Sunday, 6 December 2009

The Politics Of Hate

**
Since originally writing this item, I have joined the UK Independence Party (UKIP) and am now their candidate for MP for Hove and Portslade in the 2010 general election. UKIP are a non-racist, libertarian party, committed to giving power back to the people. With more direct democracy and by having our Parliament at Westminster answerable to noone but the UK population - I believe they, and only they, can deliver what I have been looking for and had set out below.
**

It has become clear that the none of the leaders of main stream parties are really interested in running this country.

These 'leaders' are more interested in being the equivalent of 'state governors' to the UK within a federal EU. Why this should be the case is not totally clear, but to me it seems the most likely explanation is that they don't want the ultimate responsibility of leading a soverign government. Maybe they don't have the confidence to do it, maybe they are too lazy and would rather get the money for an easier job.

The question has to be are there any people in the UK who do want to, and are fit to lead a soverign nation? If so, where are they? and why aren't they already leading a main stream party (or at least in the running to do so?).

The answer to the question on why they aren't already part of mainstream political party is answered with a single word 'hate'. It is obvious (when considered) that party political allegiance are not based on a belief or positive attitude towards a party or its beliefs, it is founded on a hate for the alternatives.

A large number of people in the UK hate the labour party and all that it stands for, a similarly large number of people in the UK the conservative party and all that it stands for.

Their hate is not necessarily irrational - so can't just be dismissed. After all parties want to appeal to as many people as possible, so the whole philosophy of gaining support is "who do we *have* to exclude?", "How far can we go in accepting everyone - who must we draw the line at?" so those not attracted by a party are almost certainly that that it hates. So, having either party leading the country cannot be acceptible in the face of such opposition. There must be a better way.

Traditionally the answer to 'a better way' has been put forward as having a third party holding the balance - their position secured by a change from first-past-the-post elections to proportional-representation. However the 'third party' offered has always been hated, or at least held in contempt, to a similar degree to the two main parties.

It is the whole party system that is broken - it is based on tribal hate. Hate motivates people to the polls far more effectively than hope or love. Messing around with the vote counting system is a cynical ploy for a small third party to get power for itself with out actually having a similar level of support.

The answer has to be more direct accountability - at the individual representative level within government, not at the party level. More granular representation of peoples views, directly expressed in the government that leads them. So people can vote for what they support, rather than voting against what they hate (and so getting whatever remains).

The party system is based on hate, we need a system based on hope.

Wednesday, 14 October 2009

Winning the war against primative cultures

I was delighted to hear that racist men of foreign extraction cannot find UK born brides subservient enough to meet their primitive cultural requirements.

It seems that many brides are being imported from various third world locations (particularly pakistan) because there they have been suitably crushed to meet the primitive cultural requirements of other immigrants who keep their primitive beliefs and reject our way of life.

This is cause for celebration because it means that many immigrants and their descendants (particularly the girls) are freeing themselves of their primitive cultural roots and embracing our open, free and fair way of life. Good on ya girls.

It is a shame that some immigrants and their descendants cannot accept this so have to 'phone home' for a bride - but in our open, free and fair society I hope we can rely on these wretched imports finding themselves, embracing our culture of freedom and disappointing their husbands and husbands families royally.

Saturday, 4 April 2009

Who doesn't want their hand in our wallets?

It seems that some charities have been poorly run. They put money in financially insecure institutions, and when those institutions failed, they lost the money.

What is the response of these organisations? Is it to continue with their fundraising with new zeal - making special appeals directly to the public to bail them out of the mess they have created for themselves?

No, of course it isn't. Their response is to join the growing queue of special interest groups that want a slice of tax payers money straight from the government.

The government are borrowing billions against our future earnings and those of our children - with such a huge pot of money at their disposal, it is burning a hole in the governments pocket, and the special interest groups are circling.

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Business/Credit-Crunch-Charities-Hit-By-Iceland-Banking-Collapse-Should-Get-Bail_Out-Say-MPs/Article/200904115255520?f=rss

I don't like the new breed of 'super charity' that is not a charity at all, but a full blown business in all but name. But which gets special treatment, particularly regarding tax.

Charity is about choice - they should not get a penny of taxpayer money.

http://fakecharities.org/

Monday, 30 March 2009

Extravention to replace Intervention

The government does too much - it doesn't need to do most of it, we can't afford it and don't want to pay for it.

When was the last time the government got involved with something, with a resulting reduction in cost? Has there ever been such an occasion?

