Politicomaniac

Posts Tagged ‘equality’

The crimes of Kings and Paupers

Sunday, September 19th, 2010

It is said that only two things in life are certain; Death and Taxes, although Ashcroft Incorporated is working on both.

Death is only slightly older than taxes, since humans have a rather logarithmic view of time. Benefits, on the other hand, are much newer than both, being only a few generations old. But it is taxes that get my (and apparently the uk media’s) attention today.

The reason people (rightly) get so cross about both tax evasion and benefit fraud is that they are both stealing from you. Not some crazy tense “you” that actually means aunt Mavis, but you, reading this. And me. And aunt Mavis. Both crimes are stealing from everyone you meet on the street, with the small exception of the tourists. But are they similar in any other way? They are committed in very differing circumstances, that’s for sure.

Tax dodging, first, is a major cost to the public purse. The Grauniad’s excellent Tax Gap series highlighted the massive scale of the problem, although they go all scientific when you try and ask how big the gap is – no one knows. What’s more, it is absolutely unjustifiable; in a world where economies on a local, national and global scale are monitored, supported and maintained by governments, where legislatures constantly work to thwart criminal minds finding ‘legal’ wheezes, and where police tirelessly hunt criminals in order to create the conditions where you can actually make a profit, to not feed back into the maintenance of that system is arrogant, stupid and unjust. Tax dodging is something only the very wealthy can afford to do, since it takes either lots of time or accountants (or both) to wriggle out of your environmental liabilities, and as such is restricted to the ‘Kings’ of this world; those so far above median earnings that money has started to become power.

Benefit cheats are committing a very similar crime, since they are stealing money from health, education, defence of the realm, too. But just as the Americans have first and second degree murder, so the benefit cheat’s crime is the lesser to the tax dodgers. Benefit fraud is driven by poverty, not greed, in the same way that the first degree murderers motivation (greed, jealousy, politics, bordom) is much more sinister than the second degree murderer (heat of passion.) It is the crime of paupers, and yet is treated with at least the same vitriol by the press as Tax dodging, the crime of Kings.

Which is worse is debatable (although I hope the author’s opinion is clear.) The Tories were big on tackling the paupers’ crime in their manifesto. The Lib Dems were big on closing the loopholes of Kings. So, in the spirit of compromise, this Coalition Government is big on both. Today at ldconf, Danny Alexander announced the coalition’s plans for an extra £900 million for HMRC, aiming to take five times as many tax dodgers to court. By 2015 that will raise £7 Billion extra revenue every year. That’s £6.1 Billion less cuts, for those keeping score; and £6.1 Billion that was ours, everyone’s, by rights.

How’s that for a party of the many, Labour?

Representing Britain

Wednesday, June 30th, 2010

As I watched election night unfold, I told myself I would write a positive discrimination motion for conference. Things didn’t turn out quite that way, but I did write a motion and here it is! It references a policy paper which I am also releasing today.

Conference Motion:

Representing Britain

Policy Paper:

Representing Britain, an Investigation

I have just submitted these to the conference organisers, so we’ll see how far they go! There will be lots of motions along these lines (I know that Campaign for Gender Balance and EMLD are both submitting motions on similar themes) so I am ready to be downgraded to an amendment.

The root of all evil

Sunday, June 20th, 2010

I would like to contest the now outdated idea that the greatest evil out there is money. I don’t deny that money can persuade people to do stupid things, but ultimately it is the people, and their ideas, that cause the evil, not the money (which is an emotionless mathematical abstraction designed to make economics work.)

So yes, I think that the greatest evil is an idea. It is one that pops up in all sorts of places and makes people argue for all sorts of nastiness.

Moral conservatism

In brief, moral conservatism says that people should be subject to my moral code, which should be enforced by law. People are divided into the good (deserving) and the bad (undeserving,) and society (and the state, if one exists,) need only take action to protect the interests of the good/deserving ones.

It is the principal employed by religious extremists to justify the killing of non believers. It is the principal used by the daily mail to justify harsh, unsympathetic treatment of asylum seekers and those on benefits. It is the principal that drives racial hatred. It is the principal the Pope uses to attack homosexuals. It is the principal used by Israel to perpetuate economic hardship on and attack the Palestinians, and the reason Palestinians kill Israeli civilians.

It is the principal used by the conservative party to justify attacking the public sector in times of debt, and the principal used by the labour party for building the public sector up in times of excess. It is the principal that makes Polly Toynbee write articles in which the UK in a fight between public sector heroes and private sector villains, and Jan Moir call all gay people promiscuous druggies who will all die young.

It is the most evil idea in the world, and the cause of all suffering: this arbitrary group of people are more important, and more deserving, than “others.”

Liberalism as the inverse

Moral conservatism is a principal which is in direct opposition to liberalism, which says that the law is there to protect everyone, and should be based on the principal of preventing harm, not arbitrary restriction.

It is the principal used when arguing for equal rights laws, protecting minorities (racial, cultural, sexual preference, religious, political) from the evils of majority rule. It is the principal that drives the seemingly endless search for world peace, and peaceful coexistence within states. It is the principal which justifies the state welfare, and which drove the Liberal Party to found it in the early 20th Century.

Next time: charity as the embodiment of moral conservatism (and why the state is the solution,) and when liberals take things too far.

Something the left and right can agree on?

Wednesday, May 26th, 2010

I object very strongly to the categorisation of the BNP as “far right.” The party is not on the economic right at all, they are to the left of Labour, the Tories and the Lib Dems. But their economic policy is not what we measure them on; fundamentally they are nationalist, and that is what defines their politics. This is clear by reading any of their policy in detail; they even blame Climate Change on immigration. Political Compass measures party policy on two axes; both economic left and right, and authoritarian/libertarian up and down, and makes the mistake of saying that the BNP mark themselves out on their authoritarianism (while they are in the same ballpark as the Labour party at the end of a stint in office in that respect).

The nationalism/internationalism axis is orthogonal to both the Political Compass axes; and should not be confused with either of the others. Utilitarian (and arguably world-communist) internationalists want to bring the world under one supreme authority to ensure the supreme efficiency (or equality) of all peoples, while globalist capitalists want to bring about giant international free markets, and like the utilitarians argue that this will maximise efficiency.

On the other side, nationalist capitalists (like UKIP) want to pull up the drawbridge: limited international trade but no movement of peoples (a quite upside-down way of looking at economics, truth be told,) and in the former Soviet Union (and still in North Korea) there were/are totalitarian restrictions ensuring that only communist produced goods are consumed, and restricting any emigration. The BNP are somewhere in the middle, favouring free markets inside the walls but nothing going in and out, while being the most extreme on the nationalist axis.

So you see, the left and the right can both be internationalist — it is only the nationalists who can’t, regardless of their positions on other axes. My personal politics as a social liberal is what informs my internationalism; I seek equality of (measurable) freedoms, and there is no philosophical justification for splitting any population up into sections that deserve those freedoms and sections that don’t. I am internationalist because I believe in a philosophical equality of all persons, and I can find common ground with most of those who I disagree with on this basis.

As such, the argument to be had is not between the left and right here. People on all sides have and do oppose members of their own economic “team” when it comes to internationalism, and that is why all* can eventually be persuaded to the internationalist cause.

* apart from the nationalists, who believe in a fundamental inequality based on peices of paper or parents…