Planetarion Forums - View Single Post

ComradeRob · 30 Dec 2006, 12:22

I'm not a communist (despite the name), but for what it's worth, here's my shot at a perfect system of utopian government:

Firstly, the state is a giant insurance system. It protects and enforces individual rights which all citizens are endowed with. The citizens pay the state to protect those rights. One can (as per anarcho-capitalism) imagine the possibility of competing 'states' which protect their citizens' rights, but I personally think it makes sense to have one state per one geographical area. For historical reasons, traditional nation states are the easiest model to use for an example.

So, the state is insurance against anarchy (the bad kind of anarchy where all rights are dissolved and people steal anything not nailed down). For the sake of the example, anarchy can be considered to be the point at which any rights you have no longer mean anything; you can be murdered with impunity, the largest armed gang steal the most valuable stuff, and almost all productive activity ceases. Since as citizens we have an interest in avoiding this, we pay our taxes. However, some people have a lot more to lose than others. This is why taxes should be based on wealth rather than income; using some form of land value tax would make sense. Think of it as an insurance premium; the premium on a mansion, a Jag, Rolls Royce and a yacht is higher than the premium on a two-bedroom terraced house in Newcastle. Those with the most to lose from anarchy contribute the most to its prevention. LVT looks like it has some nice side-effects too, such as incentivising people/businesses to move away from ridiculously expensive areas like London and towards a more even distribution of land use. LVT also prevents free-riding on publicly-provided goods (if the land your house is on increases 50% in value because a good school was built around the corner at no cost to you, you will pay for it in land taxes).

A cynical Marxist may note (as Marx himself did) that this all accepts the basic premise of capitalism. Well, yes, it does. But in the context of the present system, that is not a useful argument. Our present solution is capitalism mixed with various solutions which have either not been fully implemented, or have been stretched beyond their original purpose (income tax was, famously, introduced to fund the war against Napoleon). Since capitalism is the only show in town, we might as well have a tax structure designed to take advantage of it, rather than set up to fight it (a battle which can never be won).

I'd also abolish the present benefits system, and replace it with a basic income. Something in the vicinity of £5k per year perhaps (roughly equivalent to the higher rate of student loan, except it doesn't have to be paid back). Everyone would receive this, though obviously some people would pay more back in taxation (so for them it might work like an extension to the personal allowance). The basic income also neatly solves the problem of regional transfer payments. If set at the same level across the country, it would have an equalising effect on incomes across the country.

Privatise the schools and hospitals. Yes, the 'P' word will probably scare a lot of people off, but centralised education and healthcare (but most particularly education) seems like a means of keeping people locked into a system not of their choosing. I am highly dubious about the way we do education in Britain, and the government's habit of top-down changes every couple of years is destructive to teachers and pupils alike. Independent schools would be free to teach as they think best, and would live or die on the success of their methods rather than their OFSTED ratings. Diversity should breed innovation and improvement.

Perhaps this is somewhat fanciful, but I'd like to imagine that we could create a more participatory society along this model. The monolithic state destroys interpersonal relationships by turning them into a relationship between citizen and state. The pre-welfare state institutions of friendly societies, clubs, community schools and hospitals, religious groups, trades unions and others have been systematically eroded in their importance (some disappearing almost entirely) by the existence of the welfare state which has sought to replace these social networks with 'entitlements' from the state. My hope would be that getting the state out of people's lives would lead to a renaissance in social cooperation (well, I did say it was a utopian vision). The poverty of the pre-welfare state period is avoided by the use of the basic income. I recognise that this is somewhat contradictory; removing all benefits would pretty much guarantee an increase in social cooperation as it would be necessary to cooperate in order to survive. My excuse is simply that, if there is a trade-off, I'm on the side that doesn't risk people starving to death. Yes, some people will probably continue to drop out of society, but some people probably always will. My hope is that by removing the state provision of services, people will come up with their own local solutions, whilst we maintain the funding of such institutions via the basic income.

So, an end to means-testing, benefits offices, government health initiatives, schools being used for social engineering experiments. The state should probably be limited to the core functions of defence and law and order. Anything else that people want can be purchased via the basic income. The basic income would rise in proportion to GDP (which means that we all have an interest in a productive economy). I should also add that the constitution would set out a wide range of basic rights, essentially comprising of the classical liberal rights (free speech, free assembly and so forth). Mostly 'negative rights' with the exception of the right to the basic income.

In all honesty, this system probably displays some class/background bias on my part; it is designed to favour the hard-working/intelligent from poor/lower-middle-class backgrounds. Relative to the present system, it's probably bad for people who are already very wealthy. It should (depending on the precise levels of tax) be neutral for the 'average person', and profoundly beneficial for the poor. It would also be greatly beneficial for those who are on a high-ish income but from a poor background - they don't yet have much property as they haven't had time to acquire it, but they would lose a lot less of their income due to the abolition of income tax (so social mobility should increase).

If I had to describe this system, I'd probably call it 'left libertarian'. Not my phrase, but it fits well enough (though I expect it already has another meaning

).

