leaders of the White House and Senate. ...
- 58
The Brits Are Stealing Our Idiots
by ga anderson 14 months ago
It's just for chuckles, not a serious discussion. There have been countless Voter ID discussions and the 'anti's' are seldom able to support their opposition, but when I saw this tweet it brought a chuckle.The gist: apparently the UK government is now requiring an ID to vote. It also appears that,...