Government Intervention must stop - Gordon Brown has been described as not finding a single thing so insignificant that he doesn't believe it won't benefit from his intervention.

Unfortunately for the taxpayer, every intervention costs us money. Money to examine the current situation, money to change the set up, money to run the new set up, money to monitor the new set up. Money, money, money - ours, ours, ours.

What we need is 'Extravention' a new programme (yes that will cost a bit), but with a remit to unwind all existing state interventions, and return the savings to the taxpayer - with the final aim of extravening itself into oblivion.

If something is genuinely seen as beneficial, the taxpayer will have the money to pay for it directly through choice.

The government do have a role ensuring that information is available to allow people to make free, informed choices and to ensure that contracts (freely entered into) are honoured. But they do not have a role in providing the services or controlling the contracts or directly monitoring them.

Get the government off our backs and out of our faces - use extravention to extricate the states mucky paws from where they dont belong.

A public sector worker is a wealth consumer - wealth created by others (in the private sector) is taken by the state and just given away to the public sector to be consumed.

Each public sector worker who can be freed up from these unnecessary tasks will then be able to enter the private sector and set about creating wealth.

This country needs as many wealth creators as possible - we cannot afford to waste so many people by tying them up in the public sector, they must be liberated by extravention and allowed to contribute towards the wealth creation of this country.

Friday, 13 March 2009

Are you entitled to live in the UK? If so, then Labour hate you.

And Boris is little better.
  • People argue that illegal immigrants accept low wages so are good for the economy.
  • People argue that illegal immigrants aren't a drain on the taxpayer, because they can't claim benefits.
  • People argue that illegal immigrants do jobs that citizens wont do.
These arguments are used to support the call for an amnesty for illegal immigrants.

There is an obvious flaw in this -- if illegal immigrants are given citizenship, then they are no longer illegal immigrants, and the 'benefits' listed above cease to apply !

Anyone who cites 'benefits' flowing from the presence of illegal immigrants, is actually arguing for them to remain as 'illegal immigrants'.

And, of course, what is the cost of a citizen not being able to find a job because they are currently filled by illegal imigrants?

It is easy to argue that illegal immigrants are good for the economy, but (as I have explained) this is only while they remain illegal. However I have a deeper objection, the use of illegal immigrants is immoral - companies that only exist by exploiting illegal imigrants (at the expense of jobs for citizens) are disgusting, exploitative adn need to be shut down - and their owners locked up.

Thursday, 12 March 2009

Taxation is Evil - Maybe a Necessary Evil, but Certainly an Evil

Taxation

Taxation forcibly deprives an individual of their property. If the right to property is recognised, then taxation can only be considered a breach of an individuals rights.

Simply, taxation forces people to pay for things that they would otherwise not choose to pay for. If a person was willing, then they would freely pay with out the duress associated with taxation.

Freeloading

The argument for taxation runs that there are a number of things that people would be prepared to pay for, but only if everyone else pays too. Accordingly these items are funded through taxation, the only people being 'inconvenienced' by this being those who would have been prepared to 'freeload' (get a benefit from the spending, without, themselves, contributing).

Fairness

While taxations main benefit may be to prevent freeloading, there arguments can be made as to the level of payment each individual should make towards a spending-in-common.

The obviously equitable answer is payment according to benefit received.

However in the interest of a societies identity, it generally seems accepted that tax funded benefits should generally be available to everyone in that society. This raises the question of how to handle the situation where someone cannot afford to pay for the level of benefit that they are receiving.

The main option here would appear to be between lowering the level of benefit received by an individual according to the contribution they made vs subsidising the provision of the benefit/service to that individual.

Abuse of Taxation

Once a society have agreed what 'spending in common' they are happy to support, the equitable distribution of the tax bills to cover that spending needs to be decided - with a blank canvas an obvious approach might be proportional to the benefit received and the ability to pay. However it has proved popular to distribute the tax-bills on other basis too including:-
  • Taxing of 'bad' things
  • Taxing of luxuries
  • Taxing of 'bad' behaviour
  • Taxing of excess wealth
These tend to give a gloss of 'moral' justification to the taxation, and in those who benefit from the spending without incurring the additional taxation it may appeal to the 'freeloader' in them.

Over time the 'moral' justification has led to an apparent separation of taxation and spending - and people have sometimes come to support taxation of things they don't like as a punitive measure against those who do like/consume those things, with no regard as to what the additional money raised is for.

This sad, immoral state of affairs needs to be recognised and addressed.

To be free, people need to understand what is happening to them.