UKIP poster boy is a racist immigrant, film at 11

[Tamas]

I believe in democracy with the only caveat that those who pay the bills should decide how big those bills should be.

[Josquius]

re: the tea party. I agree too that they're a good thing to happen for American politics. Shows up the crappiness of the two party system a little bit and hopefully helps set the saner republicans onto a more righteous less hateful path.
Plus some of the stuff TPers come out with is comic gold.

Yeah. We've cut visas to the rest of the world as EU immigration has increased. I think the opposite is also true, if people believed that there was control over European migration then we'd be easier for the rest of the world.
.

I'm not so sure there. I think the government is just picking on non-Europeans as its legally easier to do. Should Britain gain the right to do the same to Europeans I don't see a right wing government suddenly becoming sensible with the ROTW.
The current situation really is pretty horrific. It even affects Brits- it turns out if you've been living abroad and move home you're not allowed benefits for a few months. Thank god I found a job soon after getting home...
Not to mention the way it discriminates against British women married to foreign guys.

[mongers]

I believe in democracy with the only caveat that those who pay the bills should decide how big those bills should be.

So that's a no, you don't believe in democracy.

[garbon]

re: the tea party. I agree too that they're a good thing to happen for American politics. Shows up the crappiness of the two party system a little bit and hopefully helps set the saner republicans onto a more righteous less hateful path.

Not really.

[Tamas]

I believe in democracy with the only caveat that those who pay the bills should decide how big those bills should be.

So that's a no, you don't believe in democracy.

There could be tweaks to the system. eg. what the Romans considered democracy was hardly anything like it. Maybe one day people will look back and consider the present system as coercing and not truly modern democratic.

Mind you, I still consider the present democracy solution much better than any kind of autocracy. But it has an inherent deathtrap with populism that only the most disciplined societies can avoid on the long run. Trying to figure out a way to minimise the inherent dangers while keeping checks and balances in place is not something I consider heretic.

[Eddie Teach]

So that's a no, you don't believe in democracy.

Tamas is one of those people who look at government in a vacuum. A flat tax is "fair" while progressive taxation is "unfair", never mind the inequities of the economic system that caused some people to make hundreds of times as much as others.

[Tamas]

So that's a no, you don't believe in democracy.

Tamas is one of those people who look at government in a vacuum. A flat tax is "fair" while progressive taxation is "unfair", never mind the inequities of the economic system that caused some people to make hundreds of times as much as others.

So because we have an old aristocracy which got its wealth in an "unfair" manner, we ought do disadvantage everyone who manages to earn more than the poor? Gotcha.

[Martinus]

I believe in democracy with the only caveat that those who pay the bills should decide how big those bills should be.

So that's a no, you don't believe in democracy.

There could be tweaks to the system. eg. what the Romans considered democracy was hardly anything like it. Maybe one day people will look back and consider the present system as coercing and not truly modern democratic.

Mind you, I still consider the present democracy solution much better than any kind of autocracy. But it has an inherent deathtrap with populism that only the most disciplined societies can avoid on the long run. Trying to figure out a way to minimise the inherent dangers while keeping checks and balances in place is not something I consider heretic.

Romans never practiced democracy. 

[Eddie Teach]

So because we have an old aristocracy which got its wealth in an "unfair" manner, we ought do disadvantage everyone who manages to earn more than the poor? Gotcha.

I was talking about modern day capitalism, not centuries old family fortunes. It has been adopted because it is effective at creating wealth, not because it's intrinsically fair. Government policies that seek to rectify that in small part(such as progressive taxation) aren't unfair. They should be judged on whether the benefits are worth the costs. Clearly the Hungarian communist system wasn't, but that doesn't mean the only alternative is Gilded Age policies.

[Martinus]

Sadly, Tamas represents a typical worldview of someone from this part of the world. What never ceases to amaze me is that people like this seem so confident that they - heirs to a failed communist system - have somehow managed to discover the holy grail of socio-economic thought while all the Western Europeans are misguided fools clinging to their ideas.

[Tamas]

Sadly, Tamas represents a typical worldview of someone from this part of the world. What never ceases to amaze me is that people like this seem so confident that they - heirs to a failed communist system - have somehow managed to discover the holy grail of socio-economic thought while all the Western Europeans are misguided fools clinging to their ideas.

The hell are you talking about? Libertarianism is basically nonexistant in Hungary.

And basically what I am saying is that welfare democracies may not be the end of evolution in political systems, and there might be better alternatives.

Also don't get the whole flat tax thing started again. Flat taxation is the very definition of fair. It might be INADEQUATE to maintain the desired government spending (although you know my view there). So progressive taxation might be more efficient in getting the government what it wants (as much tax as possible without pissing the majority off) but that doesn't make it more fair.

[Eddie Teach]

Also don't get the whole flat tax thing started again. Flat taxation is the very definition of fair. It might be INADEQUATE to maintain the desired government spending (although you know my view there). So progressive taxation might be more efficient in getting the government what it wants (as much tax as possible without pissing the majority off) but that doesn't make it more fair.

Only when you consider the question of how much to take from people without regard to why they have as much as they do. Like I said, government in a vacuum.

[Tamas]

Also don't get the whole flat tax thing started again. Flat taxation is the very definition of fair. It might be INADEQUATE to maintain the desired government spending (although you know my view there). So progressive taxation might be more efficient in getting the government what it wants (as much tax as possible without pissing the majority off) but that doesn't make it more fair.

Only when you consider the question of how much to take from people without regard to why they have as much as they do. Like I said, government in a vacuum.

"Why" is a silly question at best, maybe even dangerous. If somebody got their "wealth" illegally, the law should take it away. If it was obtained legally, then "why" is just vile populism with progressive taxation becoming a punishment of success.

[Martinus]

One of the most common definitions of "fairness" is "to each according to his needs, from each according to his means". Your worldview must be very limited if you think that "to each and from each the same" is the only (or most popular) definition.

[Martinus]

with progressive taxation becoming a punishment of success.

Considering how blatantly untrue this argument is, it is a wonder how much longevity it retains. Under progressive taxation someone who earns more is never left with less than someone who earns less. How the hell is this a punishment of success?