30 Dec 2006, 12:22	#23
ComradeRob wasted Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: Under the floorboards Posts: 1,240	Re: Yo, Communists (part one) I'm not a communist (despite the name), but for what it's worth, here's my shot at a perfect system of utopian government: Firstly, the state is a giant insurance system. It protects and enforces individual rights which all citizens are endowed with. The citizens pay the state to protect those rights. One can (as per anarcho-capitalism) imagine the possibility of competing 'states' which protect their citizens' rights, but I personally think it makes sense to have one state per one geographical area. For historical reasons, traditional nation states are the easiest model to use for an example. So, the state is insurance against anarchy (the bad kind of anarchy where all rights are dissolved and people steal anything not nailed down). For the sake of the example, anarchy can be considered to be the point at which any rights you have no longer mean anything; you can be murdered with impunity, the largest armed gang steal the most valuable stuff, and almost all productive activity ceases. Since as citizens we have an interest in avoiding this, we pay our taxes. However, some people have a lot more to lose than others. This is why taxes should be based on wealth rather than income; using some form of land value tax would make sense. Think of it as an insurance premium; the premium on a mansion, a Jag, Rolls Royce and a yacht is higher than the premium on a two-bedroom terraced house in Newcastle. Those with the most to lose from anarchy contribute the most to its prevention. LVT looks like it has some nice side-effects too, such as incentivising people/businesses to move away from ridiculously expensive areas like London and towards a more even distribution of land use. LVT also prevents free-riding on publicly-provided goods (if the land your house is on increases 50% in value because a good school was built around the corner at no cost to you, you will pay for it in land taxes). A cynical Marxist may note (as Marx himself did) that this all accepts the basic premise of capitalism. Well, yes, it does. But in the context of the present system, that is not a useful argument. Our present solution is capitalism mixed with various solutions which have either not been fully implemented, or have been stretched beyond their original purpose (income tax was, famously, introduced to fund the war against Napoleon). Since capitalism is the only show in town, we might as well have a tax structure designed to take advantage of it, rather than set up to fight it (a battle which can never be won). I'd also abolish the present benefits system, and replace it with a basic income. Something in the vicinity of £5k per year perhaps (roughly equivalent to the higher rate of student loan, except it doesn't have to be paid back). Everyone would receive this, though obviously some people would pay more back in taxation (so for them it might work like an extension to the personal allowance). The basic income also neatly solves the problem of regional transfer payments. If set at the same level across the country, it would have an equalising effect on incomes across the country. Privatise the schools and hospitals. Yes, the 'P' word will probably scare a lot of people off, but centralised education and healthcare (but most particularly education) seems like a means of keeping people locked into a system not of their choosing. I am highly dubious about the way we do education in Britain, and the government's habit of top-down changes every couple of years is destructive to teachers and pupils alike. Independent schools would be free to teach as they think best, and would live or die on the success of their methods rather than their OFSTED ratings. Diversity should breed innovation and improvement. Perhaps this is somewhat fanciful, but I'd like to imagine that we could create a more participatory society along this model. The monolithic state destroys interpersonal relationships by turning them into a relationship between citizen and state. The pre-welfare state institutions of friendly societies, clubs, community schools and hospitals, religious groups, trades unions and others have been systematically eroded in their importance (some disappearing almost entirely) by the existence of the welfare state which has sought to replace these social networks with 'entitlements' from the state. My hope would be that getting the state out of people's lives would lead to a renaissance in social cooperation (well, I did say it was a utopian vision). The poverty of the pre-welfare state period is avoided by the use of the basic income. I recognise that this is somewhat contradictory; removing all benefits would pretty much guarantee an increase in social cooperation as it would be necessary to cooperate in order to survive. My excuse is simply that, if there is a trade-off, I'm on the side that doesn't risk people starving to death. Yes, some people will probably continue to drop out of society, but some people probably always will. My hope is that by removing the state provision of services, people will come up with their own local solutions, whilst we maintain the funding of such institutions via the basic income. So, an end to means-testing, benefits offices, government health initiatives, schools being used for social engineering experiments. The state should probably be limited to the core functions of defence and law and order. Anything else that people want can be purchased via the basic income. The basic income would rise in proportion to GDP (which means that we all have an interest in a productive economy). I should also add that the constitution would set out a wide range of basic rights, essentially comprising of the classical liberal rights (free speech, free assembly and so forth). Mostly 'negative rights' with the exception of the right to the basic income. In all honesty, this system probably displays some class/background bias on my part; it is designed to favour the hard-working/intelligent from poor/lower-middle-class backgrounds. Relative to the present system, it's probably bad for people who are already very wealthy. It should (depending on the precise levels of tax) be neutral for the 'average person', and profoundly beneficial for the poor. It would also be greatly beneficial for those who are on a high-ish income but from a poor background - they don't yet have much property as they haven't had time to acquire it, but they would lose a lot less of their income due to the abolition of income tax (so social mobility should increase). If I had to describe this system, I'd probably call it 'left libertarian'. Not my phrase, but it fits well enough (though I expect it already has another meaning ). __________________ “They were totally confused,” said the birdman, whose flying suit gives him a passing resemblance to Buzz Lightyear in Toy Story. “The authorities said that I was an unregistered aircraft and to fly, you need a licence. I told them, ‘No. To fly, you need wings’.”